Where are the rights for student journalism?

Like the United States Constitution, Holy Cross’s Community Standards provide students important guarantees of some very important rights. These include “access to ideas, facts and opinions, the right to express ideas and discuss ideas with others, and the right to “expression of opinion, which includes the right to state agreement or disagreement with the opinions of others and the right to an appropriate forum for the expression of opinion.” I encourage all students to familiarize themselves with these rights (and the Standards more broadly), and to think about the ways that they are exercised every day on campus.

But students who thoroughly review the Standards will not find specific protections for student journalists such as the students who manage and write for The Fenwick Review, The Spire, and The College Street Journal, or for literary publications like fósforo and The Purple. It might be said that such outlets are protected by students’ rights to access ideas, but such a phrase seems to indicate the right of students to read such publications, rather than the right to produce them. Student journalists exercise their rights to express their opinion, and these publications are certainly the “appropriate forum” in which to do so. But the United States’ 232-year experience with the First Amendment has consistently demonstrated that the freedom of the press can only be sustained when the rights of the press are clearly and positively delineated. Might it be an improvement to clearly state such journalistic rights in Holy Cross’s Community Standards?

For instance, a student’s right to express their opinion in an appropriate forum is clearly met by the publication of these journals. Would that right be infringed upon if freely-distributed copies of such appropriate fora were systematically destroyed? This happens more often than you might think. Last year copies of Keene State College’s student newspaper The Equinox were stolen. The culprits—caught on camera—were members of a sorority who were angry about an article investigating violations of the campus masking policy at sorority parties. In 2020, members of Virginia Commonwealth University’s student government association stole copies of the student-run Commonwealth Times because they were upset about an article exposing a “toxic” environment in student government.

This may happen so often because press opponents believe that, because these campus publications are free, they can be taken with impunity. The reality is that the theft of newspapers—even those freely distributed—is an attack on press freedom. Often, however, colleges turn a blind eye to such de facto censorship, and student journalists are understandably reluctant to involve the police in such matters--though it is their right to do so. Students should not have to go to such lengths in order to defend their rights. Colleges should demonstrate their support for the freedom of the press by explicitly prohibiting newspaper theft on campus. Indeed, colleges are among the few places where free distribution of physical newspapers remains a central element of the media landscape, and for this reason alone should ensure that such outlets receive special protection.

It is also unclear that student journalists on campus are protected from prior restraint on what they publish. Again, this happens more often than you might think. At Quinnipiac University, The Quinnipiac Chronicle was prohibited from publishing a series of articles on—get this—university efforts to censor student publications. The University claimed that “student leaders…are expected to generally be supportive of university policies”--a policy that makes a mockery of the notion of freedom of the press. The University of North Alabama fired the advisor of its student newspaper when student journalists investigated the sudden and unexplained banning of a professor from campus.

I’m unaware of anything like this happening at Holy Cross. As advisors to this publication, Prof. Greg Burnep and I have made clear to the editors that they should never allow anyone—including their advisors—to exercise prior restraint on the publication of any article.  Colleges as a whole should make similar pledges--to refrain from censoring student publications. Without such explicit protections, student journalists remain uncertain about what might happen if they did.

Finally, like students everywhere, student journalists are in danger of having their rights delimited by inappropriate exploitation of the university’s disciplinary processes. At Brandeis University, student journalists were charged with privacy violations when they published quotes from speakers at a rally—even though their comments were made publicly. At the University of Alaska-Fairbanks, a professor filed an official gender discrimination complaint against a student paper because of a satirical article suggesting that the university was planning to build a vagina-shaped building. After a months-long investigation, the student satirist was cleared, but one would wonder if they would dare risk another such investigation, or if they were subtly told that future investigations might take into account the fact that they had been accused previously. In Supreme Court parlance, this is called a “chilling effect” on press freedom because journalists are discouraged from writing about subjects that they fear might upset others.

In cases like this, members of the student press are effectively censored via a bait-and-switch tactic that exploits disciplinary procedures designed to ensure student safety, or prevent gender discrimination, or regulate behavior. Knowing that censorship is frowned upon, press opponents instead claim that constitutionally-protected content violates policies that are technically unrelated to content. Colleges should recognize such charges for what they are—a violation of the rights of both authors and readers of student journalism. They can take a stand against this by explicitly affirming the rights of journalists, and clarifying that people who don’t like what they read in the papers should take up their pens rather than filing formal complaints to punish journalists individually.

In an age in which journalists globally are under threat from a variety of regimes, everyone should renew their care for freedom of the press. And if you care about freedom of the press, you should care about freedom of the student press. This isn’t because every student should be comforted by what every publication will say. It is because a community without a free press lacks a valuable tool for holding power-wielders of all sorts in check. But perhaps more important for college campuses, student journalism forces the community to face ideas that are not on the official agenda, or absent from syllabi, or taboo in residence halls. Student journalists, in this way, fulfill the College’s  Mission Statement call for us to “join in dialogue about basic human questions.” That is a purpose worth enshrining in college policy. 

