February 2014

The

Fenwick Review Testimonium Perhibere Veritati

February 2014

Volume XXI, Issue 5

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

In Their Own Words

A Defense of Constitutional Originalism Steven Merola ‘16 Staff Writer Broadly speaking, there are two schools of thought concerning the interpretation of the Constitution.

There is the “Living Document” school, which asserts that the Constitution is a living, breathing document that morphs and adapts to suit the animus of the age.

On the other hand, there is the originalist school of thought, which views the Constitution as an enduring document, and finds its true meaning in the Framers’ original understanding of the text. For the sake of a proper understanding and honest interpretation of our founding document, it would seem that

originalism is the necessary method.

Central to an originalist interpretation is a firm rooting in the text of a particular piece of legislation (that is, textualism). The reason for this is clear: in the creation of the legislation, the thing which was agreed upon by the legislative body was the law’s text. A particular law’s “spirit” cannot objectively be analyzed or determined; as such, abstractions away from the text towards discovering a law’s “purpose” are fraught with imprecision and subjectivity.

Adherence to the text, on the other hand, binds the interpreter of laws to what is in front of him. He is not free to impose his extraneous views on the law, without regard to words or historical context.

This is particularly applicable to the interpretation of the United States Constitution. One would expect the document which provides the legal framework for our whole governance to be very lengthy and complex.

However, the Constitution is barely ten pages long. Despite this brevity, the Framers labored, day in and day out, for months on the composition of this document.

It follows, then, that each word in the Constitution was carefully chosen to express a particular idea, each clause carefully phrased to form a particular rule. None of the phraseology was accidental or sloppy; rather, the Constitution’s brevity demands logographic necessity.

This also calls us to consider

why the Framers made a written constitution at all. If they had intended for its meaning and application to shift over time, what need would there have been to write it down? The living constitution model has no concern for stability or endurance. Yet, why would the Framers have composed a document full of words which could be interpreted differently years later? They would not have, and so the fact that that ours is a written constitution places great importance upon its specific text.

As James Madison (the “Father” of the Constitution) noted in a letter to Henry Lee “I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation.

Continued on page 6

Toward Tolerant Secularism V-Day & Vulgarity Competing Concepts of Church-State Relations

By Chase Padusniak ‘15 ..... page 7

A Review of the Vagina Monologues

By Marian Blawie ‘16 ..... page 10

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.

February 2014

Contents February 2014

Volume XXI, Issue 5

1 In Their Own Words

By Steven Merola ~ Staff Writer

3 The Editor’s Desk

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

4 Letter to the Editor

By David Lewis Schaefer ~ Professor of Political Science

4 Response Letter to the Editor

By Amber Alley ‘16 ~ Staff Writer

5 Additional Thoughts on the Netanyahu Controversy

By Patrick Horan ‘14 ~ Co-Editor-in-Chief

6 In Their Own Words (cont.)

By Steven Merola ‘16 ~ Staff Writer

7 Toward Tolerant Secularism

By Chase Padusniak ‘15 ~ Staff Writer

8 The March Goes On

By Matthew Laird ‘15 ~ Special Guest Contributor

8 Marriage: The Lost Sacrament?

By Dan Gorman ‘54 ~ Special Guest Contributor

9 Securing Cyberspace

By John Castro ~ Copy Editor

10 V-Day & Vulgarity

By Marian Blawie ‘16 ~ Special Guest Contributor 11 Trickle Down Economics of Obama & Yellen

By David Odell ‘14 ~ Staff Writer

February 2014

The Fenwick Review

3

From the Editor’s Desk

The Fenwick Review 2013-2014 Staff

Winter Thoughts

Co-Editors in Chief

As February, 2014 draws to a close, we hope all students, faculty, and staff enjoyed the month despite the brutally cold and snowy weather and had a festive Valentine’s Day. On the Feast of Saint Valentine, the Class of 2014 celebrated with the annual “100 Days” Ball (which is actually 91 days from Graduation Day). Although we heartily enjoyed the time spent with our classmates, as we begin the last three months of our college careers, we would recommend two important changes for next year’s ball: 1) for $50 tickets, students should get at least one free drink, if not two or three and 2) a mixed drink with roughly (it was unclear how the bartenders were even measuring drinks) one shot of spirits should not cost $7.50, especially in the absence of any drink tickets.

