December 2013

The

Fenwick Review Testimonium Perhibere Veritati

December 2013

Volume XXI, Issue 3

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

Joseph Stalin, Karl Marx, and Mao Zedong

On The Moral Consequences of “Capitalism” A Response to a Professor of Religious Studies

Professor David Schaefer Special Guest Contributor I was astonished to learn, in Patrick Horan’s excellent article responding to the “Christianity and Capitalism” faculty panel, that a member of Holy Cross’s Religious Studies department had described the “biggest failure” of capitalism as its “inability to adequately curtail environmental degradation.” Apparently this colleague is unaware that the countries experiencing by far the greatest environmental degradation over the past century have been the self-styled “socialist” regimes, including China, the former Soviet Union, and all former Soviet satellites.

Ideological dictatorships, whether of

the Marxist or Nazi varieties, have little incentive to respond to citizen concerns about the environment – precisely because they are dictatorships.

High officials of such regimes are well able to insulate themselves from the environmental effects of their policies; hence they focus instead on promoting enough “economic growth” to finance the military arsenals on which the regimes depend for their survival – along with the lucrative perks that the officials can glean from the economy.

(They can gain much more wealth and power from factory production than from environmental cleanups.)

To illustrate: just this past week alone, readers of the New York Times were shown multiple photographs of

Also in this Edition:

Top Employee Compensation Tables From IRS 990 Tax Forms ..... page 9

Chinese citizens covering their faces to try to protect themselves against Beijing’s horrifying (and quite visible) air pollution. Tens of thousands of Chinese people have lost their lives in recent years owing to such (preventable) disasters as floods, lax enforcement of building codes and regulations on food quality, and massive train accidents.

The situation in Russia and some of its former satellites is hardly much better, if at all. Meanwhile, it is worth remembering that the only nuclear-power accident ever to generate significant loss of life was the Chernobyl explosion in the Soviet Union – again, the result of the indifference of government officials, pressed only to generate “growth,” to citizen safety.

By contrast, the environmental situation in the U.S. and other liberal democracies is infinitely better – the result of the openness of our political system to the expression of citizen concerns, which has led to a massive improvement in air and water quality. (In fact, runaway bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency are currently seeking to impose pollution rules that go far beyond what would make any contribution to public health, but at considerable cost to taxpayers, without any statutory foundation whatsoever; the city of Worcester is currently endeavoring to defend its residents against such governmental overreach.)

Continued on page 6

Mythology, History, and Ideology

The Emergence of the Golden Dawn in Greek Politics Nikolas Churik ‘15 ~ Foreign Bureau Chief ..... page 13

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.

December 2013

Contents December 2013

Volume XXI, Issue 3

1 On The Moral Consequences of “Capitalism”

By Professor David Schaefer ~ Special Guest Contributor

3 The Editor’s Desk

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

4 Letter to the Editor

By Professor Noel D. Cary

5 Letter to the Editor

By Chaplain Paul Melley 5 A Response to Prof. Cary & Chaplain Melley

By Steven A. Merola ‘16 ~ Staff Writer

6 On The Moral Consequences of “Capitalism” (cont.)

By Professor David Schaefer ~ Special Guest Contributor

7 Drone Strikes Make Pakistan a Safer Place

By J. Alex Cicchitti ‘15 ~ Staff Writer

8 Some Additional Thoughts on Fishbowls

By Professor Daniel Klinghard ~ Special Guest Contributor

9 Top Employee Compensation Tables From IRS 990 Tax Forms

10 My Date with the NHS

By Chase Padusniak ‘15 ~ Staff Writer

11 Drone Strikes Make Pakistan a Safer Place (cont.)

By J. Alex Cicchitti ‘15 ~ Staff Writer

December 2013

The Fenwick Review

From the Editor’s Desk

The Fenwick Review 2013-2014 Staff

A Semester in Review

Co-Editors in Chief

This past All Saints’ Day Weekend, Editors Horan and Emerson sojourned to the Lone Star State of Texas to participate in the annual College Network Editor’s Conference in Fort Worth. Despite being labeled ‘Damned Yankees’ and variations of that term, we thoroughly enjoyed the experience of spending time with “like-minded liberty-loving students” from across the country. While we appreciated the charms of Southern Hospitality, we are glad to be back in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts.

As this semester quickly draws to a close, we would like to reflect on The Fenwick Review’s progress over the last few months. Since September, FR has increased its social media presence, reached out to other independent newspapers of the conservative and libertarian milieu, and elicited encouraging levels of feedback from students and staff at the College. In this issue particularly, many of the pieces respond to topics raised in the October issue.

We would like to thank Professors Cary, Klinghard, and Schaefer and Chaplain Melley for their intelligent and thought-provoking reac- Former Governor Jon Huntsman speaking in Hogan Ballroom (Photo Credit Worcester T&G) tions. It is inspiring to see this degree of interest, even if it is at times critical and blunt. We hope that such productive discourse will continue in the spring semester, and as always, we invite feedback from the Holy Cross community.

Turning to a recent, notable campus event, we applaud the Hanify-Howland Committee for their astute selection of Governor Jon M. Huntsman, Jr. as their annual keynote speaker. The former ambassador and governor and one-time Republican presidential candidate spoke with refreshing authenticity and hopefulness about the challenges facing the United States. Emerson, who generally is not receptive to such optimism, would like to register a note of approval for the message of the Governor’s warning against the dangers of excessive cynicism in American politics. There is a place for healthy skepticism regarding government, but the Governor correctly emphasized the importance of maintaining a positive disposition. Horan, who tended to agree with much of the speech, would like to express he was not entirely convinced of Huntsman’s claims on campaign finance and chooses to defer to the wisdom of Holy Cross’ Justice Clarence Thomas (Huntsman appeared critical of the decision Citizens United, which Thomas had signed).

We hope all students, faculty, staff, and their families had a blessed Thanksgiving. As the semester draws to a close, we wish the students the best of luck with their upcoming exams and paper deadlines (we especially empathize with those taking upper level political science courses). Finally, we wish our politically correct readers a moderately pleasant holiday season or winter solstice, while the rest of us enjoy a merry Christmas and a happy Hanukah!

Best wishes and, in the words of Tiny Tim, God bless us, everyone, Andrew D. Emerson ‘14 & Patrick J. Horan ‘14

12 Scientific Research: The People’s Lab

By Eric Kuhn ‘16 ~ Staff Writer

13 Mythology, History, and Ideology

By Nikolas Churik ‘15 ~ Foreign Bureau Chief

14 Faith in Government

By Steven Merola ‘16 ~ Staff Writer 15 Scientific Research: The People’s Lab (cont.)

By Eric Kuhn ‘16 ~ Staff Writer

3

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

J. Alex Cicchitti ‘15 Ken Jordan ‘14 Eric Kuhn ‘16 Joseph Lepera ‘14 Mary Maliszewski ‘14 Steven Merola ‘16 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

December 2013

Letter to the Editor

A Response to Steven Merola’s “Are Pianos Allowed?”

Professor Noel D. Cary Professor of History & Artist-in-Residence Editors: I was pleased to note your call in the last issue of The Fenwick Review for letters from those who disagree with views expressed in your publication. Let me take issue, then, with Staff Writer Steven Merola’s remarkable assertion (in “Are Pianos Allowed?”

Fenwick Review, October 2013) that only pipe organs are suitable for use in divine worship, and for growing closer to God.

As a historian, a churchgoing searcher, and a musician, I have a number of objections. Mr. Merola asserts that if music is used in the secular world, it is inappropriate in church.

He then lists instruments and genres, including pianos, horns, guitars, rock music, jazz, and secular classical music, that he places beyond the pale. He seems at best unaware, at worst disrespectful, of the historical frequency with which composers for all of those instruments and in all of those genres have explicitly written sacred music.

