April 2014

The

Fenwick Review Testimonium Perhibere Veritati

April 2014

Volume XXI, Issue 6

The Independent Journal of Opinion at the College of the Holy Cross

“Diversity & Inclusion” Vs. Liberal Education A Worrisome Assault on Liberal Education, Academic Freedom, and Fundamental Principles of Justice

David Lewis Schaefer Professor of Political Science Last August the College’s socalled Diversity and Inclusion Expert Committee, established by former dean Tim Austin, released its “final report.”

To anyone genuinely concerned with the preservation of Holy Cross’s mission as a leading liberal-arts institution, the report, which has received relatively little public discussion, is cause for deep alarm. In the name of supposedly making the College a more welcoming environment for persons who differ in “culture,” handicapped

status, “ethnicity, gender, gender identity and expression, race, religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and spirituality,” the report threatens to undermine the principle of merit-based hiring and promotion; to replace a curriculum dedicated to fostering serious reflection through the reasoned consideration of serious books with one oriented towards basing assignments on the principle of “representing” authors based on their race, ethnicity, gender, etc.; and, of the greatest concern, to institute what can only be described as an enterprise in thought control.

Students Rally at Senate Meeting Bipartisan Fight to Re-Recognize College Republicans

By Patrick Horan ‘14 ..... page 10

Space considerations compel me to list only some of the most egregious problems in the report: 1. As just mentioned, the most troubling aspect of the report is “Recommendation Three: Confront Unconscious Bias.” Citing a few articles from obscure journals that themselves form part of today’s diversity industry, the report sweepingly suggests that “unconscious bias may be our greatest barrier to achieving a truly inclusive community” at Holy Cross, and calls for the obliteration of “any form of bias, explicit or implicit.”

Left unaddressed, aside from the

lack of any evidence that such bias is a serious problem among the Holy Cross faculty, is the question of who gets to define “bias,” especially of the “implicit/ unconscious” form that the recommendation identifies as a major problem. Simply put, one person’s “unconscious bias” is another person’s legitimate difference of opinion. If I am opposed to the establishment of “gay marriage” (as I am), does that show that I am biased (albeit unconsciously) against gays (as numerous gays I have known will contend), or rather that I have legitimate grounds for thinking Continued on page 6

Russian Reconquista

Putin’s Imperial Vision and Eastern Europe

By J. Alex Cicchitti ‘15 ..... page 8

Like us on Facebook & follow us on Twitter @FenwickReview and read The Fenwick Review online at: http://college.holycross.edu/studentorgs/fenwickreview/index.html

The Fenwick Review

2

Mission Statement As the College of the Holy Cross’s independent journal of opinion, The Fenwick Review strives to promote intellectual freedom and progress on campus. The staff of The Fenwick Review takes pride in defending traditional Catholic principles and conservative ideas, and does its best to articulate thoughtful alternatives to the dominant campus ethos. Our staff desires to help make Holy Cross the best it can be by strengthening and renewing the College’s Catholic identity, as well as working with the College to encourage constructive dialogue and an open forum to foster new ideas.

To The Benefactors In this issue, as in every issue, we must reserve space to offer a heartfelt thank you to our benefactors, without whom The Fenwick Review would not exist. We extend our profound gratitude to The Collegiate Network and the generous individual and alumni donors to The Fenwick Review, for their ongoing enthusiasm and support of our mission. You are always in our prayers, and with each issue we publish, our first goal is to justify the incredible faith you have shown in us.

Mr. Guy C. Bosetti Dr. and Mrs. Paul Braunstein Mr. and Mrs. Michael Dailey Mr. J. O’Neill Duffy Mr. and Mrs. Richard Fisher Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Gorman Mr. Robert W. Graham III Dr. and Mrs. Thomas W. Greene Mr. Paul M. Guyet Mr. Robert R. Henzler Mr. William Horan Mr. Joseph Kilmartin Mr. Robert J. Leary ‘49 Mr. Francis Marshall ‘48 Mr. J. O’Neill Duffy Mr. Kevin O’Scannlain Fr. Paul Scalia Dr. Ronald Safko Mr. Sean F. Sullivan Jr.

April 2014

Contents April 2014

Volume XXI, Issue 6

1 “Diversity & Inclusion” Vs. Liberal Education

By David Lewis Schaefer ~ Professor of Political Science

3 The Editor’s Desk

Andrew D. Emerson ‘14 & Patrick J. Horan ‘14

4 Toward Tolerant Dialogue

By Nikolas Churik ‘15 ~ Foreign Bureau Chief

5 The “Adam Smith Problem”

By Joseph Murphy ‘16 ~ Staff Writer

6 “Diversity & Inclusion”Vs. Liberal Education (cont.)

By David Lewis Schaefer ~ Professor of Political Science

8 Russian Reconquista

By J. Alex Cicchitti ‘15 ~ Staff Writer

9 Putin: A Conservative Ally?

By Eric Kuhn ‘16 ~ Staff Writer

10 Bipartisan Fight to Re-Recognize College Republicans

By Patrick Horan ‘14 ~ Co-Editor in Chief

11 Against Artificial Birth Control

By Steven Merola ‘16 & Micala Smith ‘16 ~ Staff Writers

April 2014

The Fenwick Review

3

From the Editor’s Desk

The Fenwick Review 2013-2014 Staff

Final Thoughts

Co-Editors in Chief

It seemed as if it was just yesterday when we drove up to College Hill to move into our freshmen dorms (yes, we call them freshmen dorms, not first-year residence halls) and begin our undergraduate odyssey. Four years later, we prepare for the last full measure of exams and papers before the Class of 2014 travels to Cape Cod and returns to Mt. Saint James for commencement. Regardless of one’s post-graduation plans, the future is certainly a frighting thing, and when contemplating it one can easily become overwhelmed. Instead, we advise readers to seek and find something comforting in their memories of HC – be it in classes taken, friends made, Kimball meals endured, prevailing after an all-night Dinand session, adventures in any of Worcester’s fine drinking establishments, or in any of the myriad facets which comprise a Holy Cross experience.