While this did not particularly deter Emerson, Horan personally felt like Frank Barone in the TV show Everybody Loves Raymond, who started chanting, “Beer now! Beer now!” upon discovering that his son’s wedding had a cash bar. We understand that the chaperones and security of such events need to balance students’ desire to have fun with safety, but having such severe limits on drinks only incentivizes students to drink more heavily beforehand. Seniors knew that drinks would be expensive, so they imbibed cheaper beverages in much larger quantities prior to arriving. Not only was this bad for business, but it had the very effect the chaperones wanted to mitigate.

In other news, the annual Vagina Monologues has taken place at Holy Cross. While the play has the laudable goals of attempting to raise awareness of violence against women and empowering women, we are critical of the hyper-sexual scenes depicted in the play and of the especially crude language used.

Call us traditional, but we fail to register how screaming expletives and how the tale of a lesbian seduction of a 16-year old (13-year old, in the original version) girl by a 24-year old promote womanhood. Imagine the reaction if a 24-year old male had sexual relations with a teenage boy. Thus, we agree with Marian Blawie’s analysis in this issue that the Monologues are not the appropriate means to fight sexism. However, we realize this is a complex and contentious issue, so we welcome any readers who disagree (or agree) to provide thier feedback.

Spring break approaches, but before it, comes the first large wave of exams and papers. We wish the best of luck to all the students as they struggle through the challenging workload as well as wonderful breaks thereafter – whether they go on immersion trips to Appalachia, travel to exotic locations such as Punta Cana, or simply return to their beloved homes.

Finally, although it is still a few weeks away, we are very excited for St. Patrick’s Day. In preparation, Horan will be watching Gangs of New York, The Departed, The Quiet Man, and a slew of other movies with Irish or Irish-American characters, while Emerson will be restocking his Jameson supply (Sláinte!).

Erin go bragh!

Andrew Emerson ’14 and Patrick 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

February 2014

Letter to the Editor

The Fenwick Review

February 2014

Response to Letter to the Editor (cont.)

On the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict

Response to “Netanyahu: Money over Mandela” David Lewis Schaefer Professor of Political Science To the Editors of The Fenwick Review: The decision to print an article scolding Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the January issue of the Review, under the egregious headline “Netanyahu: Money over Mandela,” was most unfortunate.

To begin with, the incident treated in the article – the decision by the Israeli prime minister not to attend Nelson Mandela’s funeral, but to send a lowerranking delegation instead, was far too trivial to merit treatment in a student newspaper that appears no more than three times a semester.

Second, the author’s speculation about the motive for Mr. Netanyahu’s decision overlooked the obvious: since, as the author herself mentions, the prime minister’s personal spending has become a highly controversial issue in Israeli politics, and since (as news media report), the reported threats to his personal security on a visit to South Africa were so great as to have required a large and costly security force to accompany him, it appears that Mr. Netanyahu

decided that imposing such a cost on his country was indeed too great a political risk under the circumstances.

The author’s groundless charge that Mr. Netanyahu “disdains the idea of letting Palestinians live freely and happily” disregards the fact that Israeli citizens are threatened every day by terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and others who are pledged to the total destruction of the Jewish population.

By contrast, Palestinians in the West Bank enjoy considerably more personal freedom and security than the population of the large majority of the more or less murderous dictatorships with which the contemporary Arab world is dotted (Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf sheikhdoms, etc.). It is outland-

ish for the author to accuse Israel of an “ongoing ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people,” as if it were committing mass atrocities, when no such incidents have occurred.