Nor does he have even the time of day for the concept that the creative spark

behind all “great” music, even “secular” music, is a gift given by God. When I play “Amazing Grace,” Duke Ellington’s “Come Sunday,” or portions of his “Sacred Concert” on my saxophone, sometimes in church, I somehow fail to register how much I damage my congregation’s opportunity to grow closer to God. My ignorance extends also to my having played Mozart’s clarinet concerto and Brahms’s sonatas. Gospel-singing congregants seem similarly unaware that they are missing the One True Path to “devotion.” And the same, I suppose, applies to audiences in ancient church-

es who were misled for centuries, all for lack of a pipe organ.

It strikes me that God created humans with a great deal of diversity.

While some reach devotion through playing or hearing the pipe organ, others might find God in other ways. That fact, it strikes me, might be cause for reverent celebration. While Mr. Merola seems to deify the pipe organ, I would prefer to deify God. Noel D. Cary Professor of History at Holy Cross and Artist-in-Residence, First Unitarian Church of Worcester

Letter to the Editor

A Second Response to Steven Merola’s “Are Pianos Allowed?”

Paul Melley Director of Liturgical Music and Asst Chaplain Dear Editors, I write in response to Mr. Steven Merola’s article “Are Pianos Allowed?” (October 2013, p. 5). I applaud that matters of liturgy, worship, and liturgical music are actively being engaged as topics in a student newspaper. However, the article is rather facile, and makes a number of assertions that belie a fundamental misunderstanding of the origins of instrumental music, the organ, the liturgical documents, and pastoral practice.

Much of the article is predicated on a false premise, that is: the organ is inherently more sacred than other instruments (in this case the piano). There is much one could say in response, however, I will limit myself to a few; Church documents, western liturgical music, and theology in the context of worship.

Firstly, a good understanding of the authority of different ecclesial documents is required. Not all documents hold the same authority or weight. That is to say, at the top of authoritative documents are apostolic constitutions and decrees by popes. The first document promulgated by the Council, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacro-

sanctum Concilium) is a binding legislative document governing Roman Catholic worship and in no way states that pianos are not to be used. To weigh it against a 110 year old Motu Proprio is inappropriate and confuses the issue.

There is more to say on this, but this format dictates brevity. If Mr. Merola would like to discuss this further, I’m glad to have a conversation. Simply, we can have differences of taste and style, and at Holy Cross we have tried to offer a wide variety of styles to accommodate students.

However, it is ultimately appropriate and prayerfully chosen music, well executed, that most helps the assembled believers to encounter the Risen Christ. In my twenty years of music ministry, more often than not, this is best achieved by a wide variety of styles and presentations.

Secondly, Western liturgical music is not as ossified as one might think or glean from some Church documents. Surprisingly, a historical no-

tion of a repository of church music does not emerge until the Renaissance period. What we today experience as liturgical music can be traced to the early praise and Temple worship of the Jewish people, and then correspondingly, to the use of psalmody in nascent Christian communities in the first century. The music of Gregorian chant developed through the monastic tradition in the tenth century and with it, musical notation. Liturgical music will continue develop just as it always has done.

Thirdly, the arguments employed by Mr. Merola against the piano and in favor of the organ, are the very arguments to exclude the organ. He writes, “[t]ake, for example, the employment of the piano during mass[sic]. Think of where the piano is most commonly used: the theater, television shows, movies, lounges, and other such secular institutions. Further, the piano is associated with the genres such as jazz, rock and classical secular music- all of

The last time many people on this campus heard the organ was likely game four of the World Series.

which are thoroughly nonreligious.”

This is a specious argument and shows a very limited exposure to the history of the organ as an instrument. Certainly the origins of the organ are not sacred, and we don’t have to search too hard in our culture for the use of organ at ballparks, skating rinks, soap operas, rock and jazz music, the accompaniment in silent movies and in cinemas and in theaters. The last time many people on this campus heard the organ was likely game four of the World Series. It is not the organ itself that is sacred, or for that matter, the piano that is profane.

There is something much more profound at work here.

Sanctity and sacredness are not contained within the tools that we use to build the Reign of God, but rather in the human artists, created in the image and likeness of God, that use them, and in the prayerfulness in which they are employed. Additionally, having attended Mass as distantly as Africa and Australia, Ireland and Italy, and closer to home around the U.S., the organ is a rather Western-centric one, and begins with a priority for a particular culture (note: “of the world”) rather than what is required of worship by God. Indeed, much of the world does not worship with instruments other than the human voice and a simple drum, either for cultural reasons or a lack of means.

Continued on page 5

December 2013

The Fenwick Review

5

Letter to the Editor (cont.)

A Second Response to Steven Merola’s “Are Pianos Allowed?”

Paul Melley Director of Liturgical Music and Asst Chaplain Continued from page 4 I think a better question to ask is: what is the primary instrument for praising God? The answer of course is the human voice; God created it and everyone has one ready for worship.

Finally, the categories of sacred vs. profane and secular vs. religious require a highly nuanced discussion. I find it very unfortunate that in our day, Catholics promote an attitude characterized in the article by the following, “Instead, by inserting a secular instrument into divine worship, the mind is drawn away from the glory of God and instead towards the worldliness which the piano represents.” And further, “Instead, the use of secular instruments exalts neither God nor the faithful, but instead lowers the mass[sic], the divine liturgy[sic], to the level of the world.

This entirely defies the purpose of the mass[sic].” This, quite frankly, falls under the umbrella of Gnosticism, an early heresy in the Christian community in the 1st and 2nd Centuries.

The Gnostics felt that matter was evil, which stands in opposition to Catholic teaching. From the very first chapter of the bible, Genesis 1:31, “And God saw everything that he had made, and

behold, it was good, it was very good.”

Not good as in “nice job”, but good as in “of God” or “holy” by virtue of it having been made by the all good Creator.

If matter is evil (and by extension “the world”) then Jesus Christ could not be true God and true man, for Christ is not evil.

This is the great Catholic sacramental principle: The universe is good, and God gave us the universe as gifts, which we return to God in worship and service and gratitude. Indeed all we have is of the world and is taken up in the liturgy. We use bread and wine, water and oil, incense and candles, our bodies, and yes, music.

From the Catechism, article 299, Because God creates through wisdom, his creation is ordered: “You have arranged all things by measure and number and weight.” The universe, created in and by the eternal Word, the “image of the invisible God”, is destined for and addressed to man, himself created in the “image of God” and called to a

personal relationship with God. Our human understanding, which shares in the light of the divine intellect, can understand what God tells us by means of his creation, though not without great effort and only in a spirit of humility and respect before the Creator and his work. Because creation comes forth from God’s goodness, it shares in that goodness - “and God saw that it was good. . . very good”- for God willed creation as a gift addressed to man, an inheritance destined for and entrusted to him. On many occasions the Church has had to defend the goodness of creation, including that of the physical

world.

What this article highlights for me is that the very identity of the Body of Christ, the Church, should be in communion with each other— meaning (in part) good will and dialoge. Certainly, if there are questions or concerns that he has regarding liturgy, there are many people to speak with on our campus, either in the Chaplain’s office, or the Religious Studies department, or in the Jesuit Residence at Ciampi Hall.

Paul Melley Director of Liturgical Music & Assistant Chaplain

A Response to Prof. Cary & Chaplain Melley Steven A. Merola ‘16 Staff Writer Dear Prof. Cary and Chaplain Melley, I would first like to thank both of you for your interest in my article, and also for affording me an opportunity for clarification I only ask that you forgive my brevity.