Concerning the immediate future of the class of 2014, former presidential speech writer and class valedictorian Jon Favreau ’03 has been selected to be May’s commencement speaker. Although Mr. Favreau is no doubt an intelligent and accomplished young man, we are lukewarm on the choice. In 2010, Favreau was caught playing a drinking game (either beer pong or flip cup) without his shirt at a Georgetown bar. We enjoy a cold brew as much as the next guy, but the speechwriter to, and effective representative of, the President of the United States ought to act in a way commensurate to his title.

This country is not short on intellectually gifted leaders, but it is severely lacking in mature ones.

As we look to the future, we are excited as the erudite Nikolas Churik ’15 and witty Chase Padusniak ’15 take the helm as Co-Editors in Chief. We also look forward to the return of Claire Mahoney ’15 as web and layout editor. We are confident that under their leadership The Fenwick Review will continue its legacy for providing a forum for thoughtful and eloquent debate on relevant issues.

One such issue, as discussed by Professor Schaefer in this issue, deserves particular consideration, especially amongst conservative thinkers. The threat posed not just to liberal arts but to Western civilization as a whole by unrestrained, pluralistic multiculturalism cannot be underestimated or dismissed. This concept refers to the inherent distrust in modernity of any system which claims to be ‘right’ or better than a rival system. This has involved the radical redefinitions of ‘bias,’ ‘merit,’ and ‘diversity,’ advanced by some contemporary figures and will continue to have disastrous effects on modern society beyond academia. It is the utter relativism of multiculturalism – the “who am I to judge” mentality – which is poised to undermine the very ideological foundation of the Western endeavor. Without the ability to assert claims to the absolute Truth, we ultimately lose the intellectual authority to determine ‘right’ from ‘wrong’ & better from worse. As a result, the study of the great thinkers and triumphs of Western civilization is largely in danger of being relegated to the dust bin, and in its place we will find a dangerously unsound system indeed. The core problem with post-modern society is this: it engages not in the creation of the best possible society, but rather in debauched, egotistical, self-satisfying navel-gazing.

On a final note, we congratulate the Class of 2014 for all their accomplishments on the Hill, as well as their parents who taught them the values needed not just to be Crusaders, but contemplative individuals who seek meaningful contribution to the world around them.

God bless, Andrew D. Emerson ‘14 & Patrick J. Horan ‘14

Hate us? Love us? Tell us what you think!

All readers are invited to submit letters to the editor – selected letters will be re-printed in the next issue of the Review. Contribute to the debate!

Letters should be directed to: fenwickrev@g.holycross.edu

Andrew D. Emerson ‘14 Patrick J. Horan ‘14

Copy Editors John Castro ‘14 Kaylie Gage ‘14

Website Editor

Andrew D. Emerson ‘14

Layout Editor in-Absentia Claire S. Mahoney ‘15

Foreign Bureau Chief Nikolas Churik ‘15

Staff Writers

Amber Alley ‘16 J. Alex Cicchitti ‘15 Ken Jordan ‘14 Eric Kuhn ‘16 Joseph Lepera ‘14 Mary Maliszewski ‘14 Steven Merola ‘16 Joe Murphy ‘16 David Odell ‘14 Chase Padusniak ‘15 Hayward Shine ‘16

Faculty Adviser

Professor David Lewis Schaefer Political Science

Disclaimers

This journal is published by students of the College of the Holy Cross and is produced two or three times per semester. The College of the Holy Cross is not responsible for its content. Articles do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board.

Donation Policy

The Fenwick Review is funded through a generous grant from the Collegiate Network as well as individual donations. The Fenwick Review is an organization incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We welcome any donation you might be able to give to support our cause! To do so, please write a check to: The Fenwick Review and mail to: Patrick J. Horan P.O. Box 4A 1 College Street Worcester, MA 01610

Letter Policy

We at The Fenwick Review encourage feedback. All comments, criticisms, compliments, and opinions are welcome. As we are striving to promote intellectual freedom and progress here at Holy Cross, opposing viewpoints to anything we print are especially appreciated. Finally, we reserve the rights to print and edit any letters for clarity and length that we receive.

Please email your submissions to: fenwickrev@g.holycross.edu

The Fenwick Review

4

April 2014

Toward Tolerant Dialogue A Response to “Toward Tolerant Secularism”

Nikolas Churik ‘15 Foreign Bureau Chief “All religions are true but none are literal.”

– Joseph Campbell “Dialogue is born from an attitude of respect for the other person, from a conviction that the other person has something good to say.”

– Pope Francis (then Cardinal Bergoglio)

In the last issue of the Fenwick Review, the topic of interreligious dialogue was raised in a critique of a radically secular society. Knowledge and understanding of different faiths are necessary for living in a pluralistic society, so that one religious group is not misunderstood or anathematized.

Although understanding is necessary,

one must wonder how far religious dialogue, as such, can go. That is, one must ask how one can truly have a “dialogue” about religion.

One can see where the similarities and differences lie and can learn about other faiths, but religious tenets are not things about which compromise can be made. Dialogue of this sort can become a kind of academic show-and-tell or even an attempt at conversion. Both are fine in their own realms, but neither furthers the project at hand: living together. This need brings about a shift from religious to cultural dialogue.

The call in the earlier article for experiencing other faiths in daily life seeks precisely the right thing.

The common and shared experiences and living out of various faiths can be

the groundwork for constructive dialogue. Rather than hating or fearing the religious other, “it is necessary to learn to accept the other in his otherness and the otherness of his thinking,” as Benedict XVI has written.

T h e common goal of religion does not seem to be conversion, so there is a need

they embody.”

The diverse religions of the world present spiritual goods which ought to be protected, and, moreover, the cultural values born from the practices of the religion are to be preserved.

The socio-cultural values they embody are the ways through which the spiritual goals are made manifest.