The Israeli government has sought to divest itself of the territories acquired as a result of the 1967 war (the result of Arab nations’ attempt to obliterate the state of Israel) almost since the war’s end. Indeed, it returned the Sinai peninsula to Egypt as part of a 1977 peace settlement, and only a few years ago withdrew all its citizens from Gaza without any reciprocal concessions whatsoever – only to see the evacuated territory seized

by Hamas and used ever since as a launching pad for rocket barrages.

It is outlandish for the author to accuse Israel of an “ongoing ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people,” when no such incidents have occurred.

The vast majority of Israelis would love to free their country of the need to exercise authority in the West Bank – if only the Palestinians would cease their terror attacks and grant Israel’s right to exist. Unfortunately, no such developments have occurred.

Indeed, throughout the Arab world including the West Bank, the minds of the people, and especially schoolchildren, are filled with hateful propaganda directed against not only Israelis, but all Jews. (The infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion, originally forged by the Russian Tsar’s secret police, is a particularly popular item among Egyptian authorities.)

While the bulk of the author’s article might be explained away as the product of sheer ignorance, this cannot be said of the headline – I assume, chosen by her – which caters to the most vicious sort of anti-Jewish prejudice. She should hang her head in shame. As for me, I hope never again to see an article like this in The Fenwick Review or any other Holy Cross publication.

Sincerely, David Lewis Schaefer Professor of Political Science

Response to Letter to the Editor On the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict

Amber Alley ‘16 Staff Writer To the faculty, staff, and students of Holy Cross: I will not hang my head in shame. There is no racism in my article but I cannot say the same for the response to my article. Holy Cross claims to be a liberal arts school, so differing opinions should be encouraged by faculty and people in power should not use their position to manipulate students’ opinions or participation in student activities.

If Netanyahu did not want to go Mandela’s funeral because of security reasons, why did he not say that?

Would not that have been more strategic than saying it was too expensive?

The argument against my article has no support although I will not discourage the author from sharing his opinion as he so discouraged me.

Palestinians in the West bank and even Gaza right now do enjoy more freedom than surrounding countries enduring civil wars, but that is obvious. Just about every country at this moment outside of the war-torn Middle East has better living conditions, but to somehow confuse better for good is wrong. The degree to which Americans and Israelis have better living conditions is much greater than the degree to which Palestinians have better living conditions.

It must also not be forgotten that those suffering the most are the

millions of Palestinian refugees that were forced out of their homes into places such as Syria and are now foreigners in a country at war, a time when foreigners notoriously suffer the most.

According to CNN, Palestinian refugees in Syria are starving to death.

Limiting vital resources including (but not limited to) land, food, and water is grounds enough for saying that Netanyahu disdains the idea of letting Palestinians live freely and happily.

Without sufficient amounts of such vital resources, there is barely enough room to live, let alone live freely and happily. I cannot read Netanyahu’s mind, but actions speak louder than words and these actions scream “disdain”.

Ethnic cleansing is the systematic elimination of an ethnic group or

5

groups from a region or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide. This is by definition what happened and is still happening to the Palestinian people. They were forced out the land because they were Palestinian. They still cannot live on certain land, use certain transportation systems, or get certain jobs because they are Palestinian.

In the response to my article, the author extrapolates the mistakes of radical Palestinian terrorist groups onto all Palestinian citizens by saying that Israel wishes that “Palestinians would cease their terror attacks and grant Israel’s right to exist.” Saying all Palestinians are participating in these terror attacks is inaccurate. My article never once mentioned the acts of the Israeli Continued on page 5

against this kind of misrepresentation of Palestinians. There is only room for Amber Alley ‘16 outrage on this campus against the critStaff Writer icism of one person who happens to be Jewish but not for the criticism against Continued from page 4 the entire Palestinian people. or Jewish people as a whole, as the au- The Israeli government is not thor did in his response. Unfortunately, doing all that it can to come out of there will not be outrage at this school Palestinian territories because it is still

building settlements on Palestinian possessed land, which violates International Law. This is contrary to the author’s claim that Israel it trying to “divest itself of the territories.”