Holy Cross Must Ban Pornography

Aylo, the parent company of the pornography giant Pornhub, was recently sued by victims of sex trafficking for the tenth time in the last three years [1]. These victims claim that Aylo knowingly uploaded videos of their sexual assault for profit. These two hundred and fifty-seven victims, mostly high-school and college-aged women, state that these videos were products of sexual coercion and published without their consent. 

Sadly, these women are not the only victims of the porn industry’s continuing cycles of violence. Millions of men, women, and children worldwide have become victims of sex trafficking, sexual assault, rape, trauma, and despair due to the proliferation of internet pornography. These individuals often remain stuck in cycles of sexual and physical violence, experience high rates of suicidality and post-traumatic stress disorder, and have their lives destroyed by the effects of pornography. 

Pornographers know that their industry causes death, despair, and destruction for countless individuals, and they are still willing to perpetuate this violence for profit. However, this does not mean that the College of the Holy Cross needs to continue tacitly supporting this industry of injustice, sin, and violence. 

The College of the Holy Cross allows pornography to be easily accessed through the school’s WiFi servers. While Holy Cross limits access to other websites on its networks, users can easily access these pornographic websites that continue to profit from the trafficking and exploitation of other human beings. By allowing these websites to be accessed on the school’s WiFi networks, Holy Cross fails to fulfill its mission, which asks members of the campus community to consider “what is our special responsibility to the world’s poor and powerless?” [2]. Our special responsibility is not to further the exploitation of vulnerable people by the pornography industry, but rather it is to take a moral stand by installing pornography filters on the college’s WiFi servers. The administration of the College of the Holy Cross must install filters that ban internet pornography, as pornography demeans human life, harms our student body, and is inherently contrary to the college’s mission. 

Habitual drug consumption leads to massive changes in one’s actions, personality, and lifestyle. An addict’s reality becomes distorted, and chemical changes in the brain make the person different than they once were. Pornography, like all other drugs, changes people for the worse, as it teaches one to devalue the beauty of human life. Researchers have found that eighty-eight percent of the top viewed pornographic videos contain physical violence, and around fifty percent of these videos contain verbal assaults [3]. Men who frequently consume pornographic material are less [4] likely to hold egalitarian views on women and significantly more [5] likely to commit dating and sexual violence. Pornography distorts sexual reality, and it reduces people into sexual objects. Sex becomes a purely physical and transactional relationship in which one person fulfills another’s momentary needs while forgoing their emotional and spiritual well-being. A pornographic view of human sexuality devalues our common humanity, as people are now viewed by others as objects to acquire rather than human beings to intimately love. 

Pornography is not an abstract worry that does not affect those of us who live and work on Mount St. James, rather it affects every person who calls our campus home. Recent studies show that fifty-six percent of men aged eighteen to twenty-nine admit to watching pornography within the past year, and almost eighty percent of them have watched it within the last month.  Sixty percent of daily pornography users feel isolated or lonely, over seventy-five percent of daily users feel self-conscious or insecure about their appearance, and only twenty-six percent feel satisfied with their sex life. Pornography also impacts the formation and flourishing of relationships [6]. Pornography has been linked to difficulty in maintaining sexual arousal, feelings of sexual inadequacy, lower levels of relationship trust, lower levels of communication, and even higher rates of infidelity in relationships [7]. 

This crisis affects our student body–and if you do not think so just listen to most conversations between men on campus behind closed doors. But this article is not meant to shame people who watch pornography, rather it is to sound the clarion call that the student body of Holy Cross needs the college’s administration help to solve this issue. We cannot change the culture of our campus without the administration’s help. These issues affect every student on this campus. Every student’s personal life, relationship with their peers, and social life are all negatively affected by pornography’s presence. If our campus is truly full of “men and women for and with others,” then we cannot be a campus that allows this drug, which isolates, destroys relationships, and changes one’s perspective on the other sex, to be easily accessible through the school’s WiFi.

Easily accessible internet pornography is also contrary to the college’s mission as a Catholic institution sponsored by the Society of Jesus. Our mission statement claims that our institution is “linked with an obligation to address the social realities of poverty, oppression, and injustice in our world” [8]. Reality shows us that pornography exacerbates poverty, oppression, and injustice for those who participate in pornographic videos, and it oppresses the souls of those who indulge in it. Pornography also undermines the college’s commitment to “the service of faith and justice” [9]. Our shared Catholic faith has consistently seen pornography as an evil that destroys human dignity, hurts the souls of all involved, cheapens love and the marital relationship, and continues a grave injustice against our fellow man. If we actually were committed to serving faith and justice on our campus, then it would be obvious that pornography must be banned.

The College of the Holy Cross claims to be an institution that “recognizes the inherent dignity of all human beings,” but our actions do not show that [10]. Holy Cross perpetuates injustice against its students, the broader community, and mankind by allowing easy access to pornography. This institution has the ability to change the culture of the campus from the top down, and it successfully has changed it before. In this case it can do so again. The college’s administration talks a good deal about creating a just campus environment that advocates against injustice in all of its forms, but anyone can obviously see that there is much more work to be done. However, this time Holy Cross can truly commit to creating a campus culture of men and women who stand for and with each other by installing pornography filters on our WiFi networks. If we want to remain true to our mission, then there is no other option.

