Safe Spaces

In an age of expanding liberal ideology, the idea of a “safe space” has become a major topic of conversation at our college. In the recent past, in the face of conservative political victories, the administration of our institution has felt the need to offer “safe spaces,” defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary as being areas where students can escape “potentially threatening actions, ideas, or conversations,” such as opposing values, to students who may feel uncomfortable or distressed with the current political situation. A perfect example of this was when President Donald Trump’s decision to potentially overturn DACA was publicly announced. The college quickly responded to the situation by sending out an email to the student body, offering a “safe space” for students that were upset about the decision and sending a message of supporting the “Dreamers” against our country’s President. The school immediately took a political stance on the issue and had no qualms about making its position clear to the whole of the student body, while deciding to provide services to “help” people of the same viewpoint. 

However, these “safe spaces” for liberal-leaning students are not doing anything to strengthen equality and diversity at Holy Cross. Instead, the College is simply giving these students an escape from having to interact with people of different viewpoints. By allowing one group to completely ignore and escape conversation with the other, the institution has effectively split the student body based on political ideology. If Holy Cross truly wants to have the diverse and united student body it claims to have, then it needs to seriously think about the results of the actions the administration has taken regarding recent political events. Instead of allowing one group to run away and stop any discourse with those who may not agree with them, the institution should instead sponsor discussions between the two groups to start respectful conversations. Perhaps then, people on both sides would better understand why each person thinks the way that they do.

Especially at such a tense time in politics, when people have even begun to see people of the other political party as being less than human, it is more important than ever to try and appeal to both sides and start cordial discussions. As we’ve seen following recent events, people have started to become more and more hostile to the opposing political side. One example of this is when former CBS executive Hayley Geftman-Gold took to Facebook after the deadliest mass shooting in United States history took place at a country music festival in Las Vegas, saying: “I’m actually not even sympathetic [because] country music fans often are Republican gun toters." Ideas like this one stem not only from a complete disregard for people who have different views, but also from a lack of understanding of what others truly believe in. Democrats often see Republicans as being racists and white supremacists who care nothing for the poor, while Republicans often look at Democrats as being corrupt, adverse to personal rights, and focused too much on tearing hardworking people down. These views of the political sides have held fast over time as a result of a failure to communicate effectively between members of the two parties, even though these two perceptions are both incorrect. 

This is especially apparent here at Holy Cross, as the contention between liberal and conservative students can clearly be seen, not to mention the professors that often try to preach their liberal ideals and make jokes or comments about the President to the class as a part of their course material. The divide among the members of the Holy Cross community is only growing stronger as time goes on, and it is up to the administration to try and stop its progression. If we want to have the strong, unified and loving community we were all promised before we applied here, we need to have a much better understanding of one another, as well as more opportunities to have positive discussions between members of all of the political groups on campus. 

If there was ever a time when “safe spaces” would tear apart the community the most, now is that time. We need to promote working together for a better understanding and having conversations, not advocating for these “safe spaces” to help liberal students escape discussions that they are afraid of having. Holy Cross needs to get rid of these “safe spaces,” try to foster stronger relationships between the students, and make the student body once again proud to stand united as the Holy Cross Crusaders. As a Catholic college, I would expect Holy Cross to try to bridge the gap between neighbors, and it is a shame that as of right now it is doing the opposite and pushing them further away from a mutual understanding.

Leave the Mascot Unmolested

"Do you want to aggravate alumni? Because this is how you aggravate alumni." So one of The Fenwick Review’s founders remarked when the College announced it was reconsidering the Crusader mascot. It’s a good point; the tangible benefits of deep-sixing the mascot are negligible. Changing the mascot isn’t going to make "U.S. News and World Report: like us any more. Nor, indeed, was it ever going to attract more qualified students or faculty. Having the discussion at all was bound to divide the student body, cut into donations to the College, and generally make people mad. From the student’s perspective, it doesn’t seem all that significant: why on earth do most students care what our sports teams call themselves? Because it touches to realities that are crucially significant: the Catholic identity of the College, the meaning of our particular traditions, and what Holy Cross calls us to be. In light of those realities, the Board of Trustees ought to make the obvious decision: preserve the mascot unchanged, and then leave the issue buried. 