Not everyone at Holy Cross is on the same side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but to call something racist just because it is different or to be rac-

ist against the people of an opposing side is wrong and is not the way to get a point across to the educated faculty, staff, and student body of this campus.

Sincerely, Amber Alley

Some Additional Thoughts... ...on the Mandela-Netanyahu Controversy Patrick Horan ‘14 Co-Editor-in-Chief

In the January issue of The Fenwick Review, an article appeared that harshly criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for his relationship with the Palestinian community and argued that Netanyahu’s real reason for not attending the funeral of the late Nelson Mandela was Mandela’s criticism of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. Arguing that Netanyahu’s stated reason for not attending, that he did not think the visit was worth the financial cost (especially because a great deal of security would be needed) was a pretext, the article went on to make a case that the prime minister had no interest in the freedoms of the Palestinian population and respecting their

autonomy. I must disagree with such claims.

The Israeli Prime Minister had come under severe criticism for his personal spending behavior, while the Israeli people saw tax increases. Spending heavily to attend the funeral service in South Africa might have reinforced such criticism. It should also be noted that many South Africans did not especially approve of Netanyahu.

As The Times of Israel news website reported, former Israeli ambassador to South Africa, Alol Liel, noted Netanyahu made the best decision in light of the circumstances. Mr. Liel said, “I think he should have said no from the beginning. Knowing Mandela and [his circles] … they dislike Netanyahu and his policies. I don’t think South Africa would feel comfortable with his presence.” Therefore, the logic of the decision should at least be considered

understandable.

Regardless of the merits of the decision to not attend and instead send a delegation of lower-ranking officials, it was a public relations disaster as it was perceived to be an act of insensitivity toward the death of the historic South African figure.

However, Netanyahu was between a rock and a hard place.

Either option would have had negative repercussions for both his domestic and foreign image.

F u r thermore, while it is abundantly clear that Mandela and Netanyahu did not agree on specific Israeli policies toward the Palestinians, Mandela’s criticisms of the Israeli policies in no

way substantiates the claim made in the January article that “Netanyahu … disdains the idea of letting Palestinians live freely and happily.”

In June 2009, Netanyahu endorsed the idea of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, provided the Palestinian leadership agreed to certain standards, including foregoing military defenses that would literally threaten the existence of Israel and agreeing to not enter into treaties with Israel’s enemies.

Netanyahu’s proposal came just a few years after the Israeli evacuation of Gaza where the Palestinians made no concessions of their own.

Since Gaza has since become a place for the terrorist organization, Hamas, to fire missiles on the Israeli population. If anything, Mr. Netanyahu’s proposal was more than generous, but it was still rejected. The Israeli prime minister has taken a stronger stance on how to go about peace talks with Palestinian authorities than his political opposition, but it is not true to suggest that Netanyahu has not made sincere overtures toward peace and Palestinian autonomy.

Netanyahu was between a rock and a hard place. Either option would have had negative repercussions for both his domestic and foreign image.

The Fenwick Review

6

February 2014

In Their Own Words (cont.)

A Defense of Constitutional Originalism

Continued from page 1

In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution…if the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are subject.”

In addition to the text itself, originalism stresses that the text must be interpreted as it was understood at the time of its composition. This is, to be blunt, a matter of honesty. If a judge were to look at a word or phrase made in the late-eighteenth century,

tution. Their conclusion was that “when Congress provides that (nearly) all citizens must buy an insurance contract, it goes beyond ‘adjust[ing] by rule or method,’ or …‘direct[ing] according to rule,’…; it directs the creation of commerce (567 U.S. 4-5 (2012)) (Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito, JJ., dissenting).

and then apply to it a modern interpretation, he would not possibly be able to claim that the actual law was being applied. Rather, he would be applying an entirely new law, separate from the original’s meaning, but disguised in its words.