These values can, as a result, serve as the sphere for discourse.

Rather than deconstructing transcendent truths to the least common denominator, discussions about how to live as people of faith in a secular world would provide more ground for dialogue and less for compromising one’s beliefs. The protection called for seems to be best achieved through a liberal, secular state. This sort of secular state is not one which denies a place for religion, but rather one that renders what is proper unto God and unto Caesar.

This sort of cultural dialogue embodies the struggle already present in staying true and honest to one’s self and faith, while still participating in and working towards the success of a diverse society.

The common and shared experiences and living out of various faiths can be the groundwork for constructive dialogue.

to understand the lives of others. In this search for understanding, one pursues the proper way to live life and fulfil the responsibility for promoting peace and justice.

Nostra Aetate, the Declaration on the Relation of the Church with NonChristian Religions from the Second Vatican Council, called on readers “to recognize, safeguard and promote those spiritual and moral goods, as well as the socio-cultural values

The Fenwick Review

April 2014

5

The “Adam Smith Problem” Charles Carroll Program’s Adam Smith Conference

Joseph Murphy ‘16 Staff Writer On April 3rd and 4th, the College of the Holy Cross brought together some of the leading scholars on one of the greatest economists, moral theorists, and philosophers in history – Adam Smith. The twoday conference was assembled through the tireless energy of four Holy Cross professors – Donald Brand, Daniel Klinghard, Denise Schaeffer, and David Schaefer – and is certainly the most ambitious project yet for the Charles Carroll Program.

The program, named after the only Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence, has been bringing speakers and post-doctoral fellows to campus for the past four years, but the goals of the program were able to expand this year due to a generous donation from Robert R. Henzler ‘55.

This year the Charles Carroll Program offered a sophomore seminar class, taught by Professor Brand, heavily focused on the economic and moral thought of Adam Smith, and four students from the class – Tim Rice, Carmella O’Hanlon, Thomas Krueger, and Tim Provost – were able to present their research on Adam Smith at the beginning of the conference.

Scholars giving presentations on Adam Smith included Geoffrey Sayre-McCord of the University of North Carolina, Karsten Stueber of the College of the Holy Cross, Erik Angner of George Mason University, Maria Paganelli of Trinity University, Peter McNamara of Utah State University, and Spencer Pack of Connecticut College. The two keynote addresses were given by Charles Griswold of Boston University and Ryan Patrick Hanley of Marquette University.

Adam Smith, who was born in they will indirectly benefit society as a because his ideas reflect the fact that 1723 and died in 1790, wrote two clas- whole; he argues that prices of goods there is something unchanging about sic works during his lifetime: The Theory will drop and quality of life will increase human nature. Of course, I could be of Moral Sentiments (1759) and An Inquiry because, to use a common expression wrong and we may in the distant future into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of in economics, “a rising tide lifts all move past the ideas of Adam Smith, Nations (1776). Smith, because of The ships.” There seems to be a contradic- but I think, for now and a long time Wealth of Nations, is considered the fa- tion in Adam Smith’s philosophy, but to come, the ideas of Adam Smith will ther of economics. His influence was many scholars try to find a way to ex- continue touch upon common conwidespread during his lifetime, many plain that the ideas found in these two cerns all people share about the world. of the Founding Fathers of the United classic works are really compatible with This past year the Charles Carroll ProStates having one another. gram has shown its commitment to The various scholars that at- asking important questions about life read Smith’s work. Smith’s tended this conference discussed and the world we live in and, at the very most famous subjects including why we change our- least, this student is looking forward to idea is probably selves in a quest for approval from seeing the program grow and continue the concept of others, the value of philosophers in soto thrive for years to come. the “invisible ciety, why we care about morality, what hand.” Though contributes to our underthe meaning of standing of human mothe term “invis- rality, and the significance ible hand” is and place of religion in often debated, society. All of these are it is frequently topics touched upon by used in modern Adam Smith in his writmedia to refer ings and the various to allowing the scholars who attended self-interest of Holy Cross’s conference. individuals drive These themes did not the free market. lose their relevance at the T h e end of the 18th century; driving force they reflect discussions behind debates that we have, in one form about Smith over the centuries has or another, with our probeen what is often referred to as the fessors, peers, parents, “Adam Smith Problem.” In The Theory and friends.

Perhaps the reaof Moral Sentiments, Smith spends a great deal of time focusing on the idea that son discussions about people are motivated by sympathy for Adam Smith remain so one another – you care for others and timely to people today is care what others think of you – but Smith’s Wealth of Nations s e e m s to focus on how people are motivated by selfishness. The Wealth of Nations goes on to argue that if individuals focus on selfPanelists Tim Rice ‘16, Carmella O’Hanlon ‘16, Thomas Krueger ‘16, and Tim Provost ‘16 interest

The ideas of Adam Smith will continue to touch upon common concerns all people share about the world.

Perhaps the reason discussions about Adam Smith remain so timely to people today is because his ideas reflect the fact that there is something unchanging about human nature.

The Fenwick Review

6

April 2014

April 2014

The Fenwick Review

7

“Diversity & Inclusion” Vs. Liberal Education

“Diversity & Inclusion” Vs. Liberal Education

The Report of the “Diversity and Inclusion Expert Committee”

The Report of the “Diversity and Inclusion Expert Committee”

David Lewis Schaefer Professor of Political Science Continued from page 1 that legitimizing such an institution is harmful to the traditional institution of heterosexual marriage?

(To choose another illustration, some years ago a member of the faculty of Japanese extraction accused a colleague of mine of “bias” because he refused to agree with her claim that the internment camps in which Japanese-Americans were placed during World War II were the moral equivalent of Hitler’s

death camps.) What right or qualification does any faculty or administrative committee have to condemn beliefs that its members happen to regard as biased? Where will this policy end?