First, the Crusader is a visible sign of the College’s Catholic identity, one of the last ones remaining. “Crusade,” as many others have noted, derives from the medieval Latin cruciare, meaning “to mark with the Cross.” The mascot reminds us that we are a community distinguished by the Cross of Christ, and so affirms the religious identity of the place. The point holds even for the non-Catholics in the community: as students and instructors at a Catholic, Jesuit College, all of us are indelibly marked by the Cross. It clarifies the purpose of our studies, too. As it says over Dinand Library, “In order that they might know You, the One True God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.” The mascot affirms the beliefs that lay behind this college’s founding. Without flinching, it endorses the faith which built, shaped, and guides this College. The mascot defines who we are, and why we do what we do. If we abandon it, we compromise our mission and identity as a Catholic College. 

Second, the Crusader is part of a long tradition of this College, even separate from its connection to our religious tradition. For nearly a century, the students of this College have called themselves Crusaders. It has grown into the life and image that Holy Cross projects. Speakers have addressed incoming classes and graduating seniors with this epithet. It has shaped the way we understand ourselves as students and graduates of the College of the Holy Cross. It is part of the glue that holds the students body and the alumni community together. It is literally the name we give ourselves. The Crusader gives voice to what we have in common, a symbol of the lives which we have lived on Mount Saint James. It is one of many things which makes Holy Cross a distinct community, not a bland, soul-sucking bastion of secular Academe. 

We have heard it said that the Crusader is not a model to imitate. It summons us to a life of interreligious violence (quoth the detractors, at least). The student body is not dense enough to believe that, and never has been. Our graduates do not take up the swords to reclaim the Holy Land. Instead, they leave here as men and women of principle, determined to combat injustice, raise up the poor, and spread their faith. While the vast majority of those alumni have been Catholics, the argument applies to people of all faiths and none. The mascot calls us to work tirelessly to transform the world, in spite of injustice and persecution. Holy Cross graduates can see in the mascot a call to live our lives for others. There can be few greater models. 

These are strong arguments; surely, the opposition has an equal case? No. Once we bypass the feigned hand-wringing of a short list of students and faculty, we find a single, patronisingly therapeutic argument. It takes two forms. First, current students (particularly Muslim and Jewish students) may be grievously discomforted by the mascot, to the point of being estranged from the community. Second, prospective students will be made to feel unwelcome, and so deny the College its desired diversity quotient. These are, in reality, a single argument: some hypothetical person might somehow be slightly upset, so shatter the icons. 

What utter drivel. First, in my four years here, I have not heard a student complain that the mascot made him or her feel uncomfortable. Nor have I read a single article in any campus publication making such a claim. This is to be expected. Look at two archetypal symbols that actually cause distress, the Nazi flag and the burning cross. First, each of them can be interpreted exactly one way in the modern imaginary; nobody imagines that “Nazi” means anything other than “perpetrator of ethnic cleansing.” Second, each of them symbolizes a horror so recent and dreadful that it towers over our cultural imagination. We don’t need to be told that Auschwitz was terrible; a shiver runs down our neck at the very word. 

Take those criteria and evaluate the Crusader. Can it mean something other than “Christian holy warrior of the Middle Ages” in our modern lexicon? Obviously; thumb through a newspaper on any given day. You’ll read about crusades against drunk driving, crusades against political correctness, and crusades against cancer. You won’t find medieval holy wars outside of the book reviews. Do the Crusades symbol a horror that towers over our cultural imagination? No; they were far too long ago, and far too historically complicated. Furthermore, it is both disgraceful and deceitful to compare the Crusades with Dachau; one was a war, the other a genocide. The Crusades are too far away, too historically contested, and already redefined. More than that, there is not a shred of evidence that the mascot encourages disdain for or violence toward Muslims. There is no reason that the symbol should distress anyone. 

So the problem is not discomfort, nor is it any kind of violence. If we objected to violent or aggressive mascots entirely, hardly any College’s mascot would be safe; they are intended to suggest dominance, aggression, and violence. No, the issue is the Faith. Behind the therapeutic argle-bargle lurks hardboiled academic secularism, which dreams of a day when the Crosses will come down and the chapel be bulldozed for a parking lot. It is a scorn for the faith that built this institution, and for the loyal alumni who still love it. 