A potent example of applied originalism arose in the 2012 “Obamacare” decision. In the dissenting opinion, the four dissenting justices took great care to discover the truth of the Commerce Clause (U.S. Const. art I, sec. 8, cl. 3; “The Congress shall have Power …To regulate Commerce… among the several States”). They began their exegesis by examining several late-eighteenth century dictionaries’ definitions of the word regulate, so as to determine what that word meant to those who composed the Consti-

Regulate, in the Constitu- Reading Law, define strict construction tion’s sense of the word, does not ex- as “an interpretation according to the tend Congress’s power unto forcing literal meaning of the words, as concitizens to trasted purchase with what health inthe words surance. denote in This is an context example according of how to a fair the origireading.” nal meanStrict coning can be struction corrupted is opposed to suit a to reasonmodern ability; end. Withrather, it out referis itself a ence to perversion philologiof the text, cal and hisbecause it

Steven Merola ‘16 Staff Writer

torical research, regulation of commerce can be interpreted to mean most anything. Originalism provides a check against this, because it restricts the interpretation to what was meant at the time of the law’s creation.

It should be noted, however, that originalism is not “strict construction.”

Justice Antonin Scalia and Bryan Garner, in their book

Each word in the Constitution was carefully chosen to express a particular idea, each clause carefully phrased to form a particular rule.

imposes one arbitrary definition of the words and excludes context.

A strict interpretation of the first amendment, for example, which reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” would suggest that something such as human sacrifice is permissible, because a law against that would prohibit free exercise. An originalist, however, would see that such an interpretation is far too narrow to be reasonable, and is inconsistent with the legal tradition of the time, which had never permitted such action.

This is also not to say that Framers never envisioned the Constitution changing. In fact, they wrote in specific measures to such an end – the amendment process outlined in Ar-

ticle V. The difference here is that the changes are not ones to be applied by a judge’s fiat. Rather, amendment allows for changes to be made with great deliberation and by the consent of the people’s duly elected representatives.

Amendment is the election of a new law, not the imposition of one.

Originalism provides for an honest interpretation of the Constitution, consistent with what the Framers wanted it to convey, and adherent to a fair reading of the text. It is undeniable that our judges have great power in their ability to interpret the laws, and such power can easily be misused.

Originalism provides a check against that power, for it constrains the judge to the text before him, and not to his own whims or agenda.

The Fenwick Review

February 2014

7

Toward Tolerant Secularism

Competing Concepts of Church-State Relations in Modern Society Chase Padusniak ‘15 Staff Writer

As should be obvious by this point, I prefer the latter view. My Catholicism necessitates a respect for faith and its attendant virtues. Social mores are fostered by religious community: otherwise we end up, the in the words of Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam, “bowling alone.” At the same time, we learn tolerance by interacting with people of different origins and faiths. Exclusion means the “othering” of those who are different. If our community (or government) actively downplays religious differences, we’re left with little of the fabric of daily life in which to experience other faiths.

Admittedly, organizations exist for the purpose of fostering ecumenism. But

The other day at lunch I mentioned to my friend how the idea that Christmas, or even Holiday, concerts at public schools couldn’t contain religious songs irritated me. To truncate her argument, she retorted that it’s easier to exclude all religions than to engage in the inclusion of every single faith present in the school. In fairness, she has a point: it is easier.

Here’s my question: since when is easiness the prerequisite for what is right?

Exactly: never. But this bit of lunchtime talk is an interesting moment because it can become an occasion to explore the two predominant notions of secularism in the world. On the one hand, we have the exclusionary kind. This one bans religion from public space because one religion might offend another. It may see religion as important, but its primary characteristic is that, within its scope, religion needs be private.

The other sees diversity as worthy of fostering, but holds that diversity can only be preserved where religions are allowed to interact.

The union of church and state is not the way, but neither is the total exclu- that’s precisely the point: why should sion of religion from public life. specific organizations have to exist just so that we can learn to tolerate one another? Schools with multi-faith student bodies should foster the religious experiences of their charges.

An open mind is a product of interaction with “the other,” not of excluding him simply because he is “the other.”