Endnotes

[1] Breccan F. Thies, “Pornhub hit with 10th sex trafficking lawsuit,” The Washington Examiner, October 4, 2023, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/pornhub-hit-tenth-sex-trafficking-lawsuit.

[2] College of the Holy Cross Mission Statement, https://www.holycross.edu/about-us/mission-statement.

[3] Bridges AJ, Wosnitzer R, Scharrer E, Sun C, Liberman R., “Aggression and sexual behavior in best-selling pornography videos: a content analysis update,” Violence Against Women, 2010 Oct;16(10):1065-85, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20980228/.

[4] Hald, G.M., Malamuth, N.N. and Lange, T., “Pornography and Sexist Attitudes Among Heterosexuals”, Journal of Communication, 63: 638-660, (2013), https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12037.

[5] Rodenhizer, K. A. E., & Edwards, K. M., “The Impacts of Sexual Media Exposure on Adolescent and Emerging Adults’ Dating and Sexual Violence Attitudes and Behaviors: A Critical Review of the Literature,” Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 20(4), 439-452, https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838017717745.

[6] Daniel Cox, et al., “How Prevalent is Pornography?,” The Institute for Family Studies, May 3, 2022, https://ifstudies.org/blog/how-prevalent-is-pornography.

[7] Naomi Brower, “Effects of Pornography on Relationships,” Utah State University, April 2023, https://extension.usu.edu/relationships/research/effects-of-pornography-on-relationships. 

[8] College of the Holy Cross Mission Statement.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Vincent Rougeau, “A Community and a College for All,” Email, August 24, 2023.

Modernity’s Maternity: Janice Chik Breidenbach’s “Philosophy of Motherhood”

We all have mothers. We grow and develop in our mothers’ wombs, and then they carry us into the world. How maternal relationships affect our lives after birth varies among individuals, but our preborn development is a universal experience. Our mothers shape our reality from conception. They are our first human connection. What do we know about motherhood? We understand perfectly the biological development of a child in the womb, but we possess limited psychological and philosophical research about this process, and about the continuation of that connection after birth. Janice Chik, professor of philosophy at Ave Maria College in Florida, seeks to unravel the deep and unexplored philosophy of motherhood. At her talk at Holy Cross on March 28, she posed two questions: why is the study of motherhood untouched by philosophers, and why is motherhood so unpopular today?

Chik gave three reasons for the lack of philosophical work done on motherhood. She suggested first that because motherhood is subjective, it may be challenging to universalize mothers’ different experiences and develop a cohesive study. Motherhood is extremely personal and evokes radically different responses from everyone. The second possibility she raised, in a half-joking manner, is that most philosophers tend not to be mothers themselves, so motherhood is not of any interest to them. The philosophers that mention motherhood portray it negatively. Chik cited Plato’s Symposium, a Socratic dialogue that places Socrates in a drinking party making social commentary and debating with fellow Athenians. Socrates’ character Diotima distinguishes between a biological pregnancy and a “pregnancy” of ideas, the latter of which is far superior. It is good to impregnate women, Diotima argues, because in this way we can pursue immortality through perpetuating our lineages. However, it is even better to “impregnate” young men with wisdom and learning, because ideas are more immortal than people. We should note that Diotima is the only female speaker in all of the Platonic dialogues. Philosophy trumps motherhood. The third reason Chik supplies is slightly more extreme: some thinkers, such as the modern feminist philosopher Jeffner Allen, suppose that motherhood is “dangerous to women” and contributes to the “annihilation of women” because it further compels them into patriarchal domination. Allen argues that we should abandon motherhood altogether.

Arguing for motherhood’s philosophical essence, Chik contended that the diversity of experience among mothers contributes to the richness of motherhood. In contextualizing and relating these different experiences, we can reach a common conclusion about its psychological and philosophical importance. She then expounded Aristotle’s claim that we are “rational animals.” Our nature, as she observed, prepares us well for motherhood. Like all animals, we grow and nourish our young. However, we also have the benefit of reflecting on that relationship. Why shouldn’t we attempt to understand motherhood beyond its biological nature, especially since we are not limited to our biological nature? Finally, Chik referenced modern metaphysicist L.A. Paul, who argues that motherhood is a “transformative experience.” We ought to explore phenomena that can pull us out of our current state of life into something completely different, that turns our self-orientation inside-out.

L.A. Paul also argues that we cannot know what our own experience of motherhood will be like. She states in her book Transformative Experiences that modernity calls couples to deeply consider what outcome parenting will have on their happiness. Modern parenting guides pose a number of factors to spouses, many of which are about personal satisfaction and finding meaning in one’s life. Chik suggested that modernity’s notion of self-seeking and self-realization clashes with maternity, which is humanity’s most intimate and arguably most selfless relationship. Modernity seeks to free human beings from the bounds of nature in order to achieve total self sufficiency. Motherhood’s essence contradicts this goal. It involves four unchangeable, biological facts: conception between a man and a woman to create a life, gestation, childbirth, and breastfeeding. Motherhood cannot progress past nature because it is nature: it is one of those stubborn, unchangeable facts about humanity that binds us to our brute-selves.