The Crusader must remain. It testifies without fear to the Catholic faith and tradition that define this school, no less today than one hundred years ago. It has become its own tradition, an ineradicable part of the experience of Mount Saint James. It is remembered fondly by many alumni, who still call themselves Crusaders. It calls us to live for more than just ourselves -- ideally in the sign of the Cross, but in other fashions too. Against these arguments, we find a therapeutic mindset that treats students like glass, whose logic rapidly falls apart. In reality, though, the fight over the mascot is just another battle in a longer war. It is a war to strip the College of the Cross, to throw out its old traditions, and change its very nature. So leave the mascot unmolested, and restore the things that really matter.

Once a Crusader, Always a Crusader

In an email sent to the student body days before Homecoming weekend, Fr. Boroughs wrote that he has created a committee to discuss the College’s relationship with the Crusader mascot. For the second time in two years, Fr. Boroughs has created a committee to consider changing an aspect of campus life. In the fall of 2016, a committee was established to investigate the circumstances surrounding Fr. Mulledy’s, and the Jesuits of the Maryland Province, transactions of slaves. In that decision, the committee decided to renamed Mulledy Hall and call it BrooksMulledy while ending their final document with two sentences suggesting that the term “crusader” needed to be objectively examined as well. 

For many cheering the announcement of the committee to discuss the appropriateness of the Crusader moniker, the term conjures up the historical atrocities that need to condemned nearly a millennium after they occurred. In my opinion, the only people on campus calling for a change of the mascot’s name are a majority of administrators and staff who are supported by a small percentage of students. The arguments made against the mascot by this group include the invocation of the historical Crusades that committed very real atrocities against Jews and Muslims in the Holy Land centuries ago. However, the same group would do well to remember that wars have been fought by every major religion throughout history until the present day, with Islamic terrorists committing atrocities against followers of every major religion, including Islam. Another complaint about the mascot is that the term runs in direct opposition to the College’s emphasis and dedication to diversity. While diversity of persons, experiences, and thought is extremely important, so is the concept of tradition. The College adopted the “Crusader” as its mascot in the 1920s, at the time of the construction of Dinand Library, St. Joseph’s Memorial Chapel, and Kimball Hall. For many alumni and current students who competed and studied on Mount St. James, Holy Cross’s association with the term “crusader” means more to them than Dinand and Kimball. Take away the Crusader, and Holy Cross will be simply be a 174 acre hill with buildings on its campus. For most of the people who have spent time on the Hill, the term “crusader” is a fitting expression of what Holy Cross strives to instill into its students in four short years. Since a crusader is someone who campaigns energetically for their religious, political, or moral viewpoint, the College should keep it or abandon its dedication to proper education. Students who are encouraged by their professors to defend their opinions and points of view every day in class should be proud to crusade for what they believe in. Additionally, the concept of debating, holding true to one’s convictions, and campaigning for them is exactly what Fr. Boroughs wants to occur with the committee discussing, from every possible angle, the appropriateness of the moniker. The committee needs crusaders in order to fulfill its duty to conducting informed and passionate discussions about the mascot. In this respect, everyone involved, whether they want to be or not, is a crusader since they are campaigning for something they believe. 

In addition to the attachment current and former students of Holy Cross feel towards their mascot, the ramifications of changing it could be dire. It could affect the donations which the school needs for its survival, since many alumni are unhappy that the school is even considering changing the name. During the tailgate before the Holy Cross v. Lafayette football game on Homecoming Saturday, several recent alumni hoisted a large sign declaring “Keep the Crusader” on top of their car. Throughout the day, I had discussions with other recent alumni who expressed similar sentiments and proclaimed that if the mascot were changed, they would no longer donate to the school. I am sure this sentiment is not exclusive to recent alumni. The question of changes to mascots is not isolated to Holy Cross, or Colleges in general, as my high school considered changing it mascot. Canisius High School, also has a Crusader for its mascot and ended its consideration for a name change once they heard the Canisius alumni’s vehement opposition to the idea. Like the alumni of Holy Cross, Canisius alumni stated that they would no longer donate if the school changed the mascot. 