It is true that all great works of art and music are divinely inspired, and it is not my intent to diminish the great compositions of the past, secular and otherwise. Allow me to draw an analogy to illustrate my point: a work

such as The Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis is doubtless a work of divine inspiration, for it eloquently allegorizes Christian belief. Nevertheless, on Easter Sunday should we read about the resurrection of Aslan instead of the Resurrection of Christ? I think not. As wonderful as Narnia is, it is not fitting for the Mass, where the Truth of God’s presence should be made as explicit as possible.

This is the central point: in the Catholic Mass, Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, becomes truly present in the Eucharist.

Heaven kisses earth. Thus, the liturgy should be made as entirely non-mundane as possible to reflect this Truth.

A part of this is ensuring that Sacred Music is entirely non-secular, so that the True Presence is not diminished.

As I interpret the Church’s instructions, she teaches that the organ, with its grand and magnificent sound, can most effectively convey that Truth.

Finally, allow me to speak with respect to the documents themselves.

You are correct of course, Chaplain Melley, in saying that Sacrosanctum concilium does not directly forbid the use of the piano, or other such instruments. Nevertheless, we ought not to look at Vatican II as a point of change, but rather in continuity with what preceded it. The Church, as we profess, is one, and rupture does not befit her

nature. Further, sacrosanctum concilium does not expressly allow for pianos, but rather institutes a set of instructions, the language of which draws strongly from Tra le Sollectudini and De sacra liturgia. Therefore, it is not unreasonable, given this continuity, that the earlier prohibition against pianos remains relevant in light of Vatican II. Again, I thank you for your interest in my article. A response to any of my work is always most welcome.

Best regards, Steven A. Merola

The Fenwick Review

6

December 2013

On The Moral Consequences of “Capitalism” A Response to a Professor of Religious Studies Professor David Schaefer Special Guest Contributor Continued from page 1 As for the professor’s citation of carbon dioxide emissions as a supposed failure of capitalism: assuming that such emissions are indeed an environmental problem, it should first be noted that China, owing not only to its larger population but also to indifference to the phenomenon, emits far more than the U.S. does. But in any event, such emissions – aside from the contribution that every human being and other mammal makes to them just by exhaling – are an inevitable byproduct of industrialization, rather than of “capitalism.” Does the professor wish for the world to be de-industrialized?

Does he think that our cities would be cleaner if, instead of automobiles, we again relied for transportation on horses, dumping their poop throughout the streets?

Politically correct opinion to the contrary notwithstanding, there is still serious room for doubt whether the world is actually threatened with rising temperatures as the result of CO2 emissions: the annual increase in such emissions has slowed or stopped over the past 15 years (hence the change from use of the term “global warming” to the generic “climate change,” as if change in either direction is a problem), and temperature changes over the past century pale in comparison with major swings in world climate over past centuries (the result of sunspot variations, among other causes). But that aside, it is the U.S., far more than non-capitalist societies, that has pursued earnest efforts (for better or worse) to reduce such emissions in ways that do not destroy our citizens’ standard of living.

Of course we emit more carbon dioxide than do most countries – because we produce far more economic goods than they do.

I note that the professor also complained about growing income inequality in the U.S. and the fact that millions of people in this country “struggle to make ends meet.” The quickest means to reduce the growth of inequality and the number of poor people in this country would be to block all immigration (except for the wealthy or highly educated) and expel

all the millions of illegal immigrants, the vast majority of whom arrive here poor – not at all a course that I or, I presume, the professor advocates. But so long as we remain open to immigration, there are always going to be more poor people arriving here – apparently convinced, as I gather the professor is not, that America remains (as it was for my immigrant father and grandparents) the land of opportunity. As studies from the University of Michigan Panel Survey on Income Dynamics have demonstrated over the decades, while the U.S. has long been characterized by extensive economic inequalities, large numbers of Americans rise from lower to higher economic quintiles in each decade, which means that those inequalities are not fixed: in many instances it is new immigrants who take the place of those who formerly occupied the lowest economic ranks. And if, as Mr. Horan indicates, the professor acknowledged that capitalism has “helped provide good things, including basic necessities for life,” for many people, why should anyone be bothered by the fact that it hasn’t helped all people “equally”? Does the professor know of any economic system that ever helped all the people of a nation equally? And has any economic system provided not only the income support for the poor but the health and life expectancy for all people afforded by modern commercial republics like the U.S.?

Finally, I must note that the very term “capitalism,” as I never cease to remind my esteemed friend and colleague Professor Brand (who organized the panel, a great service to the College) is a misnomer. It was a pejorative label coined to describe the modern free-enterprise system, or market economy, by the greatest enemy of that system, the founder of Communism, Karl Marx. The intent of the label was to signify that market economies somehow serve the interests of “capital” as

distinguished from human beings. But as all economists know, there is no economic system that does not depend on “capital” (accumulated wealth available to generate production) in some form or other: agricultural land, bank accounts, factories, natural resources, “human capital” (including both a trained labor force and other potential workers), and intellectual capital (acquired knowledge). What distinguishes so-called capitalism from alternative economic systems (feudalism, socialism) is not its reliance on “capital,” but the freedom it provides to everyone to advance his economic well-being through his own labor, enterprise, and savings. Not surprisingly, the result of that system has been to raise the standard of living of the vast majority of people far beyond that of any other peoples who have lived. The chief beneficiaries of “capitalism,” as the great free-market economist Milton Friedman emphasized, were not the rich – who in previous eras had servants to meet the needs that technology now helps satisfy for all, from transporting them and preparing their food to emptying their chamber-pots - but the common people.

The policy that President Obama has consistently advocated of using government to redistribute wealth – even, he acknowledged during a 2008 interview, if it means lowering the country’s

Capitalism provides the freedom to everyone to advance his economic well-being through his own labor, enterprise, and savings.

The Fenwick Review

December 2013

On The Moral Consequences of “Capitalism” A Response to a Professor of Religious Studies Professor David Schaefer Special Guest Contributor Continued from page 6 Marx’s and Engels’s hypocrisy exemplified a temptation that has never ceased to tempt subsequent generations of well-off socialist and leftist intellectuals.

No sensible person would disagree with the religious-studies professor’s warning that human beings risk dehumanization if they abandon such checks on materialism as faith and family. But this strikes me as something of a straw man. America, the world’s preeminent commercial republic, remains far more of a churchgoing nation than its counterparts in Europe (so many of whose intellectual elite enjoy expressing contempt for both our alleged materialism and our religious “superstition”).

I have never known anyone who suf-

overall standard of living – amounts to killing the goose that provides our golden eggs. Its underlying motive is nothing but the cardinal sin (according to traditional Christian teaching) of envy.

Marx himself, one might note, was a notoriously poor provider for his own family. In fact, ironically enough, he depended for most of his subsistence on gifts from his collaborator in inventing modern Communism, Friedrich Engels – whose wealth derived from the factories he owned in England, part of the very factory system the injustice of which the two would-be revolutionaries were busily denouncing! Far from transcending materialism, Marx consistently called himself a materialist, and his correspondence with Engels displays a never-ending concern with keeping his money supply flowing. (Marx also made ample use of the free library facilities made available to him by London’s British Museum, financed of course with the assistance of Britain’s commercial wealth – as well as profiting from the freedom to speak his mind, and even spout unlimited political nonsense, that “bourgeois” nineteenth-century Britain and America, unlike most nations that have existed in the world, afforded their residents.)