Chik referred to “three C’s” of modernity that compete with motherhood: control, commodification, and careerism. The first principle, control, insists that women must regulate and minimize motherhood, or else they are not equal to men. We control human life and our destiny. We have agency, and we have knowledge of our agency. Motherhood thrusts us out of control. Women have physical limitations that we didn’t invent, like lactation and pregnancy. We can’t control the baby’s development in the womb. After birth, we can’t control if our baby cries in public. We must care for it anyways, and it will not understand if we scold or attempt to correct it. Chik argues that this lack of control is good. Motherhood humbles us and it reflects the reality of human beings. It shows us that we cannot have complete control over our lives. It makes us more willing to embrace people who may inconvenience us, and it reminds us to love the helpless and bothersome. Chik then highlighted the beauty in pregnancy’s passivity. She referenced Josef Pieper’s Leisure: the Basis of Culture, in which Pieper argues that culture is most fruitful when human beings are able to be at rest, when they do not push themselves to constantly labor and toil. She likens this receptivity to pregnancy. Catholics hold that God shares his transcendental qualities, Truth, Goodness, and Beauty, with humanity as divine gifts: they require no action from our end besides a simple “yes.” The woman has no action in the benefits she reaps from being pregnant, nor does she initiate the emotional connection between herself and her child. She is the “creative artist” of her child, providing its environment and forming it, but she herself has no control over this process.

The second “C” of modernity that conflicts with motherhood is commodification. Children are reduced to their commercial value, emphasizing costliness and greatly decreasing their appeal to prospective parents. Chik aptly pointed out the absurdity of attempting to place a monetary value on new life. Modernity tends to place babies in a parasitic framework, especially within pregnancy: babies are seen as thieves of mothers’ resources. Scientifically, pregnancy is actually quite beneficial to the mother. It increases levels of estrogen and androgen, improving hair growth and shine. Studies have shown that it improves blood levels and increases oxygen, which boosts metabolism. Popular thought likes to perceive mothers as being sacrificial. On the other hand, Chik countered, motherhood has mutual psychological and spiritual benefits for the mother and the child.

The third “C” is careerism. Careerism asserts that our identity isn’t relational: it’s found in our wage-related work. It also affirms again that women have to be in the working world in order to be equal to men. Chik remarked that the denigration of motherhood is not strictly a modern idea. Since ancient times, careers have been considered better labor than motherhood. After all, motherhood does not provide sick days or health insurance. Rather, motherhood participates in the act of Creation. Like Christ’s love, it houses the homeless. It may seem oppressive to some, but in reality, it is a participation in divine grace.

In response to these three ideas, Chik stated that we must reorient ourselves to the theological. Motherhood involves the production of an immortal soul. No other station in life can do this. She likened the experience of pregnancy to the Eucharist: it is the offering up of one’s body for another. It is a totally selfless and life-giving vocation that accepts the earthly stranger and submits to God. For many women, motherhood is the “fiat” that transforms their lives. It unites them with Mary in her “yes” at the Annunciation that set the events of salvation into motion. It further joins them with Christ’s love for God the Father in His passion. It is transformative and philosophical and glorifies the nature of womanhood. As Catholic philosopher Alice von Hildebrand once said, “woman by her very nature is maternal – for every woman, whether married or unmarried, is called upon to be a biological, psychological, or spiritual mother — she knows intuitively that to give, to nurture, to care for others, to suffer with and for them — for maternity implies suffering — is infinitely more valuable in God’s sight than to conquer nations and fly to the moon.”

An SGA Exposé

Our friends at The College Street Journal released an article taking a look at the Student Government Association budget in an earlier issue. Because of the confines of being an economic journal, they limited their assessment and purely gave the facts. I would like to expand further on the facts that they presented and looking at those facts, it is apparent that the SGA budget is bloated with funding to groups that are not accessible to the majority of students, that is crowd funded by the mandatory student activity fee. Moving beyond finances, the general attitude towards race, ethnicity, and identity related student organizations presents the pinnacle of college liberal white savior behavior. I would like to make it clear that this is not a judgment on the groups that are receiving the money as I have no issue with their existence or their monetary claims, or the SGA members who composed it who I am sure mean well, but rather the long standing culture and precedent that college liberalism has come to be. All information here is publicly available and no rules were broken to receive it. This is an exercise in the democratic process and transparency that SGA desperately needs.