But my interlocutor will protest:

Tensions will always exist, but denying these diverse communities a forum for discussion can accomplish little but the continuance of bigotry.

“By removing religion from public life we decrease the possibilities for religious friction! We need a harsh secularism or else sharia law shall reign!”

I say nay. First of all, there is plenty of religious intolerance in places where this more stringent form of secularism predominates. So, I’d retort: “Have you even been to Europe?”

The Europeans, faced with a greater cultural “threat,” are

If our community (or government) actively downplays religious differences, we’re left with little of the fabric of daily life in which to experience other faiths.

eons ahead of us in that department.

Relatedly, interaction fosters debate.

We get interaction; we get tolerance; we get ecumenism precisely because people can engage in debate. Increasing the potential for such discussion would seem to do nothing but foster more relevant discussion. It’s a risk, sure, but it’s a risk worth taking.

“Ah, but how could we possibly institute this system? You’re solution is impractical, Mr. Padusniak!

You’re tacky and, furthermore, I hate you!” rejoins my interlocutor. But, dear reader, the issue is nowhere near that simple. Surely a system overhaul would be required to enact this policy in, say,

public schools, but that would be a good thing.

As things stand, the federal government withholds money if local schools do not meet particular standards. Fine: but what if we devolved such powers? In other words, we should continue to funnel money through the states, but give local school boards more control over their particular practices. Does it run the risk of bigotry on a local level?

Absolutely, but such a possibility cannot deter the man who stands for a truly diverse society. Education does not consist in books alone; tensions will always exist, but denying these diverse communities a forum for discussion can accomplish little but the continuance of bigotry.

The notion that seeing people on non-religion terms will counter this effect is equally ludicrous. I’m not calling for prayer in public schools, but I am saying that excluding something as important as religion from public life is a mistake. In other words, harsh secularism is bad for religious faith, but it also robs people of a public identity.

Why take away such identifications when we can foster dialogue? Why suppress religious faith when there is so much to be gained from its flowering?

8

The Fenwick Review

February 2014

The March Goes On

Holy Cross Represented at 2013 March for Life nothing, not even a snowstorm, would fifteen hours straight would seem to be than ever. Before the March, we attend Matthew Laird ‘15 dampen this group’s efforts. Our bus enough to make even the best ill-hu- a mass and rally at a fellow Jesuit high Special Guest Contributor driver, Alan, was perhaps the most mored, but I could not help but notice school St. Aloysius Gonzaga. The high dedicated of all, seeming to take per- the general excitement that was shared school’s name sake, a sixteenth century Syllabus week: that special time sonal cause in getting us to D.C. Our among all the members of our troupe. Italian Saint who died young while carin every college student’s life where Jesuit spiritual directors, Fathers Jim After a very long day, we arrived at our ing for victims of the Bubonic plague, class is easy and homework is rela- Hayes and John Gavin S.J., would peri- hotel near George Mason University in was a great role model for our group, showing that the youth can tively non-existent. Scienmake profound difference tists, however, continue to in shaping society. disagree as to whether such When we arrived at a phenomenon exists here the mall, I was stunned at at Holy Cross. For a Sader, the masses of people prethere is no such thing as an paring to participate in the easy class, and there are alMarch. It appeared that ways more assignments to none of them were deterred be had. This is why I was by the harsh elements. At elated to see such a large the beginning of the March, group of twenty of my felthe temperature was close to low classmates consciously zero, but it seemed that the decide to miss the first two solitary fire which burned in days of classes, in order each of our hearts for the to travel with me down to sanctity of all human life Washington D.C. to attend kept us warm and our spirthe annual March for Life. I its high. Being surrounded believe that this was a testaby so many individuals who ment to the group’s fervor, believe the same ideals that conviction of purpose, and dedication to protecting the Back: Lillian Daley ‘17, Fr. John Gavin S.J., Eric Kuhn ‘16, Joe MacNiell ‘16, Marian Blawie ‘16, Jessica Vozella you do is something that I ‘17, Micala Smith ‘16, Nick Barresi ‘15 (president), Fr. Jim Hayes S.J., Edward Tan ‘17, Matthew Laird ‘15 believe has to be experisanctity of life.