Continued on page 7

7

fered from an “idolatry” of the market (a vice, perhaps, of the rather silly novelist and self-styled “philosopher” Ayn Rand, but fortunately few others). And – once Americans grow out of the period of extended adolescence and hedonism that our contemporary culture unfortunately encourages them to pursue through their 20’s – most citizens today still do choose to have families, and indeed find in their children their chief motive for pursuing economic and professional success. (By contrast, the birthrate under the post-communist but still dictatorial and kleptocratic Russian regime has plummeted as an apparent result of popular despair over the absence of opportunity for honest self-advancement, while China is increasingly suffering the grievous demographic results of its brutally enforced “one-child” policy, i.e., a rapidly aging population.) One might also note that the scale of philanthropy – including contributions that maintain educational

institutions like Holy Cross – in America dwarfs that in any other nation.

Such philanthropy, of course, presupposes the prior acquisition of wealth.

American society today suffers from numerous problems – including the growing illegitimacy rate, resulting in millions of fatherless, undisciplined children growing up in our worst urban neighborhoods, and therefore unequipped to profit from education so as to achieve vocational success; morally degrading popular media; indifference to the lives of the unborn, including the victims of late-term abortions; a culture of dependency, fed by an ever-expanding government (most obviously, but far from exclusively, the Obama administration); the decline of serious liberal education based on the classics in favor of trendiness and political correctness; and a growing reluctance by many Americans to accept the burdens (financial and otherwise) of defending our freedoms, and those

of other nations, against the threat of murderous terrorists and tyrannies (Iran, North Korea) who are bent on our destruction. But none of these is the result of the free-enterprise system, a great good not only in itself, but as a bulwark (as such philosophers as John Locke and the Baron de Montesquieu taught us) of our other political and personal freedoms, and ultimately of human dignity itself. As Alexis de Tocqueville demonstrated some 180 years ago in Democracy in America, a properly regulated free economic system harmonizes with, rather than weakening, the virtues of self-government, what are now called “family values,” and voluntary but nonetheless earnest popular religious piety.

Sincerely, David Lewis Schaefer Professor of Political Science

Drone Strikes Make Pakistan a Safer Place A Response to “Pakistan Infuriated by Tehrik-i-Taliban Leader’s Death” operations against Coalition forces in J. Alex Cicchitti ‘15 Afghanistan and the Pakistani people.

Staff Writer The most interesting part of the article appeared towards the end, In an article from the Novem- where Mr. Hassanzoy detailed the reber 8th edition of The Crusader, “Paki- sponse of Pakistani officials to the neustan Infuriated by Tehrik-i-Taliban tralization of the Taliban’s leader, sayLeader’s Death,” Mr. Ahmad Nabi ing, “Mehsud’s death has led to anger Hassanzoy wrote of the recent drone in Pakistan. Pakistani officials are afraid strike that eliminated the leader of the Pakistani Taliban: “Last Friday, an unmanned U.S. drone targeted the vehicle and compound of Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan leader Hakimullah Mehsud near Waziristan region of Miranshah, Pakistan.” Mr. Hassanzoy then continued to describe Mehsud’s background and his various terrorist activities in the region.

Mehsud had been active in terrorism in Pakistan for a number of years and had taken part in a number of

that their peace efforts may not have much importance in a time when the Pakistani Taliban has called to cancel any talks with Pakistani officials.” He then continued, quoting the Pakistani Interior Minister, Cahudry Nisar Ali Khan. He stated that “Pakistani officials have termed the killing of Mehsud an effort of the U.S. to sabotage Islam-

abad’s plan of peace talks with Pakistani Taliban claiming that ‘this is a drone (attack) on the peace efforts in Pakistan.” Khan said further, according to Mr. Hassanzoy, “the Americans don’t want peace in Pakistan. We will have to devise some concrete policy on drone attacks. Pakistan will have to talk with U.S. to seek explanations of its actions from U.S. ambassador in Pakistan.”

These assertions characterize the displeasure with American drone policy that has taken root among Pakistani politicians and media, and the title of the article mentioned above focuses on that exact discontent. Both of these neglect the idea that drone strikes are good for Pakistan because the Pakistani media has constructed the outrage against drone strikes.

Continued on page 11

The Fenwick Review

8

December 2013

Some Additional Thoughts on Fishbowls A Response the FR’s Views on Fishbowls

Professor Daniel Klinghard Special Guest Contributor I appreciate the skepticism about the current trend of fishbowling promoted in the last issue of The Fenwick Review. At the College, we do tend to fall into patterns for public events, and when following the trend substitutes for a thoughtful approach to addressing public events, the campus culture suffers. Were every campus event a fishbowl, we would indeed be in a very bad place.

However, I’d like to offer a correction to the portrayal of recent fishbowls in the Review, and a partial defense of fishbowls.

imagine, for instance, that any of these situations would have been exceedingly uncomfortable at the recent fishbowl on the recent Supreme Curt rulings on Voting Rights Act and gay marriage.

To the extent that such a situation is set up by any fishbowl event, planners should reexamine their pretensions to neutrality.

This does, perhaps, speak to a larger problem with campus culture--it is concerning that students and/or faculty would feel uncomfortable expressing opinions deemed unpopular. But to the extent that this is the case, quibbling over the format of discussions is beside the point. In the meantime, the format of the fishbowl is structured to require multiple positions, presenting

position when the opportunity is freely offered is an act with consequences.

This might be resolved by individuals who are not merely happy to nurture their own opinions and to perfect their capacity to repeat them, but who feel a sense of enterprising responsibility to ensure that their opinions are robustly defended in the marketplace of ideas. It might require that they endure some discomfort. It might be met with some hostility. But I am not convinced that either is a sufficient excuse on a campus capable of producing as intellectually-serious a journal as The Fenwick Review.

This brings me to my soft--very soft--defense of the fishbowl. I’ll focus on the Snowden fishbowl in which I

brought to the tiny little round table in the middle of the room. Prof. Bruce Bunke’s background in the intelligence community, Prof. Constance Royden’s command of the ethical issues facing programmers, David Shettler’s experience in managing Internet security for the College, and student Marios Dardos’s familiarity with the facts and issues of the case, led to an informative discussion of the big technical, legal, economic, foreign policy, and political issues surrounding these revelations. If you’re not interested in an informative discussion of technical issues I suppose it wasn’t for you.

It may be true that we did not spend enough time discussing potential punishment for Snowden--a subject

The Fenwick Review

December 2013

9

Holy Cross Employee Compensation Tables From IRS 990 Tax Forms* 2012

$16,794

$627,120

$314,959

$34,557

$27,264

$22,026

$398,806

0

$354,484

0

$1,500

$355,984

V.P. for Admin. & Finance Senior V.P.

$248,412

$27,156

$27,264

$32,090

$334,922

$243,284

$18,812

$27,264

$41,518

$330,878

Chief Investment Officer V.P. for Academic Affairs Head Men’s Basketball Coach (ret.)

Professor Emeritus of Sociology Director of Athletics

$240,051

$34,563

$27,084

$22,207

$323,905

0

$259,967

0

$21,137

$281,104

$72,312

$176,497

$7,787

$20,591

$277,187

$217,060

$8,760

$22,599

$1,550

$249,969

$165,517

$27,597

$18,510

$23,707

$235,331

Head Football Coach Biology Professor

$170,084

$13,031

$19,464

$27,080

$229,659

$180,701

$1,143

$20,398

$23,605

$225,847

V.P. for Student Affairs

$10,822

$5,003

$18,444

$24,707

$212,121

$174,007

$6,757

$19,407

$7,570

$207,741

Treasurer and CIO (ret.)

Head Men’s Basketball Coach Controller

Michael Lochhead Frank Vellaccio Timothy Jarry Sean Kearney David Hummon Timothy Austin Richard Regan Jr. Thomas Gilmore Mary Lee Ledbetter Jacqueline Peterson Alan Avery-Peck

0

$610,326

William Durgin

Robert Grenon

Other Comp.