The SGA budget is rife with strange monetary allocations to groups one probably would not expect to be funded by SGA. The most abhorrent of the budget allocations though comes from that spent on what SGA calls multicultural student organizations (MSOs) and identity based organizations (IBOs). Of the $705,522 allocated to recognized student organizations (RSOs), $129,100 is allocated to these MSOs and IBOs. While that may seem small in comparison, the total RSO budget includes groups like CAB, Purple Key Society, Purple Patcher, and the Spring Break Immersion Program who have a higher function than what most would consider a club, putting on large events and high cost activities like the spring concert, 100 days ball, the yearbook, and subsidizing spring break trips. Without the $333,000 these groups receive, the RSO budget is only $372,522. Excluding the $15,000 Pride receives as the only IBO, 31% of the real RSO budget is dedicated to groups based on race and ethnicity yet, according to collegefactual.com, only 22% of Holy Cross students are students of color. While some may say that these numbers are close enough, it is also important to note that members of these clubs also get to enjoy the budgets of other clubs that are not based on personal characteristics, while students who are not of the specific minority groups do not.

The issue I have with the SGA budget is not with the existence of these groups, as I fundamentally believe that most clubs that are not outwardly hateful or obscene should have a space on campus, rather my issue arises with the allocation of funds to groups that are not accessible to the student body as a whole. While I understand that most of the events that these groups often use their money for are technically available for all students, students that are not members of these groups most often do not attend these events by MSO and IBO groups because they perceive these events as meant to be spaces for these minorities, and the respectful populace of Holy Cross students will most often respect that. Additionally, the language in the public space of these groups indicate that they are meant to foster community among the specific race or ethnicity, leading to non-minority students wanting to lend those groups their space. Members of these groups should be entitled to do with their time what they please, and that means that they can congregate with whatever groups of people they should desire, but other students should not be required to subsidize it with their student activity fee. Instead, the student activity fee should be lowered and students should have the opportunity to spend their own money where they wish. Events for MSO and IBO groups already often feature tickets which could instead be sold at a higher price, creating an incentive for these events to be more outwardly welcoming and better attended. The budget should ultimately reflect the student body.

The high budgets of these groups do not reflect poorly on the groups receiving them, as when given the option for more money, it is often smart to accept it, rather it showcases the white savior attitude that this campus and many others across the country clings on to. I have had the pleasure of serving in the SGA senate and have had first-hand experience in the mindset on display. I would like to make it very clear, those in SGA I have interacted with have been very nice and welcoming, and I am sure that they all mean well, nonetheless this attitude of the student body is present in the SGA. A common trope among SGA discussion is to talk about a mythical divide between SGA and the MSOs/IBOs, as if there is some great rift between them. From my experience, the MSOs/IBOs do not care about the SGA and the SGA desperately wants them to care. The guilt that the predominantly white campus and as an extension SGA suffers from is reflected in their willingness to give funds to events that most white students do not feel comfortable attending because they are marketed as students of color or LGBTQ events, even if they are accessible to all.

This attitude is further reflected in the SGA cabinet budget that allocates $24,500 to the Directors of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and a further $2,000 to the Director of Social Justice. The DEI budget is by far the most funded with the next highest being $15,000 for the Director of Community Relations with most of the other Cabinet budgets hovering around $2,000. The discrepancy shows an obsession with DEI initiatives and a need to correct injustice that is just not present on campus.

Other clubs it appears SGA is far stingier with their money. The new Chess Club, a club that was just approved last semester and which every student can feel welcome joining, has been very vocal on their social media that they were given only enough money for two chess sets at the cost of $50. Each club, in order to be recognized, has to present a list of fifteen potential members in order to be eligible for recognition. Two chess sets is only enough for four people and is a capital investment as it can be reused every year, unlike the plethora of events that are scheduled by MSOs and IBOs. Some could contend the dispersal of funds to club chess pointing out that RSOs, according to the SGA Bylaws, are not supposed to receive funding from the reserve board of more than $100 in their first year, yet this rule is rarely followed considering ProspHer, a new MSO dedicated to “Womxn of Color'' received a far greater amount yet was also only approved this last semester.

Fundamentally, the Holy Cross campus, represented through SGA, in an effort to fuel inclusivity to ease the liberal guilt they possess, obsess over the approval of multicultural groups and identity based organizations. The budget is a pure reflection of that, alienating those who are not a part of these groups, and using the student activity to disproportionately fund it. The solution is to not encourage a separation based on identity, fueling the rift with the money of the masses, but rather to bring students together, without the divides of identity. The obsession of identity fuels division.

Multi-Faith "Prayer": Hijacking Faith for Politics

On January 24, 2023, the Chaplain’s Office resumed its annual Multi-Faith Prayer Service to represent the many faith traditions on and around campus.  Many were excited for this tradition to resume, particularly those like me who practice religions different from Holy Cross’s Catholicism.  What many envisioned as an opportunity for people of all faiths to come together in individual and collective prayer unfortunately turned out to be quite different than one would expect of a “prayer service.”  There were some good things about the service, but overall, it hijacked the expectations of students to preach a partisan message and belittled the traditions of many students on campus.  