Front: Kate Servizio ‘17, Emily Vigliotta ‘17, Brooke Tranten ‘17, Ali Olson ‘17, Sloane Burns ‘15, Monica Poenced to understand. When And if missing lanco ‘16, Marie Ortiz (visitng student), Maggie Sean ‘17 we loaded the bus to return the first two days of class to campus, we all knew that we would weren’t enough, the conditions in odically scrape the ice that would begin Fairfax, Virginia. The following mornhave some catching up to do and some which we traveled, a brutal east coast to form on the inside of the bus win- ing, we drove into the capital to begin syllabi to read, but I believe that of us blizzard, nearly doubled our time of dows so that our driver could see. our day. With the new fallen snow, the all would agree that it was an entirely passage from eight hours to fifteen!

Sitting in one spot for nearly city by the Potomac was more beautiful worthwhile experience.

It quickly became apparent to me that

Marriage: The Lost Sacrament? couple’s situation is their official status: married. The giving of each other Dan Gorman ‘54 physically happened quite a while ago.

Special Guest Contributor Really, “honeymoon”, white dress, an exciting new life of sharing—none are

Marriage. Of all the sacraments, really appropriate. Those things ocperhaps the most ignored. A few still curred when they agreed to shack up. opt for it but not in the way it was in- Which, by the way, was considered sinstituted. It originally was a way, insti- ful some years ago—and it still may be tuted by God, for a man and woman although one rarely hears it referred to begin to share a life together, then to that way even though it can be the to bring children into the world and in cause of so many of life’s problems: ildoing so to provide a safe and loving legitimate children, poverty, abortion, home for those children: to become a disease, divorce, etc. family. Not so much anymore. More And, oh, the collateral damfrequently today it is a continuation age! The wedding day is mostly a party. of cohabitation in order to please par- The romance and joy of a couple coments, wear a white dress and have a mitting body and spirit to each other party. The only thing “new” about the forever for the first time is gone. The

sacrifice each has willingly made in order to make this sacred, lifetime commitment on their wedding day doesn’t exist. Surely there is far more reason for the white dress, the celebration, the adventure called the “honeymoon” when marriage is truly a first time commitment.

But, then, the Hollywood version is much more pervasive. Swing with the crowd, enjoy the “good life” and the freedom the pill provides. And if pregnancy happens, choose either to have the baby and marry (if commitment is an option) or raise the child as a single parent or , as Planned Parenthood would advise, have an abortion.

Frequent choices of the “swinging” life and very often tragic ones.

Yet, sadly, this philosophy of our secular age as promoted in so many movies, TV shows and just about all the media (and somewhat ignored by religious leaders) is bought into by so many of this generation as divorces increase, abortion continues and diseases of both mind and body multiply.

I wonder what would happen if the Church took a firmer stand on sex before marriage and if they occasionally voiced the truth that such union is a special privilege of the married state? I wonder if more would listen?

Or would they walk away? And if they walked away, I wonder if that is sufficient reason to keep silent about such a truth?

February 2014

The Fenwick Review

9

Securing Cyberspace: Why Cybersecurity Must become Top Priority for US Homeland Security Policy John Castro ‘14 Copy Editor

This past October, National Geographic aired American Blackout, a two hour special exploring the effects a cyber attack on the U.S. power grid would have on the nation. The findings were frightening. Using actual footage from previous crises, such as the 2003 East Coast Blackout and hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, as well as fictional events, National Geographic’s aimed to demonstrate the rapid breakdown of basic services. Without the power grid, nearly everything we take for granted goes down, and this quickly results in chaos. As citizens begin to panic, local emergency services become overwhelmed and the Federal government cannot mobilize additional support across the country fast enough.

The film then follows several different individuals with varying degrees of preparedness in different environments, as they confront the challenges of living without power.