Non-taxable Benefits

Position

Milan Brown

Base Compensation

Reteriment/ Deferred Comp.

0

Name

Prof. of Judaic Studies

Total

Average Salaries for Instructors: $52,989, Assistant Professors: $63,294, Associate Professors: $82,804, Professors:$116,128 (Source www.educationnews.org)

This information was acquired from GuideStar, a “public charity that collects, organizes, and presents” federal tax information on nonprofit groups. The information for Holy Cross can be found at http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/04-2103558/college-holy-cross.aspx.

Send us your thoughts on the Holy Cross’ salaries and they will be published in the next issue of The Fenwick Review First and foremost, there is nothing in the nature of fishbowls that prohibits debate or contrary views. In fact, in organizing the fishbowl events referred to in the Review, Tom Landy of the McFarland Center has sincerely sought participants willing to present contrary views. It has, however, has proven difficult to identify participants willing to orally defend the respectable opinions that the Review is so effective at conveying in print. If some fishbowls have been a bit one-sided, some-not all, but some--of the blame is to be found in the failure of those who hold contrary positions to speak up.

I do not believe that it would resolve the problem to simply have a token contrarian at each fishbowl, an arrangement that would be neither fully informative nor fair to participants defending unpopular opinions. Nor is it reasonable to expect one student to be required to represent the unpopular opinion in a faculty-heavy fishbowl, or to expect the same faculty members to continually serve as the go-to fish for any given unpopular position. I can

an opportunity to those who hold unpopular positions to valiantly promote them publically, making it seem acceptable and even desirable to hold those positions.

The problem for those who hold such positions is that failure to participate looks to many as if the positions are not worth defending, or worse are held by individuals incapable of launching an intellectual defense. The choice not to participate is, in this sense, not neutral. One does not get to simply opt out, and it is not merely because without the representation of the unpopular position, the fishbowl format becomes one-sided; failure to speak for one’s

participated. Mr. Emerson is absolutely correct that the participants agreed that Snowden had done a service of sorts, and that his revelations about NSA spying activities were concerning. To suggest, however, that the takeaway was that everyone agreed obscures the range of opinions expressed and the scope of issues covered.

B u t more important, to attend that fishbowl and only observe that nobody recommended that Mr. Snowden be drawn and quartered is to throw out the baby with the bathwater. What was really interesting-well, I thought so, but as a participant you should probably not take my word for it--was what each participant

Failure to speak for one’s position when the opportunity is freely offered is an act with consequences.

that really only occupied the last two or so minutes. (Although, as I recall, this brought out a range of suggestions ranging from a full presidential pardon, to a partial pardon, to two or three years in prison, to ten to twenty years in prison. Admittedly no one was so bold as to recommend drawing and quartering. Perhaps the fact that we stayed within the bounds of penalties spelled out by statute and the Constitution represented an overly-conservative approach to the matter.) If our assessment that Snowden’s punishment deserved minimal attention represents a loaded panel, it is because we all found the broader questions about the power of an increasingly powerful government surveillance bureaucracy more of a fundamental threat to our liberties than a young man with a laptop and a journalistic outlet.

But the bigger issue is this: Had someone felt the obligation to defend the position of the drawing and quartering camp, he would have been met with...what? Probably relief that someone had injected a little divisiveness.

Continued on page 12

2011 $529,316

Reteriment/ Deferred Comp. $27,264

Non-taxable Benefits $21,177

$897,726

$235,008

$29,669

$27,264

$29,599

$321,540

$152,341

$136,874

$9,938

$18,753

$317,906

$239,111

$19,204

$27.264

$26,747

$312,326

V.P. for Development and Alumni Relations

$178,582

$65,948

$21,826

$14,848

$281,204

Biology Professor

$121,622

$126,557

$12,713

$19,484

$280,376

Head Men’s Basketball Coach Professor Emeritus of Sociology Director of Athletics

$209,811

$11,615

$20,439

$13,487

$255,352

$202,837

$11,438

$22,224

$1,503

$238,002

$161,320

$27,595

$17,948

$22,154

$229,017

Chief Investment Officer Head Women’s Basketball Coach Controller

$183,522

$1,776

$5,883

$35,406

$226,587

$149,636

$27,086

$16,857

$24,722

$218,301

$192,387

$2,837

$18,877

$3,122

$217,223

V.P. for Student Affairs General Counsel

$159,582

$5,674

$17,821

$22,832

$205,909

$150,874

$502

$16,368

$10,091

$177,835

Name

Position

Base Comp.

Other Comp.

William Durgin

Treasurer and CIO (ret.)

V.P. for Admin. & Finance V.P. for Academic Affairs Senior V.P.

$319,969

Michael Lochhead Sean Kearney Frank Vellaccio Michael Perry Mary Lee Ledbetter Milan Brown Timothy Austin Richard Regan Jr. Timothy Jarry William Gibbons Robert Grenon Jacqueline Peterson Timothy F. Mines

Total

10

The Fenwick Review

December 2013

My Date with the NHS

FR’s Foreign Bureau Reports on the UK’s National Health Service I was laughed at when I asked how I Chase Padusniak ‘15 would ever afford medical coverage in Staff Writer another country. It was also good to see salt-of-the-earth people with real So, I just had a date with the medical conditions get the help they NHS. Honestly, it could’ve gone bet- deserved. All three of my roommates ter. Sure, she paid for everything and were nice men. None were supremely the place wasn’t too bad, but the ser- well-educated, and I doubt any of them vice was a little slow and I occasionally would have had wonderful coverage in caught myself stealing glances at Miss the good ole US of A. Yet, in Britain, Free-Market healthcare on the other side of the restaurant.

Jokes aside, my recent stay with the NHS could’ve gone a lot worse. I was taken care of, I paid nothing, and the nurses’ uniforms were a little like something out of a 1950s hospital, where nurses smoked and pantyhose were the norm. But it also could’ve gone a lot better. I felt as if I were held for too long; the service was generally slow; and while I try to be very tolerant of those in the medical profession, I heard a girl writhing in pain, screaming like some disembodied voice out of the shadowy recesses of a horror-film hallway, denied additional care. It’s very possible that nothing could actually have been done for her, sure. But just they were treated just like anyone else, hearing those screeches was enough to and although they’ll possibly have lifeleave an indelible mark on my experi- long wounds to mend, they left happy ence. and relatively healthy.

That isn’t to say that universal And that’s the really positive healthcare doesn’t have its clear advan- thing I took away from my liaison with tages. The whole thing was free and the NHS: people matter. Big or small, the care itself was nowhere near sub- every human life has intrinsic value. par by American standards. I also don’t As a Catholic, I oppose abortion, the recall anyone trying to remove any of death penalty, euthanasia, and physimy organs while I slept. To be honest, cian-assisted suicide. Healthcare can’t

just be something I try to forget about.

I’m not coming out in support of universal healthcare, nor do I pretend that a country like the US can hope to afford any more massive increases in government spending, but I did appreciate seeing microcosmic examples of human love and affection. I saw a sick man with a tube in his guts visited by his toddler daughter, welling up with

pride and affection, knowing that this mishap wouldn’t jeopardize his child’s future. Just knowing that such a system allowed for the average human being to prosper meant something to me. For a moment, the issue wasn’t one of markets, tax pledges, or gerrymandering, but one of that most important and yet most mysterious of human anomalies: love.

Unfortunately, my own health-

care experiences were nowhere near as pregnant with genuinely loving human interaction. I was at what is supposedly one of the best hospitals in all of Britain and yet I found it hardly better than the ones I’ve stayed in in the US. My doctor was, unfortunately, away in China while I was sick and so I was held for several days longer than expected, existing in a sort of socialized limbo, unsure of whether I was still sick or if the staff just really liked having an OldEnglish-obsessed yank around. The staff seemed even more overworked than in the US and, even when they weren’t, they seemed so exhausted that it didn’t matter. Bureaucratic red tape is a real thing.