As the committee investigates the appropriateness of the Crusader, the campus still has time to speak. For the supporters of the Crusader, voice your opinion and make sure the committee hears you. Inform the members of the committee that the voices pushing for this change come from a small minority of the student body. Continue the spirit that has crusaded over several generations at Holy Cross and declare that the College’s mascot is the most accurate and most vivid representation of our school’s mission, values, and identity.

Why Holy Cross Needs a Monastery

As a Catholic and Jesuit school, Holy Cross has certain privileges. We are used to having Jesuits at the school say Mass and hear confessions, as well as teach classes, work in various departments, attend events, and generally act as a positive presence on campus. They participate in a legacy dating back to the school’s founding in 1843, and in one stretching far further into the past. Not all Catholic schools are so lucky; many, particularly those without an affiliation to a religious community, can only occasionally bring in visiting priests and lay missionaries.
 
The earliest universities were not necessarily Catholic, but there is a long history of affiliations between the Catholic Church and universities. This makes sense; from a practical standpoint during the medieval period when universities first began to appear, the Church had a variety of resources to offer a university, such as the power to grant degrees and legal protection. There is a deeper link, however: the rise of Christianity enabled the growth of science into what we have today. There is a cognitive dissonance in our culture today, where the Church is portrayed by secular entities as the enemy of science and progress. It is remarkable that such critics never question why the Church which is so dedicated to suppressing science has fostered scientific thinkers such as Copernicus, Lemaître, Mendel, Pascal, and Pasteur, as well as running the world-class Vatican Observatory.
 
We enjoy the inheritance of this religious and scientific collaboration today, usually unconsciously. Even at a small school such as Holy Cross, there is great emphasis placed on the natural sciences, mathematics, and the social sciences. Sometimes it seems that there is too much of this. As a senior about to graduate in the spring, I hear a lot about the importance of a liberal arts degree grounded in both the sciences and the humanities (and less than I would like about the Catholic history thereof). It is always implied that my degree will lead to a fulfilling career making money—after all, we’re regularly reminded that Holy Cross graduates are highly employable and have an above-average starting salary ($50,534 for the class of 2016, if you’re wondering). However, the focus on the material benefits of our education comes at a steep cost.
 
What is lost with the emphasis on money and success is any mention of what our most important heritage as a Catholic school is: prayer. I hear more about what companies are recruiting on campus than the fact that the body of Christ is present in our chapels day and night, and I get more reminders about meeting with potential employers than I do about going to Mass. It might sound silly, or archaic, but this is the belief of the Catholic Church and the focal point which enables our school’s rich study of science, mathematics, and humanities (and the post-graduate jobs in these fields). By not emphasizing the Eucharist or prayer enough, our school is missing out on a beautiful Catholic legacy, and on a lot of graces needed to lead souls to Christ (the actual mission of all Catholic schools). The solution can only come through prayer. The Jesuits are amazing, but their way of life is not conducive to constant intercession on behalf of the Church through formal prayer, though undoubtedly their prayer for the school benefits us all. What Holy Cross really needs, in addition to the prayer and witness of the Jesuits, is a cloistered monastery of nuns or monks on or around our campus.
 
The 1999 Church document Verbi Sponsa describes the importance of the contemplative life: “The ancient spiritual tradition of the Church, taken up by the Second Vatican Council, explicitly connects the contemplative life to the prayer of Jesus ‘on the mountain’… the cloister is especially well suited to life wholly directed to contemplation. Its totality signals absolute dedication to God...” Cloistered religious life is uniquely oriented toward prayer. It takes only a walk around Dinand, even this early in the academic year, to sense that there is already abundant stress and desperation, and probably not enough prayer (not that there ever can be enough prayer). Even beyond the schoolwork, a college or university cannot be a peaceful place; it is a battleground for the future of our world, whether we like to think about it in such dramatic terms or not. Here too, a monastery would act as a center of prayer for the campus. Verbi Sponsa states regarding this: “A contemplative monastery is a gift also for the local Church to which it belongs. Representing the prayerful face of the Church, a monastery makes the Church's presence more complete and meaningful in the local community. A monastic community may be compared to Moses who, in prayer, determined the fate of Israel's battles (cf. Ex 17:11), or to the guard who keeps the night watch awaiting the dawn.”
 