The most problematic element of this “service” was the fact that very little emphasis was placed on prayer, reflection, or religious unity. It was instead focused on the heated political debate on climate change.  Each speaker, the most extreme of which was Holy Cross President Vincent Rougeau, insinuated that each of their faiths required action by everyone to pursue partisan solutions to climate change without regard to the costs or feasibility of their proposed solutions.  Rather than preaching a uniting message to bind us together as a community, these speakers, especially President Rougeau, decided to present a message that divides Americans along partisan lines and present it as a supposedly unifying message.

The issue of climate change is far from a unifying issue.  The political debates around climate change range from those who literally believe air conditioning should be banned (clearly, they’ve never been to the South) to those who outright deny that climate change happens (which is factually inaccurate).  However, most people fall somewhere in the middle and differ mainly on how to balance short-term necessities like a functioning economy and cheap, reliable energy with long-term goals such as energy diversification and carbon neutrality.  These differences usually fall along partisan lines between Republican and Democrat, distinctions that should be absent from our faith communities.

Despite the divisive nature of the policy debate on climate, President Rougeau decided to equate being a person of faith and joining Eco-Action, an organization that constantly (admittedly not always) pushes a partisan agenda on climate without putting the ‘Democrat’ label on it.  President Rougeau falsely claimed that all major religious organizations prioritize the specific climate policies promoted by the Left, stating that this is an issue that unites us.  While many religions believe that it is man’s responsibility to be good stewards of the earth, that principle does not lead all people of faith to the same climate policy conclusions as President Rougeau and the Democratic Party.  Furthermore, President Rougeau implied that those who do not share his views on climate change policy are selfish and irresponsible. 

Another issue of the service is that it denigrated the Christian faith.  While it represented Islamic, Buddhist, Jewish, and Hindu faiths by inviting faith leaders to read their scripture (and expound on environmental issues from their perspective), there was no such representation of Christians.  While all other faiths read their scripture or equivalent, there was no Christian text read (besides the shared Old Testament text of Christians and Jews).  The only Christian representation was in the form of a song that does not even mention God or Jesus, while Islam’s Allah and Hinduism’s various deities were not only named, but glorified.  Instead, the “Christian” song was dedicated to “Mother Earth,” a deity unknown to Christian doctrines.  The Hindu minister talked about and glorified her goddess, the Muslim minister read from the Quran and glorified Allah, yet Jesus Christ was never even named.  On top of this, the other faiths were represented by ministers of their faiths while Christianity (in which there are several faith traditions) had a college president — not a priest, preacher, or pastor.  

After the service, we enjoyed a very nice meal, to the Chaplain Office’s credit.  During the meal, I spoke to some of my Catholic colleagues on what they felt about the service.  One junior told me that the podium from which the speakers presented their scriptures and messages is only to be used for reading the Bible in their tradition.  She explained that “not even announcements or the priest’s message can be read from that podium.”  The fact that Islamic and Hindu deities were exalted from that same podium (false gods in a Christian context) and that each speaker used it to promote a partisan agenda were extremely offensive to the Catholic students I interviewed.  One sophomore told me that the service was highly unorganized, and students did not even know they had a role in the service until a few minutes before the event began.

Overall, this event was disappointing, as I was hoping to unite with those of different faiths to pray for each other.  Instead, the event seemed like a McFarland Center talk on politics with a creepy bell between each speaker.  As Alexis de Tocqueville advises, clergy should stay out of politics, as once a political movement inevitably fades, so will the religion that bound itself to that political movement.  Faith communities should transcend partisan differences and seek to reach souls, not push a partisan agenda in the name of faith.  Next year, I hope the Multi-Faith Prayer Service stays true to its name and that the Honorable President does not hijack faith for his political agenda.

McFarland Center: The Heart of Empty Dialogue

Check Back Later !

Defending the Defenders: ROTC at Holy Cross

Every September 14th since 1982, protestors have come to Holy Cross to demand the removal of the ROTC, or Reserve Officers Training Corps, program from the College. This year was no exception, with protestors handing out flyers describing their beliefs to students on the steps of Dinand Library. This demonstration is led by members of the Catholic Worker Movement, who are Catholic pacifists. They argue, quoting both the Bible and notable Jesuits, that the Christian faith and any form of violence are fundamentally incompatible.  Training for war should not exist at an institution of higher learning, especially a Jesuit liberal arts college, according to the demonstrators. They believe that ROTC takes advantage of impoverished students by offering free college tuition, doing little more than making the poor fight the wars of rich men.

Certainly, pacifism has a place within society. The Christian tradition has a long history of pacifism, including those who refuse to choose violence even when their own lives are at stake. Martyrs such as St. Peter, St. Sebastian, St. Maximilian Kolbe, and even Christ Himself are demonstrators of the nobility of those who choose not to lower themselves to violence. They remind humanity that violence should not exist, and that evil has corrupted the human soul and world. Even outside an explicitly religious context, non-violence has been proven to be an effective way to change societies and the human heart. The Civil Rights Movement with MLK Jr. and the Indian Independence Movement led by Mahatma Gandhi show that peaceful protests can work. But do not be mistaken — there are times when violence is justified and necessary.