2. And what does the committee have in mind in proposing the adoption of an “Implicit Association Test” to test my alleged bias: if I flunk the test, am I sentenced to a certain number of hours of re-education? All of this has a horrifyingly totalitarian sound which is incompatible with the existence of a free society, let alone of an academic institution that is supposed to be devoted to the openminded pursuit of truth. It is “tolerant” only in an Orwellian sense: we will tolerate all points of view … as long as we agree with them.

3. No less appalling is Recommendation Four, to redefine “merit.”

The implication is that merit, for purposes of hiring and promotion, should be reconceptualized so that not merely aptitude for (and accomplishment in)

effective teaching and sound scholarship, but the mere fact of belonging to a certain racial, ethnic, or religious group, or being female, is itself a part of a person’s “merit.” Here again, the principle is simply Orwellian. There is no reason to think that Holy Cross students of any race, ethnicity, religion, or gender will be well served by attempting to redefine merit in this way, so that they are taught not by the best teacherscholars we can find (in terms of understanding of core course material and the ability to explain it well, as well as by first-rate scholarship), but rather by the “best” faculty we could find who meet certain arbitrary quotas based on

matter less here than in the aforementioned areas?)

5. Under Recommendation Six, “Special Hires and Partnerships,” the report egregiously misuses the term “underrepresented” in its claim that there are reportedly “2,000 domestic, underrepresented postdocs from the Hispanic-, African-, and Native-American communities.” All that the term apparently means is either that proportionally fewer members of such groups receive postdoctoral fellowships than do “whites,” or else that proportionally fewer who receive postdocs are then offered tenure-track teaching jobs. This claim can be definitionally

Plato, Niccolò Machiavelli, & Thomas Hobbes true only if one assumes that all perrace, gender, etc.

4. Equally Orwellian is the de- sons holding doctorates are equally cision by Dean Austin, also reported well qualified to hold college teaching under Recommendation Four, to re- positions – regardless of their particuquire that potential faculty members lar educational backgrounds, personal be assessed in part by their degree of capacities, or ambitions. Are Caucasian “commitment” in “scholarship, teach- basketball players “underrepresented” ing, advising, and on- and off-campus because of the disproportion between service to the educational benefits of those who play the sport on their higha richly diverse community.” In other school teams and those who make it words, someone who thinks that con- to the NBA? Here, as elsewhere, the veying an understanding of international report offers a rather poor example of relations, calculus, Greek, or Chaucer evidence-based reasoning to any stuis more important for liberal education dents who might happen to read it.

The misuse of the term underthan believing in the alleged benefits of diversity (not genuine intellectual diver- representation is much more egregious sity, mind you, but just diversity in the in the paragraph under Recommendaabove-mentioned categories) is auto- tion Eight, “Faculty Support and Evalmatically deemed less well qualified, ac- uation,” that calls for senior faculty to cording to this mandate, for a teaching receive “training” that highlights “rejob as a result. (Nobody would choose search finding lower evaluations for a physician, a plumber, a lawyer, or a faculty of underrepresented groups.” firefighter on this basis. Why should In other words, the very fact that memanyone accept it when it comes to hir- bers of supposedly underrepresented ing teaching faculty: do sheer capac- groups in academia reportedly receive ity and dedication to do the best job lower evaluations is not supposed to

call into question the policy of hiring faculty largely for reasons having no connection to merit, but rather is to be shown to us to prove that we are biased against members of such groups!

6. One wonders what we are to make of the information supposedly revealed at the University of Minnesota symposium (cited under Recommendation Six) that reports complaints about such problems as “high service commitments and informal student mentoring loads” and “negative student attitudes in teaching situations.” Should minority faculty all be given lighter service commitments, or should negative student evaluations be ignored, just so

that such faculty will feel less stressed?

Does anyone seriously maintain that minority faculty at Holy Cross suffer either from “discrimination” in tenure and promotion decisions or from racist, anti-female, or antigay student evaluations?

7. Although the report’s language under Recommendation Seven is unclear, it seems to be proposing that “minority” faculty automatically be given such privileges as lighter teaching loads during the first year (or does the report mean that all first-year faculty be given lighter loads?). If the lighter loads are to be given only to minority faculty, isn’t the implication that they are somehow intrinsically less capable than other faculty of holding down a regular teaching load from the time they join the faculty? What is the ground for this assumption? Equally objectionable is the proposal that special endowed chairs be created to be held only by members of favored “minority” groups.

Continued on page 7

David Lewis Schaefer Professor of Political Science Continued from page 6 Such blatant discrimination flies in the face of elementary principles of justice – and inevitably encourages an unspoken bias against members of so-called minority groups who genuinely earn success in their chosen professions by their own accomplishments, rather than relying on the “credential” of their racial or ethnic identity, by devaluing their achievements.

8. Although the purpose of the policies advocated in the report is ostensibly inclusionary, the proposals under Recommendation Seven for creating dedicated “faculty space… for affinity groups,” as well as “a multicultural space on campus for faculty and students,” would tend rather to promote a problem from which many students already complain the College suffers: that of self-segregation by those whom the College encourages to define themselves as members of minorities.

9. Although I am not Catholic myself, I find it astonishing that the report should also propose, under Recommendation Seven, “awareness of the agnostic and atheist faculty” at the College. I know of no evidence that unbelieving faculty, or those who (like me) subscribe to other faiths than the Catholic one, currently suffer from discrimination. But is it really part of the College’s mission to provide special recognition for unbelief, rather than aiming to fortify in an intelligent way the Catholic faith to which most of our students adhere? Do atheists

and agnostics really have such fragile egos that they cannot survive without special recognition? If so, why did they choose to teach at a Jesuit institution in the first place?