As well as praying for our souls and academics, a cloistered monastic community would serve as an inspiration and reminder of what is truly valuable in life, particularly as we grow ever closer to finals/graduation/our departure of this life. “As a reflection and radiation of their contemplative life, nuns offer to the Christian community and to the world of today, more than ever in need of true spiritual values, a silent proclamation of the mystery of God and a humble witness to it, thus keeping prophecy alive in the nuptial heart of the Church” (Verbi Sponsa). Verbi Sponsa speaks of nuns, and there is something to be said particularly for having an increased presence for women religious on campus. The Jesuits serve as spiritual
fathers to many students, faculty, and staff, and having a similar maternal presence could be nothing but beneficial.
 
The logistics, admittedly, could be difficult. The grass lots at the corner of College Street and Southbridge Street have been sitting vacant since the buildings previously there were demolished. Perhaps it is time for them to receive a new lease on life. Or maybe we can install a new cloistered wing off Ciampi. In the worst-case scenario, there are a lot of floors in Hogan that we don’t really need. As for the new community’s finances, I’d be more than happy to donate the part of my tuition that normally goes to the Spring Concert, and I’m sure many other students would be willing to as well. Many monastic communities sell cheese, beer, candy, or other food items so we could also benefit from having good, locally produced food on campus.
 
And since there is no contemplative branch of the Jesuits, we will have to invite a religious community of a different tradition. The Benedictines are probably our best option, as St. Benedict, their founder, is a patron saint of students, and St. Ignatius of Loyola had a beautiful experience of prayer and forgiveness at the Benedictine monastery at Montserrat. Holy Cross needs a monastery so that we can return to our Catholic roots. I do not suggest that we abandon altogether our career searching and grad-school applying, only that each of us re-evaluates our priorities. A monastery on campus or just outside the gates is a way to emphasize the importance of prayer and refocus the mission of the school on bringing souls to heaven and not just to Fulbrights. The spiritual and financial investments would be worth every bit.

Ignore Diversity: Think for Yourself

As has become customary, the start of the academic year brought another announcement of Holy Cross's commitment to "diversity." As currently used in the academic world and elsewhere, the term doesn't mean what it says. Especially in an academic institution the purpose of which, presumably, is the pursuit of learning, one would want students to be exposed to, and become literate in, the greatest possible diversity of serious intellectual viewpoints, particularly as these have been expressed in classic as well as contemporary works of philosophy, literature, theology, history, and the social sciences. They would thereby become best equipped to think through the most important questions of human and political life, and best able to conduct themselves as the sort of thoughtful citizens and family members that a self-governing republic requires. 

But that is not at all the sort of diversity that advocates have in mind. A statement from the College president boasts of the College's success in its "commitment to diversity in our faculty ranks" in that "one-third of our tenure-track hires in the past two years have been faculty of color." Additionally, all applicants for "exempt" (administrative) positions are now "require[d] to reflect on their commitment to mission and diversity in their application materials," while "trained Mission and Diversity ambassadors" will be placed "on every search committee" for higher administrative officials. The speaker of the faculty and Dean Taneja "recently wrote to faculty with concrete suggestions on how faculty can include issues of diversity and inclusion in the classroom." (The requirement to "reflect" on one's commitment to diversity in order to qualify for a position at Holy Cross raises problems of its own. How will administrators be able to tell whether an applicant is really, really committed to diversity - or is only faking it? What of applicants for tenure-track teaching positions - already required, assuming they aren't "diverse" themselves, to express their commitment to that goal - who might fake it for six years, get tenure, and then - in the memorable phrase of Harvard's Harvey Mansfield, "Hoist the Jolly Roger"? To avert these problems, might lie-detector tests have to be added? I cannot avoid recalling methods used in the dark past to test the sincerity of people's professions of faith though I don't want to give anyone ideas.) None of the foregoing policies have anything to do with the proper purpose of liberal education, defined by the 19th-century English critic Matthew Arnold as "the study of the best that has been thought and said in the world." Time that could be devoted to the study of such works is instead to be diverted in the College's unofficial ideology of "diversity and inclusion." Categorizing faculty hires on the basis of skin color means effectively reducing them to members of groups, defined by a purely arbitrary bodily characteristic rather than by their capacity for serious, independent thinking and scholarship. It demeans them by implying that they might not have qualified for their positions on the basis of academic merit alone. (And does anyone think that the discussion of "issues of diversity and inclusion" that professors are encouraged to include in their courses will allow for any dissent from that ideology?) The situation of faculty and students confronted with the demand to conform to the diversity doctrine does not differ, in some of its essentials, from the one that Socrates faced at his trial. He was condemned by the Athenian people for "corrupting the young," in that he inspired his pupils to question rather than passively accept the then-dominant ideology. Of course there were legitimate reasons for citizens to be concerned if Socrates' questioning, pursued too openly, tended to weaken the religious, moral, and political beliefs on which Athenian democracy depended. 