So, I suppose this story really isn’t about whether or not Obamacare is a good idea (it isn’t) or whether human love can overcome all sorts of seemingly insurmountable struggles (it can). It’s about my date with the NHS; it’s about recognizing that not every issue is simple and politically reducible.

You won’t see me taking to the streets any time soon, chanting in the name of more equitable healthcare. At the same time, I don’t know that I’ll ever forget seeing a man, deep in his own suffering, bag hanging from his stomach, holding the hand of a girl my age, who was writhing in a void of endless and unforgettable pain. My date with the NHS was a complicated one. Sure she covered the check, but at the end of the day, I’m the one who came away with something new.

Need Money for Graduate School?

Apply for an ISI Fellowship

December 2013

The Fenwick Review

Drone Strikes Make Pakistan a Safer Place (cont.)

A Response to “Pakistan Infuriated by Tehrik-i-Taliban Leader’s Death” J. Alex Cicchitti ‘15 Staff Writer Continued from page 7 The Pakistani media benefits from inflaming anti-American sentiment similar to rabble-rousers in the United States like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh who make provocative remarks with the intent of inciting anti-government or anti-liberal sentiment, which in turn, raises their ratings. Also as in America, such rhetoric by the Pakistani media is preventing effective policy from taking hold. By rallying the Pakistani people against American drone strikes in the Waziristan regions, the Pakistani media has turned Pakistanis against the most effective weapon in defending them from Islamic extremism.

In a 2012 edition of the International Journal on World Peace, Dr. Sadaf Farooq wrote an article entitled “Pakistan’s Internal Security Dynamics and the Role of Military Regimes” in which he analyzed the dire political situation in Pakistan: “The quagmire made up of blood, terrorism and anarchy towards which Pakistan is steadily moving today represents the most potent threat to its security. Today insurgency within the country is out of control and the people are terrified by almost daily terrorist attacks. The economy is in tatters and its security apparatus seems unable to control the situation.” Dr. Farooq criticized the role of the Musharraf government in the War on Terrorism and their efforts to secure Pakistani society saying, “The Musharraf government did not make any serious effort to prevent the conglomeration of extrem-

ist groups” in the Waziristan regions.

By failing to appropriately answer the growing terrorist networks in the border regions, the Pakistan government has created a dangerous situation and placed every Pakistani citizen at risk.

America’s drone campaign represents the greatest and most effective effort to curtail terrorist activities in Pakistan in recent years by any entity. U.S. drones have done more to protect Pakistani civilians than any Pakistani administration in the past five years.

The peace treaty that Minister Khan was so optimistic about would have in all likelihood done nothing to bring peace to Pakistan. As Dr. Farooq pointed out, the Musharraf regime and previous administrations engaged in ceasefires and peace treaties with extremists groups, but to no avail. These accords simply allow the forces of Islamic militancy to regroup and prepare for a new wave of violence. Peace treaties and negotiations cannot bring peace to Pakistan: only total and unconditional victory over the terrorists hiding in the Waziristan region will secure the lives, liberty, and property of Pakistanis.

Many of the problems that Pakistan faces today stem from the ability of the Taliban and other terrorist groups to hide in these border regions. In a 2012 edition of the journal Antipode, Mr. Ian Shaw and Mr. Majed Akhter published an article “The Unbearable Humanness of Drone Warfare in FATA, Pakistan,” in which they outlined the legal dynamics surrounding the Waziristan region. Under Pakistani law, these regions are considered Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATAs) which means they are governed only by local tribal leaders, not

The Richard M. Weaver Fellowship pays TUITION and a $5,000 stipend for exceptional graduate students in the humanities who intend to teach at the college level.

The Western Civilization Fellowship provides $20,000 for doctoral study of the institutions, values, and history of the West.

The Salvatori Fellowship grants $10,000 for graduate work related to the principles of the American Founding.

The Bache Renshaw Fellowship awards $12,000 toward doctoral study in education.

Application deadline: January 16, 2014 isifellowships.org

11

US Secretary of State John Kerry (left) meets with Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif (Photo Credit: Yuri Gripas/Reuters)

by the central government of Pakistan. Laws passed by the legislature in Pakistan do not apply to these regions, and the judicial branch has no authority there. So when Pakistani politicians and the media claim that the United States is violating sovereign Pakistani territory with drone strikes, they are at worst, telling a dangerous lie to facilitate the spread of Islamist ideology and at best, oversimplifying a complex and fragile political situation simply to score points with the Pakistani people.

Another grievance of those Pakistans in opposition to drones is the civilian casualties that result from American strikes; however, the statistics they cite are misrepresented and not taken in context. Drone strikes last year killed 9 Shi’ite civilians in Pakistan, compared with 396 Shi’ite civilians killed by Sunni militants, according to the South Asia Terrorism Portal and as cited in Mr. Adan Khan’s article in the 11/18/2013 edition of Maclean’s, “Game of drones”.

According to Mr. Khan, the statistics that portray the Pakistani population as being hostile to drone warfare are a distorted misrepresentation of the whole scenario. Mr. Khan writes, “Yet despite the evidence, most Pakistanis continue to cry foul. Ironically, much of the condemnation comes from areas in Pakistan far removed from the attacks themselves.” He then quotes Irfan Hussein, a journalist and previous statesman, who said in his book Fatal Faultlines: Pakistan, Islam and the West, “The further people are from the Tribal Areas in which the drones operate, the greater the outrage they provoke. Those living in the tribal areas of North and South Waziristan, where drones have caused the most casualties, welcome these attacks. According to them, this is the most effective means of ridding them of the unwelcome presence of the Taliban and other militant groups.” To the people in Pakistan to whom they matter, drone strikes are the best defense against, in the words of Dr. Farooq, “the band of religious extremists and terrorists who run riot across Pakistan damaging the

life and property of the citizens.” Without American drones flying overhead, many Pakistanis would find themselves solely at the mercy of the Taliban, alQaeda, and similar extremists groups.

While the United States may appear to be committing an immoral act...they are actually saving the lives of civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Speaking of mercy, let us look to Niccolo Machiavelli’s “Chapter 17” of The Prince in which he compares the actions of Ceseare Borgia to the Florentines: “Cesare Borgia was considered cruel; notwithstanding, his cruelty reconciled the Romagna, unified it, and restored it to peace and loyalty. And if this be rightly considered, he will be seen to have been much more merciful than the Florentine people, who, to avoid a reputation for cruelty, permitted Pistoia to be destroyed.” With the use of brutal tactics and methods deemed “cruel,” Ceseare Borgia brought peace to an area overrun by lawlessness and banditry. Conversely, the Florentines, desiring to be seen as merciful, would not take the necessary, yet vicious, steps to bring law and order to the Pistoria region, allowing it to be overrun by bandits and scoundrels.

While the United States may appear to be committing an immoral act by using drones to eliminate terrorists, they are actually saving the lives of civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan. According to Machiavelli, in truth, a government “will be more merciful than those who, through too much mercy, allow disorders to arise, from which follow murders or robberies.” The UAV campaign must be looked at in this light and not through the lens of the outrage fabricated by the Pakistani media. American drone strikes are neither an immoral strategy nor a necessary evil, but rather a campaign of mercy.

The Fenwick Review

12

December 2013

Some Additional Thoughts on Fishbowls (cont.)