10. More deeply troubling is the proposed requirement under Recommendation Eight that the curricula of our courses be revised so as to incorporate what the College happens to deem “diverse perspectives.” Is there a specifically African-American, Latino, female, or gay perspective on calculus or physics? Does anyone think that courses on the history of philosophy (including political philosophy) that feature texts by authors like Plato, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Rousseau, Marx, and Nietzsche are lacking in diversity because each of these authors happened to be a “white” European? Isn’t liberal education supposed to entail exposure to a variety of fundamental ideas, rather than to authors with particular, approved racial, ethnic, or gender backgrounds? And just who is going to be the curricular czar that imposes this sort of requirement: the dean? Department chairs? The Committee on Tenure and Promotion? I shudder at the thought. (It has never occurred to me, as a Jew, that such texts as I have mentioned, all of which I teach, along with classics of American political thought, are somehow alien to me because none of their authors shared my faith.)

It is thoroughly revealing that when it comes to the very aspect of diversity that properly pertains to the core mission of liberal education, a diversity of serious ideas, espoused by the greatest writers, the authors of the report show no interest whatsoever.

11. What can it mean to charge

in this same section, as a consultant is reported to have done, that Holy Cross suffers from a “Eurocentric and heterosexist curriculum”?

To paraphrase the novelist Saul Bellow, when you locate your Tahitian Tolstoy or your Amazonian Aristotle, I’ll be prepared to judge that Tolstoy and Aristotle should receive less emphasis in the curriculum than they currently do (which is in my opinion not enough). And “hetrerosexist”? Is it a sign of bias to believe that traditional, heterosexual marriage is an institution that should be encouraged as part of the bedrock not only of Western civilization, but of civilization as such? As a Catholic institution, is the College prepared to distance itself from the Church’s historical teaching in this regard?

The entire “Expert” report shows little appreciation for the cause of genuine liberal education or culture, defined by the great nineteenth-century critic Matthew Arnold as the study of “the best which has been thought and said” in the history of civilization. Far from being discriminatory its intent, culture, Arnold explained, “seeks to do away with classes” by spreading the cultivation of learning as widely as possible. It is by participating in and perpetuating that enterprise that Holy Cross can provide the greatest service

When it comes to the very aspect of diversity that properly pertains to the core mission of liberal education, a diversity of serious ideas, espoused by the greatest writers, the authors of the report show no interest whatsoever.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Frederick Douglass, & Friedrich Nietzsche

to all students, regardless of their race, class, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or any other arbitrary distinctions that the professional diversity industry seeks to impose on them. The value of understanding Western culture for African-Americans in particular was a point stressed by the great black leaders Frederick Douglass and W.E.B. DuBois. By contrast, multiculturalism, the ideology espoused in the Expert Committee’s report, is the enemy of culture, since it is essentially relativistic and seeks to erase the very qualitative distinctions that Arnold emphasized and DuBois and Douglass appreciated.

While the Expert Committee’s intentions were undoubtedly benign, the effects of its recommendations would be ruinous. I urge the faculty and administration not to follow them.

The Fenwick Review

8

April 2014

The Fenwick Review

April 2014

Russian Reconquista

Putin’s Imperial Vision and Eastern Europe J. Alex Cicchitti ‘15 Staff Writer In recent weeks, Russia, under the direction of President Vladimir Putin, has moved to annex the Crimean peninsula, a part of the sovereign state of Ukraine. World leaders have condemned the act and the United States and other Western powers have placed sanctions on Russian leaders and excluded Russia from the G8. Unfortunately, Russia’s recent violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty is not an isolated incident but rather a mere episode in a long line of actions that conform to Putin’s ultimate objective of reconstituting the Russian Empire; Putin’s Empire would be irreconcilable with the virtues of liberty and hostile to the United States.

In 2008, Russia invaded its southern neighbor, Georgia, with the pretense of protecting Russian citizens in the separatist provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgian aggression. Domestically, the Putin administration has infringed upon the freedom of the press, effectively sanctioned brutal assaults on the Russian homosexual population, and pandered to ultranationalist sentiment. In 2009, Russia shut off gas supplies to segments of Europe, essentially holding those economies hostage. Since 2000, the Russian defense budget has tripled according to Forbes Magazine, and according to the Stockholm International

Peace Research Institute, Russian defense spending is at its highest levels since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, making it the third highest military spender in the world.

In the past few weeks, Russia has annexed the Ukrainian province of Crimea under the pretense of protecting ethnic Russians from the “fascists.”

Now, at the time of the writing of this article, Russian troops have massed on Ukraine’s eastern border, and an invasion of the rest of the country could be imminent. According to CNN, U.S. officials are saying that close to 40,000 Russian soldiers have been deployed to the border with Ukraine, but Ukrainian officials claim that the number is closer to 88,000. Russian forces could seize control of much of Ukraine’s territory within two to three days of Putin giving the order to invade. Initially after promising to pull back the forces, Putin has kept them in place and withdrawn the Russian ambassador to NATO, an ominous sign for the future.

Russia’s desire for territory does not end with Ukraine though.

Officials in the Russian government have mentioned protecting the Russian population in Moldova, geographically located on the opposite side of Ukraine from Russia. Russia could use the same justification to invade Poland or Lithuania if it believes that its hold on Kaliningrad, a Russian province separated from Russia proper, is at risk. Significant ethnic Russian minorities populate the Baltic States, of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. In a 1998 article for

the journal World Affairs entitled “Russia, NATO Enlargement, and the Baltic states,” Professor Stephen Blank described the attitude of Russian leaders toward the Baltic states. According to Professor Blank, in the 1990s, Russia consistently accused the Baltic states of mistreating Russian minorities and made “protecting Russian minorities’ rights in the Baltic” a central piece of their foreign policy.

More than that, the Russian army practiced and discussed “invasion scenarios directed at the Baltic states,” and they threatened the Baltic states with nuclear attacks.

Russia has recycled this rhetoric in recent weeks and months. First, its primary stated motivation for the annexation of Crimea and violation of Ukrainian sovereignty was the protection of Russian-speaking people in that region. Secondly, Russia’s military threats have matched the threats of the 90s in violence and menace. The Russian military masses on Ukraine’s borders, preparing for an apparent invasion, and a Russian television com-

Russian ultranationalists in Moscow, waving Imperial Russian flags (Soure dw.de)

mentator recently threatened to turn the United States into “radioactive ash,” according to The Hill. Of course, media commentators in America make controversial and irresponsible statements all the time, but disturbingly, these comments come from a staterun media source, meaning that Putin or one of his associates approved the threat.