But the advocates of today's diversity ideology have no such excuse. I have no capacity to block the progress of the "diversity" movement at Holy Cross or elsewhere, other than refusing to defer to it in my own teaching and writing. But I urge students, whatever your ethnic background or skin color or disability status, whatever your gender or sexual orientation, whatever country you come from or religion you profess (or don't): don't let anyone tell you that any of those factors must determine how you think, what you read, or whom you associate with. Seek out courses in which the curriculum consists of serious books, particularly classics, taught by faculty who seem to be genuinely interested in what writers like Homer and Plato, Shakespeare and Machiavelli, Nietzsche and George Eliot, or the authors of the Federalist Papers and Frederick Douglass have to teach us rather than imposing the professors' own ideological or partisan beliefs on the works you will be studying. Do your best to understand what we can learn from such profound authors that we didn't already "know" (or rather, believe). If you disagree with what an author (or professor) says,
speak out (after thinking the text or issue through) and express your own point of view. Freely discuss the books you are reading outside of class with classmates who don't necessarily share your opinions, let alone your ethnic background etc. But never preface a statement or a question with "As a ---," with the blank filled in by one of the characteristics typically emphasized by the so-called diversity movement. 

Unlike all other animals, we human beings have the capacity to reason rather than be governed purely by instinct. But like the inhabitants of the cave depicted in Plato's Republic, we face considerable obstacles to exercising that capacity: the pressure to conform to the dominant prejudices imposed by those who shape our intellectual/ cultural/ political environment. Every nation needs to inculcate a patriotic and moral outlook ideally, supported by moderate religious beliefs - in its citizens. But there's no reason for colleges to engage in the indoctrination business.
 
Students, think for yourselves!

Name Change

Recently, a dialogue arose concerning the name of our mascot, The Crusader. A letter, signed by forty-eight distinguished faculty members, appeared in the latest The Crusader, urging students to engage in conversation because our newspaper shares the same name as the KKK’s and the feelings of animosity they believe the term “crusader” carries.

Claude Hanley ’18 already addressed how the College is purposefully slating the dialogue on this very matter in his article “Welcome to Secular Sunday School”. I echo what he said and would like to emphasize that changing our mascot solidifies our entry into this heretical “Secular Sunday School.”

In response to citing the KKK as a reason to discuss changing the name, that argument seems eerily close to an existential instantiation- a logical fallacy where one assumes existential import. I do not think that the vast majority of people know that the KKK’s newspaper bears this name and also, I do not think that the mutual name associates us with them. A proper assessment of Crusaders reveals that they (they being the Crusaders) were anything but white supremacists (since racism did not surface until later). The KKK’s message and agenda of hate and supremacy should not deter us from acknowledging that Crusaders are remembered for being staunchly Christian, above all else, even if that is simply a stereotype.

However, the crux of the argument to change the name that we identify with is not the connection to the KKK, but rather the “anti-Muslim tensions…counter to our mission and goals” as the faculty writes. This assumes that there is a direct connection between the Crusades and anti-Muslim tensions. While I can see how one could reach that conclusion, I believe that conclusion is an oversimplification of a complex series of wars.