A Response the FR’s Views on Fishbowls Professor Daniel Klinghard Special Guest Contributor Continued from page 8 All the panelists agreed ahead of time that we wished there was more disagreement on this matter. This is especially a shame because the entire campus was invited to participate, and Prof. Landy actively recruited people to take that stance. Had someone emerged from the audience just before the event expressing an informed opinion on the matter they may well have been invited into the circle. But no one was there willing to speak for that position. Perhaps the drawn-and-quartered crowd were all too busy staking out Vladimir Putin’s country home for a chance to hit Mr. Snowden on the head with a sock full of pennies, stuff him into a duffel bag, and sneak him across the Caucasus Mountains.

I suppose that to tolerate the Fishbowl model, one has to tolerate the kind of fuzziness that sometimes comes with civil discussion. That is a fundamental feature of the format-

-by imitating a private discussion, the Fishbowl encourages participants to assume the social norms that accompany a conversation among friends.

When we engage in discussion among our friends, we no more assume that we will, in the end, have to agree with opinions we find reprehensible or unattractive, than we delay the discussion off until all views are represented. We make eye contact and smile, we keep our voices low, we rely less on talking points, we look for common ground, we stick to respectable arguments because we respect our friends enough to make honest arguments rather than to score points. Ideally, opinions shift as the conversation uncovers new ground.

If that sounds more like a Socratic dialogue than Hardball, then I suppose one has to make choices.

There’s no reason the conversation can’t grow heated, or any requirement that friends betray their fundamental principles for the sake of appearances. Of course, it does require something other than a take-no-prisoners approach. Everyone has that friend around whom politics cannot be men-

tioned because they’ll just get combative. They refuse to acknowledge the common ground, ignore rational arguments, shout down those who make them, and storm off when others dare to disagree. But the fact that you can’t talk politics to that person is a sign of their incompleteness, not the wrongness of talking about politics.

Remedying those tendencies in our political culture seems to me to be a reasonable-even a conservative--goal.

If this is the goal, it seems incumbent on fishbowl organizers to continue to recruit a variety of opinions. Moreover, it should be a priority to structure fishbowl conversations in such a way as to lead those who have unpopular opinions to feel comfortable that their arguments will be respected and will matter.

And we should have more debates on campus. But we should not allow our passion for a certain kind of formulaic

It should be a priority to structure fishbowl conversations in such a way as to lead those who have unpopular opinions to feel comfortable that their arguments will be respected and will matter. argumentation to distract us from opportunities to defend our positions in formats that obscure the scoring of points with the gentle ways of friendly conversation.

Professor Klinghard is an Associate Professor in the Political Science Department

Scientific Research: The People’s Lab biomedical research in recent years including the resulting advances from discovering the structure of DNA, the completion of the Human Genome The subject of federal funding Project, and the convergence of all of scientific research is a very touchy kinds of different fields to collaborate one. It often involves vague senti- on research. The most important distinction that Dr. Murphy was makments of national pride and evokes the Cold War. However, how much can it really benefit the American economy? The McFarland Center for Religion Ethics and Culture had, as always, a very thought provoking discussion on October 22nd.

The headliner was Dr. Richard Murphy ‘66 who, retired now, was the president and CEO of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. Dr. Murphy’s talk was titled “The Changing Face of Biomedical Research, Challenges and Opportunities.”

He went over various revolutions that have occurred in

Eric Kuhn ‘16 Staff Writer

ing was that the field of biomedical research is changing in a way that the small, independent research institutions are giving way to large collaborative projects (i.e., projects funded and directed by the government). While the broader idea of collaborative science is indeed laudable and something

that the academic community should move toward, government is not what should bring them together.

Dr. Murphy was rather misleading when describing the dazzling and myriad benefits that result from the government funding of science. Of course, as the head of a research institution, Dr. Murphy’s whole job was to find ways to raise money, from the government and any other source he could get. I do not think, for the most part, that scientists care very much where the money comes from. Dr. Murphy did just fine because he was doing what was good for the Salk Institute. However, as a wider policy, government is not any more effective than private enterprise in the pursuit of scientific knowledge as he seemed to imply.

Continued on page 15

December 2013

The Fenwick Review

13

Mythology, History, and Ideology The Emergence of the Golden Dawn in Greek Politics

Nikolas Churik ‘15 Foreign Bureau Chief “It is always the enemy who started it, even if he was not the first to speak out, he was certainly planning it; and if he was not actually planning it, he was thinking of it; and, if he was not thinking of it, he would have thought of it.”

– Elias Canetti, Crowds and Power In the past half year tensions surrounding the Golden Dawn party have come to a head. Following the killing a notable dissident rapper, the ideas of the party have come under closer scrutiny. The stated goal of struggling “against altering racial demographics” is obvious and indeed unsavory, but other goals and ideas are more subtle.

The manifesto first enjoins members to “embrace the third major ideology of history, the one that is the most rooted in the history of my people.” While the notion of following an ideology “roote-d in the history” of the Greeks provides a nostalgic sentiment, it creates nebulous and obscure proposition. Inhabitation of the land currently known as Greece spreads back several thousand years (The earliest noted is the seven hundred thousand year old human skull found in Petralona cave.) and encompasses many peoples with many histories. The ambiguity of the chosen history assumes that the past of Greece is a cohesive whole, but the ambiguity allows the writers of this manifesto to choose which portion of that heritage is truly Greek. Although it tacitly maintains history as an amal-

gam, it expects the people to have remained totally homogenous.

The Golden Dawn party makes the claim “to honor and respect the tradition,” according to their manifesto. Almost immediately afterwards, however, this statement is contradicted with a call for “incessant evolution.”

This perpetual change of sorts runs directly opposite to the idea of tradition. Although maintaining traditions does allow for innovations, it is contradictory to seek to transgress all and yet to claim to maintain remnants of the past. The manifesto also makes the member agree to strive for “a state that constantly serves the eternal revolutionary principles of the nationalist worldview, with the ultimate goal of forming a new society and a new type of man.” Eternal revolution, as noted above, is inherently anti-traditional.

A nationalist worldview is, incidentally, antirevolutionary. If the principles of a revolution are true for one nation, they would then need

to hold true for every other nation. Albert Camus notes, “In no case, if he is consistent, does he demand the right to destroy the existence and the freedom of others. He humiliates no one.

The freedom he claims, he claims for all.” A revolution based on nationalism ignores any transcendent value and instead focuses on immanent and artificial boundaries.

By refusing to offer aid to immigrant families, Golden Dawn breaks again from the tradition it so claims to uphold. The ancient notion of xenia would provide that any stranger is treated hospitably. In its first incarnation Golden Dawn aligned itself with Hellenic neo-paganism, and after a transmigration of its political soul, it claimed adherence to the Orthodox Church.

Whichever religious affiliation it would like to give itself, it would be logically inconsistent for it to hold the nationalistic views it does. When it reiterates later that “nationalism is the only absolute and true revolution because it seeks the birth of new ethical, spiritual, social and mental values,” there is again the same mistake. Nationalism would seem by definition to seek to maintain an old sort of value set of a particular entity.

Rather than create new kinds of values, nationalism would seem to seek to pare away new in order to find the old that were intrinsic to the nation it so adores.

Rather than create new kinds of values, it would seem to seek to pare away new in order to find the old that were intrinsic to the nation it so adores. The revolt occurs not in order to create a new, but rather because the old man has realized his worth. He has been oppressed, and once he can tolerate this oppression no more, he revolts. This fierce adherence to tradition would also seem to preclude this sort of “new birth,” especially in the ethical and spiritual realms, in which they would be firmly grounded in whichever religion they choose for the day. By espousing the “birth of new … values” they are in fact becoming the Marxists whom they so detest.