If Vladimir Putin has justified the conquest of Ukraine under the pretense of protecting Russians, he will attempt to do the same in other countries in Eastern Europe. Putin’s actions reflect the vision and desires of the Russian people as his popularity has shot to well over 75% since the annexation of Crimea, according to The Washington Post. Putin and Russia desire to reclaim their status as a world power and their influence over Eastern Europe. Russia yearns for the influence it once held on the world stage and refuses to recognize the fact that it lost the Cold War. What Putin seems to realize that much of the rest of his country does not though, is that Russia is a dying nation. The UN Department of Economics and Social Affairs reports that the Russian population is quickly shrinking and on its current path will lose almost 50 million people by the end of the century. Russia’s once rapid economic growth has ground to a halt, according to Henry Meyer of Businessweek.com.

Continued on page 9

9

Putin: A Conservative Ally?

Eric Kuhn ‘16 Staff Writer There is a legend in Russia, that Moscow is the third Rome. The first was Rome itself, the holy city that fell to the Goths in 476. Then, the successor was Constantinople which fell to the Turks in 1453. Thus the mantle of Christian civilization passed on to Russia, the last true defender of the faith, at least according to the old believers.

The endurance of this belief has been evident throughout this latter half of the reign of Vladimir Putin.

The alliance between Church and state in Russia is well known now, echoing a time when the tsar was himself considered a representative of God, actually above the church. The fruits of this alliance are manifest as the formerly atheist Soviet Union has experienced its ‘come to Jesus’ moment. A sea change has taken place where now over seventy percent of the

population considers itself Orthodox Christians. How many regularly attend church is something else entirely. Even currently, the Orthodox Church, financed by wealthy Russian oligarchs is constructing over 200 new churches in the city of Moscow alone. This would be an unprecedented, and probably unwelcome, effort in any other Western capital. This begs the question: Does Russia represent the values of the West better than the West does? Pat Buchanan, among many others, seems to think so, saying that Putin is now the global champion of social conservatism.

Putin seems to have accepted the role gladly. His language repeatedly references his imperial predecessors, especially Tsar Nicholas I who famously ran Napoleon (read the West) out of Russia. He has a close personal relationship with Patriarch Kirill of Russia, as well. The two have even built two new palaces next to each other on the Black Sea coast. With the

Church solidly behind him, Putin has been embarking on a domestic campaign to become the anti-west. Russia stands almost alone on the world stage as a developed country that is rejecting the “culture of death” as Blessed (soon to be Saint) John Paul II referred to abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia. In Putin’s own words he is trying to, “prevent movement backward and downward, into chaotic darkness and a return to a primitive state.”

Shockingly, Moscow is now the host of this year’s World Congress of Families. Even the World Conference of Families put “Russia Emerges as a Pro-family Leader” as one of their top trends of 2013. Certainly these measures were necessary because of Russia’s demographic situation. For more than a decade the country has been held up as an example to avoid with their dismal life expectancy, high abortion, and smoking rates. It was thought that the Russian population had declined to a point where it could not recover.

Could it be that Russia represents the last vestige of Christendom as an idea?

Putin responded by passing legislation rewarding large families, severely restricting abortions, and promoting traditional marriage. The pro-family measures that Putin has implemented resulted in the first signs of population growth in over a decade. Russia now serves as an example for Western countries to follow as they deal with their own population decline.

Continued on page 10

Russian Reconquista (cont.)

J. Alex Cicchitti ‘15 Staff Writer Continued from page 8 Despite the increases in defense spending, Russian conventional military forces have been obsolete since the end of the Cold War and their strategic nuclear forces slowly rot in illmaintained silos and submarines (see “The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy”

by Keir A. Leiber and Daryl G. Press).

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has suffered a long and slow decline. Instead of responding to these problems like a civilized country with economic growth programs, Putin has chosen the path of violent conquest as his last ditch effort to make Russia great again.

Outside of their desired empire in Europe, Russia is reasserting itself as a leader on the world stage, placing itself at the head of the anti-American world as was pointed out in Masha Geesen’s article for The Washington Post, “Russia is remaking itself as the leader of the anti-western world.” Russian support for the al-Assad regime in Syria and the Iranian effort to develop

a nuclear weapon is well documented.

The recent homophobic laws that have been passed by the State Duma are attractive to extremists in the Muslim world and the suppression of civil liberties puts Russia in the same category of authoritarian governments as China.

Putin is building a coalition of antiAmerican nations based on reactionary values that stand against liberty and self-governance.

This coalition will be Putin’s support network when he extends Russia’s tentacles into Eastern Europe. With all of the United States’ enemies at his back, he can cause global trouble if the United States or NATO tries to contain him. And if the West does not act to stop him, it appears that he will achieve his goal because the former Eastern bloc states do not have the conventional military power to match

Russia. A Russian re-conquest of former Soviet bloc states would once again draw an Iron Curtain over the continent and send the freedom-loving peoples of Eastern Europe back into the dark ages of oppression and fear.

The Claremont Institute told this heartbreaking anecdote in one of their articles about Russian oppression in Hungary: In 1956, the Hungarian people revolted and overthrew the Communist puppet regime in Budapest. Expecting American assistance, they thought that they had freed their country from Communist oppression.

But when the Soviet response crashed down upon Hungary and Soviet troops and tanks slaughtered the freedom fighters in the streets of Budapest, America stood by and watched.

As Soviet forces hunted down Hungarian dissidents, one of the last free

Attempting to emulate Peter the Great, Putin’s actions remind us more of Stalin.

Hungarian radio stations broadcasted a reading of Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address: “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.” The last noise heard on the radio was an “S.O.S.” Then silence.