Dr. Thomas Asbridge, a leading expert on the Crusades, in The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land writes “when Latin crusading armies arrived in the Near East to wage what essentially were frontier wars, they were not actually invading the heartlands of Islam. Instead, they were fighting for control of a land that, in some respects, was also a Muslim frontier.” Dr. Asbridge provides an excellent backdrop for how we should examine the Crusades- as a political war, not primarily a religious war. Understanding the Crusades as a political war allows you to recognize that both sides waged war over territory, not exclusively religious zeal.

Michael Haag, a historian with books published by Yale University Press, American University in Cairo Press, etc. writes in The Catholic Herald “In 1095, Pope Urban II called for a Crusade, but neither Christianity nor the West was the cause of the Crusades…The Crusades were part of a centuries-long struggle between Islam and Christianity throughout the Mediterranean world.”

Synthesizing these two historian’s thoughts, we see that the Crusades were a war fought between two groups of people, one mainly Christian and one mainly Islamic, but the Crusades resulted from political struggles.

Understanding the dynamic of the Crusades is crucial to understanding my argument about keeping the name. If one views the Crusades in a historical context, one sees that the Crusades do not originate from a place of Islamophobia, as some may argue. This distinction between hatred of a religion and a territorial struggle defines how we view the actual Crusaders.

Speaking of actual Crusaders, history and society stereotypes them as a zealous Catholic, pillaging every village and killing everyone in sight. As with most stereotypes of Christians, this is completely inaccurate. Dr. Thomas F. Madden, a Crusader historian, addresses this common misconception in his article The Real History of the Crusades by writing “They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world…But the truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder. A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing.”

Immediately, Dr. Madden deftly squashes the stereotype of the pillaging knight, similar to how the College squashes open dialogue about perpetuating our Christian tradition. I write this statement ironically because similar to how I am advocating for preserving our Catholic history, the Crusaders believed that Islam would destroy Christianity as they destroyed Zoroastrianism, according to Dr. Madden.

As Christians, as American citizens, as people, as whatever we identify as, a universal truth that most, if not all, of us can agree upon is that everyone should have freedom of religion. Then, if a group tries to take away that freedom, wouldn’t we fight? The short answer is we’ve already done that. Earlier, I stated that the Crusades were a political struggle, which is true, but this political struggle led to Muslims inhabiting more territory and as Dr. Madden points out, posing a threat to Christianity. Dr. Madden concludes his article with “Without the Crusades, it might well have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam's rivals, into extinction.”

I write this not to justify the Crusades because anything that results in killing, stealing, etc. is morally wrong, but I think it expands our view of the Crusades. The Crusaders simply are not what they are remembered as, therefore we should not change the name of our mascot because of a misconception of their intent.

Yes, Crusaders committed atrocities, but so did people on the other side. I do not wish to justify their sins, but rather emphasize that they fought for their families, rights, and religions- in other words, what we call “noble causes”.

In my view, when we call ourselves “Crusaders”, we remember those who prioritized preservation of the family and Christianity. Beyond the stereotypes that society pins upon it, the term Crusader always evokes Christianity. To me, to change the name is to ignore that the message of Christianity is love. In Matthew 22, a Pharisee lawyer asks Jesus what the greatest commandment is, and Jesus responds “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like unto it: love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these commandments.”

In this time in history where hate is unprecedented, it is crucial and essential that we spread love everywhere. Since we live in a time where Islamophobia is rampant, we need to speak out against the hatred with a message of love, which I believe we can do as Crusaders and as Christians. In my mind, our path forward is self-evident.

We need to delineate what we believe being a Crusader means, educate others on this, and then, check our personal contributions to hatred. Every slightly racist joke or phrase, instance of gossip, insult or jab, even sarcastic comment piles up and smothers the true message of Christianity.

Since Crusader carries negative connotations, we cannot simply do nothing about those connotations. I believe that we should stand by our Christianity, stand by our values of love, and stand by our name as Crusaders. As I wrote before, we need to educate others on the Crusades and what we mean by using the name, underscoring our commitment to Christianity. I view this name change as one attempt of many to rid the College of Christianity, which is why I strongly oppose the name change. Instead of denying our Christianity, let us embrace it, as the Crusaders did, and show our love for God and our neighbors by doing so.