Christianity has long held the idea that just wars are not only possible, but even necessary in a fallen world. In the Old Testament the Jewish Kingdoms were instructed many times by God to go to war to defend themselves. Later, as Christianity began to spread  in the Roman Empire and eventually become dominant, Christians found themselves having to understand the relationship between their faith and the necessity to defend their civilization. St. Augustine in the early fifth century, St. Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century, and other theologians have all discussed this idea. It has been agreed, in both Catholic doctrine and much of wider Christian thinking, that wars in the pursuit of peace and defense of the common good — if waged morally — are not only justified, but could even be the duty of a society. This is not just an invention of post-Biblical thinkers, however; passages such as Luke 3:14, Romans 13:4, and more all suggest the justification of warfare in certain contexts. An understanding of the necessity of warfare and militaries is not something that only exists within the Christian context. Other faiths, Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic, along with secular thinkers also agree with the justification of armed conflict.

This is because the failures of society-wide pacifism are evident to all critical-thinking human beings. If the United States did not have a military and was unable or unwilling to protect itself and the free world, who would instead reign? At this moment, a war is waging in Eastern Europe between Putin’s autocratic regime in Russia and the people of Ukraine who only desire to live independent and happy lives free of tyranny. Would the protestors who came to Holy Cross recently tell those people to lay down their weapons and live as slaves? Well, they very well might, as they complain of the US “financing a seemingly endless war in Ukraine” in their handouts. Meanwhile in East Asia, the People’s Republic of China threatens the free people of Taiwan, menacing the small island nation with constant aerial incursions and declarations of an inevitable reunification. It is only with the deterrence of war through military strength by nations such as the United States can we hope a shooting war does not begin in the near future. History has also demonstrated the necessity of violence to protect what is right, as seen in America’s own history with World War 2 and the American Civil War. If it is clear that wars are sometimes justified and necessary, and therefore militaries are essential to the protection of free societies, why should America not want its military officers properly educated?

One of the key reasons for students at Holy Cross to receive a liberal arts education is that regardless of their career path after graduation, a broad education and understanding of the world will be invaluable. A military career does not make one ineligible for such an education. Do warriors not need to be able to think and understand? We want sailors, marines, soldiers, and airmen who are intelligent and well-rounded individuals. We want our nation’s guardians to have instilled in them the Jesuit, Catholic tradition of the College of the Holy Cross that enables them to be “men and women for and with others.” We want servicemen and women who love and respect human life, understand what is right and wrong, and have the knowledge and strength to protect good and fight evil. What we do not want are uneducated and improperly formed brutes, like those who committed war crimes in Bucha, Ukraine. What we do not want are unthinking automatons, like those who marched under the swastika eighty years ago. If we truly desire intelligent and moral leaders in our military, what better place to educate them than Holy Cross?

Our college certainly has its issues, the price of tuition being one of them. Many readers would agree with the idea that tuition should be lower than it is now, tuition with room and board costing a colossal $74,980. But, the idea that the ROTC program takes advantage of the poor by offering a full scholarship for eligible cadets is incorrect. Should society not reward those who risk so much to protect it? Across the United States, there already are many veterans who lack proper health coverage for service-related injuries and struggle to attain valuable employment. Taking away any such scholarship for our officers would not only decrease economic mobility for those who would no longer be able to attend college, but also saddle both our active-duty military members and veterans with large debts. If one wants to address the student loan crisis as a whole, that is a valuable conversation, but it is separate from the legitimacy of ROTC at the College of the Holy Cross. Those who serve the United States and are willing to put themselves in danger’s way should be honored and cared for.

So, should ROTC continue to be offered at the College of the Holy Cross? It certainly should, as our military is necessary for our defense and needs educated leaders. Holy Cross, with our uncommon Catholic liberal arts tradition, is a perfect place for our servicemen and women to be trained. Holy Cross offers ROTC not to help fight wars, but rather to protect peace.

Lest Tradition Kick the Bucket: Holy Cross’ Quest for a New Leader

Following Father Boroughs’ September announcement that he will be stepping down as the 32nd president of the College, the Holy Cross community is faced with the uncertainty of who their next leader will be. The ambiguity of Boroughs’ email only reinforced this feeling, as a key component was missing: there was no commitment to choosing a Jesuit priest to succeed him. This decision contrasts with the 2011 Presidential Search Committee following Father Michael MacFarland’s 11-year tenure, which explicitly committed to choosing another Jesuit to fill the position. In fact, the College has seemingly been committed to a Jesuit leader since our institution’s founding, with only Frank Vellacio, Ph.D. as an exception, serving as acting president of the College from 1998-2000. 

Until the early 2000s, Jesuit institutions across the nation were exclusively led by Jesuit presidents. This began to change when Georgetown University chose layman and current president, John DeGioia, in 2001. Other Jesuit institutions started to follow its lead soon thereafter, which leaves us today with only about half of the nation’s Jesuit institutions being led by a clergyman. Perhaps this doesn’t leave Holy Cross’s consideration of both men and women, in addition to its use of a third-party recruitment firm, as much of a surprise. I mean, how many Jesuit priests have you heard of as being placed through Isaacson, Miller? One must wonder if Holy Cross has told the firm to keep the following key question in mind during its search: what does it mean to be a Catholic, Jesuit, liberal arts institution? This question should be at the forefront of the Presidential Search Committee’s mind as it seeks to choose a fitting leader to take Father Boroughs’ place. 