In order to further exclusionary policies, the party declares in the manifesto a need to create a state with citizens of a “common origin,” which it claims was the “definition of Citizen in Classical Athens.” This statement misrepresents and simplifies the definition.

Even within the Classical period, the definition changed and at least in theory had a property requirement. They wish to avoid plutocracy, but while Ancient Athens was not a plutocracy in the strict sense, it was certain respects rule by the wealthier classes. Further, they have at other times eschewed the “strictly democratic tradition” of Athens in favor of their impression of the paramilitary heritage of Sparta.

Claiming to follow a tradition and to be the right interpreter thereof is incredibly easy, but it is much more difficult to discern the truth behind such a claim. Misrepresentation and co-opting of history are not uncommon, so this serves as an illustrative example of the worst sort of historical manipulation.

The Fenwick Review

14

December 2013

Faith in Government

December 2013

Steven Merola ‘16 Staff Writer Of much controversy and debate is the issue of whether or not, or to what extent, religion has a role in government, or even if it should be a factor in the creation of laws. And so, the question is proposed: whether faith is to have a role in the governance of a society? In affirmation of this question, let Thomas speak; in opposition, Ulysses.

Ulysses: It would seem, my dear Thomas, that faith is not to have a place in government. I base my argument upon two factors: first, that the involvement of faith in government is forbidden by the First Amendment to the Constitution, for it is written “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”; then, the involvement of faith in governance necessitates the imposition of that religion on every citizen, which is an impairment upon freedom.

Ulysses: Did not Thomas Jefferson say that the Constitution builds “a wall of separation between church and state”? Does not the opinion of one of our Founding Fathers point towards the truth of the Constitution’s meaning?

Thomas: That quote, taken from Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists, refers to the text of the First Amendment. Earlier in the letter, he says that man “owes account to none other [than God] for his faith or his worship[.]” The use of the word worship indicates that he was referring to religious practice, which is quality associated with organized churches.

The word faith, used in conjunction with worship, in like manner indicates the doctrine of an organized religion.

Therefore, Jefferson’s assertion which you have quoted likely referred to the relationship between an organized religion and the state – that is, there is to be no state church. This supports my earlier argument. Also, it is important to note that Jefferson was in France when the First Amendment was written, and was not a signer of the Constitution.

belief that abortion should be readily inspiration is ultimately of little conseavailable to any adult who wishes to quence, whereas the law’s actual conpurchase it. I believe such availability tent is of much more import. is just.

Further, it is frequently seen that the social doctrines of religions Thomas: Imagine then, you are founded both in revelation and have a lawmaker who states that he reason. Take, for example, the Holy wishes to make a law assuring ready Catholic Church’s opposition to aboraccess to abortion for all adults. How- tion. The Church’s critics often remark ever, this lawmaker claims that his that she attempts to “impose” her beinspiration for this law arises from a liefs on everyone. This is not the case. religious principle mandating such a For the Church reaches her conclusion principle. Imagine also, you have anon abortion from reason and scientific other lawmaker who opposes such a fact. The Church believes life begins bill, but claims no religious grounds at conception because scientific data for doing so, and opposes it for purely supports the belief that a fertilized egg rational reasons. Would a law passed by constitutes a human being, and because the first lawmaker be unjust, or the latthe faculty of reason can lead us to the ter unjust? conclusion that life begins at concepUlysses: I would not think a tion. And why would this not be so? law passed by the first lawmaker is un- For if, as the Church teaches, God just, for his bill is in accord with what I gave to humans the faculty of reason, would not the right conclusions of that believe is right. faculty point to God’s Truth? That is Thomas: Let me ask a question of you, Ulysses: do Thomas: Is that not the not to say that all truth can be reached you believe that access to abor- true issue? Ultimately, when debat- through reason alone, for revelation is tion should ever be restricted, ing whether or not a law ought to be also a necessity to that end. Nevertheor even forbidden to adults? passed, we do not debate the law’s in- less, the social doctrine of the Church Do you believe such access is spiration, but rather the content of the is firmly founded in reason and science, just? law itself, and whether the law is just, and as such, laws which are inspired by and if it is just, whether it is effective such a religious spirit are in fact sufUlysses: I am of the or desirable. The potential religious fused with reason.

Thomas: I shall speak first with respect to the First Amendment.

The Establishment Clause, to which you referred, does not strip society of religion. Rather, the clause forbids the establishment of a state church. This is just, for a state church can force faith upon citizens, defeating the purpose Ulysses: Regardless, Thomas, of faith and violating the principle of you have already argued my very point! freewill. The prohibition against an ofYou have said that it is unjust to impose faith on others. This being the case, would not any intermingling of faith and laws constitute such an imposition?

For the religious lawmaker would compose laws infused with the principles of his religion. Therefore, the enforcement of those laws would impose the religious faith of one unto all, and this is unjust.

For if, as the Church teaches, God gave to humans the faculty of reason, would not the right conclusions of that faculty point to God’s Truth?

15

Scientific Research: The People’s Lab (cont.)

Role of Government vs. Private Investment in the Sciences

A Brief Dialogue between “Thomas” & “Ulysses” ficial state church, however, in no way demands the entire secularization of society, for where in the text of the amendment does it say such a thing?

The Fenwick Review

Eric Kuhn ‘16 Staff Writer Continued from page 12 Drawing a correlation between scientific funding and GDP growth, he pointed to the case of Germany and its vibrant economy. According to Murphy, the United States has reduced funding for scientific research by 16. 6% since 2010. However, even with these funding cuts, he claims that the number of scientific paper publications has doubled in the past decade.

It is obvious that the gradual exit of the government from research has not stunted innovation. Like in most areas of former government influence, the vacuum created by the government has been filled by private enterprise!

Murphy said that because corporations are responsible to their shareholders because they do not contribute anything with regards to pure scientific knowledge ( in other words, research that won’t necessarily improve a company’s profits). However, over and over again this has been shown not to be the case. The economist,

David Mansfield, performed a study in the 1960’s on 16 United States chemical and oil companies, discovering that all of them had invested in pure science.

Perhaps the most apparent example of private enterprise conducting pure science research is the increasingly visible space and aeronautics industry.

Companies such as Space X and Golden Spike are performing many of the responsibilities of NASA without any cost to the public.

Space X recently completed a trip to the International Space Station, and Golden Spike has plans for future lunar landings in the works. The magazine Scientific American said that

the plans “rank among the most audacious privately funded space exploration missions ever proposed.” As well, the titans of business who make their money from science such as this very often leave extremely well endowed foundations for the study of pure science. Examples include the John D. Rockefeller Foundation (which funded the development of penicillin), the William Heck foundation, and the David and Lucile Packard foundation.

People might say that the aerospace industry is an exception to the rule – it is a incredibly unique field that has potential to make a lot of money.

However, many do not know that the

Like in most areas of former government influence, the vacuum created by the government has been filled by private enterprise!

example of convergent science that is most frequently cited, the human genome project, had a private enterprise equivalent. American researcher Craig Venter created a research company, Celera Genomics, to decode the human genome with the whole genome shotgun sequencing process. Moreover, the entire project would only cost $300 million compared to the government’s $3 billion cost. Mr. Venter was planning on copyrighting the sequences they found, but President Clinton declared that no sequences could ever be copyrighted.

Even so, the company still pursued the sequencing, providing competition to the government initiative that made both endeavors more efficient.

Results were published almost concurrently between the two groups. Between the human genome project and the experiences with NASA, I believe that private enterprise has a far bigger role to play in scientific research than Dr. Murphy gives it credit for. It will become increasingly important to keep this in consideration as the Obama administration pursues its brain mapping project.

December 2013

The Fenwick Review

In Gratitude to Our Sponsors and Partners

16