Scenarios like this will happen again if Russian forces are allowed to march across the borders of the neighbors uninhibited. President Vladimir Putin stands at the head of his country in defiance of peace and freedom. Attempting to emulate Peter the Great, his actions remind us more of Stalin.

He has trampled the rights of homosexuals for personal gain, and he has done his best to limit all forms of domestic dissent in Russia. His associates use apocalyptic language to scare their neighbors and the western world. He accuses the United States of living by the “rule of the gun,” yet marches his military into peaceful neighbors for simply choosing a government not to his liking. He supports a nuclear Iran and the murderous government of Bashar al-Assad. He has fanned the flame of Russian ultranationalism into an inferno. Russia and Vladimir Putin are, as Mitt Romney similarly claimed, America’s enemies.

The Fenwick Review

10

April 2014

Putin: A Conservative Ally? (cont.)

Eric Kuhn ‘16 Staff Writer Continued from page 10 Vladimir Putin has even incorporated Christian symbolism into his foreign policy. Earlier in the year the holiest icon in Russian Orthodox Christianity, Our Lady of Kazan, was flown over the Black Sea and the Crimean Peninsula ostensibly to bless the opening of the Sochi Games. In the past however, the icon had only been

used to bless the battlefields where the forces of the Russian Empire were about to fight. The icon had even been brought to Stalingrad where it helped to successfully fight off the Nazi invasion.

Perhaps it is a bit presumptive to suggest that Putin had this in mind when he did his stunt. Besides this, Putin in his New York Times op-ed referred to the Christian basis for Russian civilization as opposed to the rampant secularism of the West. Even of the recent past, the Soviet Union, Putin speaks in condemnatory terms, saying of the Bolsheviks, “May God judge them.” In

the landmark speech announcing the re-annexation of the Crimean Peninsula he said as well, “Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values.

Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan. This is the path to degradation.” Could it be that Russia represents the last vestige of Christendom as an idea? Russia has the opportunity to become a rallying point for global conservatism. Unfortunately, it is likely that conservatives

in America will not be receptive toward this due to historical enmities and the usual war mongering that have marked the decline of the Republican Party.

Putin may very well be successful in his attempts to change the global regime.

He might even create a Holy Alliance for our age to fight the culture of death and mark a new era of national sovereignty. The nations would no longer be slaves to progressive supernational organizations that legislate against the beliefs and will of the people.

Bipartisan Fight to Re-Recognize College Republicans Patrick Horan ‘14 Co-Editor in Chief Late in the afternoon of Saturday, March 22, the Holy Cross College Republicans received an email from the Student Government Association (SGA) Senate informing them that “the Senate is not able to offer re-recognition to your [Recognized Student Organization] at this time” for next academic year. The email, signed by the Senate Speaker, stated, “The SGA Bylaws indicate that RSOs ‘maintain viable function, sustained participation, and continued leadership.’ We felt after our meeting that your organization did not meet these criteria.”

Three-year club co-chair, Alannah Heffernan ‘14, immediately responded to the email, writing that the decision was “ill-advised and should be reconsidered.” The College Republican e-board reached out to club members as well as friends, including College Democrats, to meet before the SGA Senate meeting the following day to discuss the decision further and to persuade the Senate to reverse its decision.

In little over 24 hours, a group of over 50 students, including Republicans, Democrats, libertarians, and independents, assembled at Cool Beans and walked up to the Senate meeting on the fourth floor of Hogan. Senate members explained that the CRs had made errors in filling out the paperwork for club re-recognition. However, in words not consistent with the email sent to the College Republicans the previous day, the Senate also explained that the

club had not been denied re-recognition, but that they had only been not recommended for re-recognition by the Senate RSO Re-recognition Committee. The upset College Republican leaders responded that the paperwork errors were minimal and that not recommending the club for re-recognition was a severe, overly punitive action.

They also demonstrated that the club had indeed met SGA Senate criteria of “maintained viable function” through meetings and political discussions it had held during the year as well as through the impressive showing at the Senate meeting. In an act of bipartisanship, the co-chairs, Jake Love ‘14 and Jack Green ‘16 of the College Democrats also spoke on the Republicans’ behalf. Green remarked that the College Republicans have been a “great ally,” and Love noted that it would “reflect poorly on the school” if the Democrats were allowed re-recognition, but the Republicans were not.

After a heated discussion between certain Senate members and the Republicans and their allies, the Senate reversed course and voted to rerecognize the club. Yea votes included Jake Bass ‘14, Christina Rudolf ‘14, Kylee Sullivan ‘14, Declan Foley ‘15, G. Matthew Greco ‘17, Fallon Parker

‘16, Meghan Taing ‘16, and Makayla Humphrey ‘15. Nays included Brian Beaton ‘16, Ed DeLuca ‘17, and Auranous Abhar ‘15. It was only at the insistence of SGA Judicial Council head Paul Hovey ‘14 and members of the audience that the vote was done in public. Overjoyed at the victory, Heffernan told The Fenwick Review, “I have never been more proud to be a Crusader than today. Thank you, fellow Republicans, Democrats, independents, and concerned students, who showed up tonight in support of the College Republicans. You inspire me!”

Fellow co-chair, Charlie Jakubik ‘14 proudly stated, ““We are so glad that the SGA Senate came to the right decision. We also thank everyone who showed up tonight to support us!” Secretary Ricky Gonzales ’14 said, “I think this was a victory for the entire Holy Cross Community. This goes to show that the student body cares about its voice and that it is willing to speak up when it feels that voice is threatened.” Democrat Jack Green told FR, “I was honored to show my support for College Republicans at their hearing, and could not have been more proud to voice my support for their group multiple times at the meeting.”

SGA Senators Parker and Bea-

ton met with the College Republican at the club’s next meeting on April 2. In a cordial conversation, Parker and Beaton talked with Republican leaders and members on possible ways to improve the re-recognition process in order to avoid such drama in the future. Although he had voted against the club’s re-recognition, Beaton was enthusiastic about new ways to better relations between the Senate and clubs on campus.