This question is perhaps losing resonance with the Holy Cross community, though, as our identity as an institution is at a crossroads. We can choose to follow an ever-growing populist crowd and defer to a layperson to lead us into the coming years, or we can stand with the strong, principled tradition of Jesuit leadership. 

Now, what exactly does it mean to be a Catholic institution? Last fall, the Fenwick Review’s Jack Rosenwinkel ‘21 interviewed Worcester Bishop Robert McManus, who said the following:

“What fundamentally makes Catholic colleges Catholic is that they have to be completely and unambiguously supportive of promoting, fostering, and furthering the great Catholic intellectual tradition [. . .] I think fundamentally, you do that by hiring for mission. You only hire people—even if they’re not Catholic—that thoroughly and authentically commit themselves to supporting the mission. The Catholic identity of a college is completely tied up with the mission, and if we don’t get the mission straight, the identity is going to be undercut. When you don’t hire for mission, you get off the track.”

This mission would be best accomplished by having a Jesuit as the leader of our institution, as we have since 1843. The president of the school sets the tone for those under his leadership. We need a leader who fully embodies and embraces the Catholic, Jesuit tradition of Holy Cross, but all signs indicate that we’re making a left on red. 

Bishop McManus has expressed his concerns in the past, saying “These days, I’m less than certain that the Catholic identity of Holy Cross is strong. I’m very concerned.” With rising tensions between the bishop and the College, would a layperson really be the best move? After all, a school can only be recognized as Catholic if endorsed by the local bishop. Choosing a president who does not belong to the Society of Jesus for the first time would not explicitly reaffirm our Catholic mission. This is not to say that Bishop McManus would revoke our Catholic status were we to choose a layperson, but I think it would certainly raise some eyebrows. 

Recent polls among the Holy Cross student body indicate a reason for concern. For starters, only 342 students bothered to respond to the poll indicating their preferences for future leadership. As reported in The Spire, 15% of students believe the next president should be a layperson, 55.7% are indifferent, and only 29.3% remain committed to Holy Cross’ long history of clergymen at the helm of our institution. The fact that the majority of the few students polled are indifferent to the matter raises the question of whether we actually want to be, or consider ourselves, a Catholic institution at this point. Additionally, on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important) students polled an average of 3.27 for how important they think it is that the next president has worked at a Jesuit institution. How would a president without a lived experience of a Jesuit institution’s mission be able to lead Holy Cross? We must recommit to our Jesuit values through our 33rd president to combat this indifference towards the school’s foundation.

One may wonder how important the president’s role is. The Holy Cross website lists the role of the president as the “chief executive of the College, charged with responsibility for overseeing all affairs of the institution.” This is a fairly broad definition, but from it, one can determine that the president at least sets the tone for carrying out the college’s mission and priorities. At the forefront of these endeavors should be working on reaffirming our commitment to being a Catholic institution. Who better to lead these efforts than someone with a vocation to live a life directly consecrated to God? 

Some may wonder why Holy Cross should retain its Catholic identity to begin with. Well, put simply, that’s who we are and that is what students and alumni signed up for when we chose to come here. Disregarding our long history of clergymen would be an unnecessary statement amid Holy Cross’s increasing efforts to be progressive. Our goals and mission can be aptly, and better, accomplished through maintaining a distinguished Jesuit identity. Holy Cross students polled their top priorities for the incoming president as being 29% academics, 27.9% diversity, equity, and inclusion, and 18.5% transparency. Additionally, some of the keywords that many are looking for in a leader include: understanding, charismatic, proactive, honest, etc. All of these priorities can be accomplished by maintaining a commitment to clergy leadership. Let’s avoid becoming the College of the Un-Holy Cross. 

Lastly, in addition to choosing a Jesuit priest, I suggest the Committee choose someone who is apolitical. Tensions are at an all-time high, and the College would benefit from a leader who builds bridges rather than walls. Our newest leader should embrace debate and productive discussions rather than enforcing his own agenda. This way, students will be intellectually stimulated and challenged rather than indoctrinated. We must embrace and promote the critical thinking that comes with a liberal arts education. We come to Holy Cross to learn and grow as both people and thinkers; let’s not leave as clones. 

Holy Cross has had presidents for as long as 24 years and as little as 2. When it comes down to it, we have little idea of how long our next leader will serve. The selection of Father Boroughs’ successor will not only represent current students––the College is selecting a leader for future Crusaders as well. We, as an institution, must stay in-line with the mission of the College.

We invite those who would like an apolitical, Jesuit clergyman as the next president of the College to fill out this Google Form, which will be forwarded to the Presidential Search Committee. Identities will not be shared with those outside of the necessary channels