The possibility of having the Senate reach out to clubs prior to the re-recognition process to remind RSOs to meet SGA criteria was raised as a viable alternative to the present system. The College Republicans also expressed the need to improve SGA’s transparency as the original email seemed to incorrectly suggest that the club had already been denied re-recognition.

The Senate RSO Committee, whose votes and minutes are not public, erred in not recommending the College GOP for re-recognition for relatively small errors in filling out paperwork. The Senate failed to make clear what the actual procedure of the re-recognition process until the night of the March 23 Senate meeting. Although I cannot say for certain, I image that the large attendance that evening was probably the largest voluntary showing ever before at an SGA Senate meeting. Despite these mistakes, the SGA Senate should be commended for making the right decision in the end.

Senators Beaton and Parker, in particular, should be applauded for their willingness to learn from this event and taking positive steps toward improving the way college clubs are recognized on campus.

April 2014

The Fenwick Review

11

Against Artificial Birth Control On The Unitive Aspect of Sex

Steven Merola ‘16 & Micala Smith ‘16 Staff Writers There is a troubling and pervasive attitude about artificial birth control, in that it is accepted as normal, convenient and harmless. None of these attributes, however, prove to be true. Contraception is destructive to human nature primarily because it obstructs the unitive aspect of sex and affords an occasion for sexual objectification.

Have you ever heard the notion that each time you have intercourse with someone, you take a part of them with you? Metaphorically, for some this may be true. Sexual intercourse is an intimate act that directly connects a male and a female. The physical closeness of this act is undeniable. However, some research has shown that while engaging in sexual intercourse, one may be, quite literally, taking a part of their sexual partner with them.

Microchimerism “refers to a small number of cells (or DNA) harbored by one individual that originated in a genetically different individual” (PubMed). Fetal microchimerism would then refer to the small number of fetal cells remaining in the mother following her pregnancy.

This form of microchimerism has led to developments in the study of male microchimerism in females. Male microchimerism may not seem particularly notable in females who have given birth to sons, miscarried a male child, or aborted a male child, since male microchimerism would be expected in these situations. However, a study conducted by the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center showed that some females who had never been pregnant previously, but who had engaged in intercourse, exhibited male microchimerism. Thus, from intercourse alone, there is a potential for females to display male microchimerism; these females are harboring male genes and DNA that remain within their system.

This certainly legitimates the claim that one takes a part of one’s sexual partner with them.

There is a clear biological ex-

change of genes and DNA taking place between the male and female partners engaging in intercourse. This natural process is a bonding force, making sexual partners come together as one.

But what happens when one tries to block this natural exchange through means of artificial contraception? The two partners cannot fully unite as one; contraception is an impediment to the natural unity and intimate exchange meant to occur between the male and female. Inherently, the biological purpose of intercourse is to procreate. But in utilizing contraception to separate sex from procreation, the true nature of the sexual act is lost. In this, potential for objectification for the human person ensues.

Particularly for women, the effects of contraception can be farreaching. Research conducted by the Cancer Institute drew connections between negative medical effects and use of hormonal contraception, including “elevated risk of breast, cervical

and liver cancer for estrogen/ progestin pill users.” However, having risks associated with treatments or medications is not atypical as most medicine does carry with it some risks or side effects.

What does become questionable is the women’s role in carrying the burden of such risks. Why does this fall on the woman? If means of artificial contraception such as birth control were, in many cases, meant to be “freeing” for women, then how does this additional burden play into the situation?

Natural methods, such as Natural Family Planning (NFP) provide women with the ability to have a voice in planning a family through a non-invasive manner in which women monitor fertility signs. NFP gives validity

to the women’s feminine nature, without the burden of potential health risks and side effects.

Contraceptive use can corrode the woman’s femininity in the sense that it has the potential to lead to the objectification of women. By robbing women of that which their bodies are naturally meant to do as a result of sexual intercourse, that is, to procreate, contraception wears on that aspect of the woman’s femininity, rather than allowing her to freely express it.

Morally speaking, the greatest detriment that contraception presents is objectification. There is a unitive aspect to sexuality, in that it allows a man

is not merely a large hunk of flesh that we use to move. Rather, our physical bodies are an integral part of our human existence. Our body is part of who we are. How that body interacts with other, then, is of paramount importance to our human existence. The sexual act, the greatest thing one can do with one’s body, is the giving of this essential part of one’s existence to another, and in turn the reception of the other’s physical being.

Nothing could be more intimate than this; nothing could be so personal an experience. Its profundity is far beyond the realm of superficial, sensual pleasure, and instead extends to the core of our existence. In the total consummation of this unity, when the sexual act is perfected, a child is created.

Artificial birth control destroys this intimacy. All forms of contraception prevent the sexual act from being completed. In effect, it damages the act and reduces it to a less perfect form.

The partners are distanced from each other. Rather than truly uniting, they merely pretend to unite, held at a distance by the birth control.

The intimacy and depth of the act is replaced by a cold wall of separation, a shield from closeness.

This is the greatest tragedy of the rise of birth control: it has removed the intimate and replaced it with objectification. Contraceptive sex, robbed of the ability to create life, is instead used merely for sexual gratification. Each partner is simply a means unto the end of pleasure, a tool for the other’s lust, an object.

Contraceptive sex is not the exchange of being. It is a shrunken simulacrum of a truly splendid act. It perverts the sexual act, and misuses it for faulty ends.

Contraception is an impediment to the natural unity and intimate exchange meant to occur between the male and female

and a woman to share each other’s being. A single human person is incomplete: the man lacks the physical attributes of the woman, and the woman lacks the attributes of the man. When they meet in the sexual act, each shares with the other their unique physical being, and the human person is completed. In effect, the consummate sexual act is a giving of the self to another.

Consider: if sex is complete physical self-sacrifice, it is necessarily one of the greatest acts of love which a human being can partake in. The body

April 2014

The Fenwick Review

In Gratitude to Our Sponsors and Partners

12