Ultimately, the film concludes that the U.S. is severely unprepared for a massive blackout. In a best case scenario, 72 hours is widely considered to be the amount of time required before first responders can begin to get a handle on the situation and restore limited services. However, according to former deputy of Homeland Security Jane Holl Lute, who participated in a panel discussion following the film’s release, the average American family is not prepared for just 72 hours without access to basic services. The film determined that after nine days without power, the U.S. would return to a Hobbesian world in which every individual or family is alone in the fight for survival and becomes willing to do whatever it takes to find basic necessities.

American Blackout is an extreme theoretical example of the impact a successful cyber attack could have on the nation. Nonetheless, failure to take this hypothetical scenario seriously could result in fiction becoming reality. Every day, the networks controlling critical U.S. civilian infrastructure are under attack by sophisticated hackers. These networks run communication, energy, financial, information, manufacturing, public utility and transportation systems that are essential to economic,

political and social functions of the nation. Today, there is little doubt among security experts that these crucial networks are extremely vulnerable to cyber attacks. Many experts theorize that it is only a matter of time before a sophisticated cyber attack breaches the basic computer security software protecting the network controlling a critical infrastructure system, crippling the system and resulting in grave consequences for the nation similar to those portrayed in American Blackout. Yet, despite this widespread acknowledgement of the cyber threat within the U.S. government and the private sector, little has been accomplished in establishing a coordinated policy for detecting cyber threats and responding to attacks.

Since the classification of U.S. digital infrastructure as a “strategic national asset” in the 2010 National Security Strategy, the Obama Administration has frequently spoken about significantly enhancing U.S. cybersecurity policy; however, numerous attempts by Congress to create either mandatory or voluntary cybersecurity guidelines for operators of critical infrastructure systems and information sharing programs between the public and private sectors have failed. Furthermore, because addressing the cyber threat is an example of a classic collective action problem in which the cooperation of all impacted parties are needed, companies will not voluntarily increase spending on cybersecurity measures unless all of their business partners and competitors are also increasing spending at a compa-

rable rate. While some members of Congress and the Obama Administration believe this problem demonstrates the need for mandatory cybersecurity standards, many experts emphasize that standards and laws are too cumbersome and slow in taking effect for them to be effective. Rather, experts believe the creation of an information sharing program between the government and private sector stands the greatest chance of helping the nation stay ahead of and respond to cyber threats.

Despite overwhelming agreement that cybersecurity standards are not the most effective way for addressing the cyber threat, the Obama Administration has focused its attention on this solution. On February 12, 2014, the White House unveiled a series of cybersecurity guidelines that it hopes the private sector will voluntarily adopt.

Created after a year of research into the issue by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology at the request of President Barack Obama through a 2013 executive order, the guidelines

are designed to help operators of critical infrastructure ensure they have implemented sufficient cybersecurity measures on their systems. However, as with all previous attempts at creating voluntary standards for the private sector, it is unrealistic to believe companies will strictly adhere to every guideline as there is no economic incentive, such as a tax break program, for them to increase their spending on cybersecurity programs.

Unless standards are adopted across the board, they will be useless. Hackers will simply redirect their attacks to the remaining unprotected networks.

Notwithstanding the improbability of companies adopting the new voluntary guidelines, at the very least, the suggested standards should prompt discussion of the issue within the private sector. Additionally, as more companies, such as Target, which suffered a major breach of its customer credit and debit card data in November 2013, incur cyber attacks, the general public will put pressure on companies to act.

Nevertheless, the Obama Administration needs to make crafting new solutions for addressing the cyber threat the top priority for U.S. homeland security policy in 2014. In addition to enhancing means of protecting U.S. infrastructure from cyber attacks, more needs to be done in developing a response plan and encouraging Americans to be prepared. Most people fail to realize that a cyber attack can cause the same disruptions as a natural disaster. During a major national crisis, whether it is a cyber attack, a terrorist attack, or a natural disaster, the American people must be ready to take care of themselves and their neighbors without the assistance of the government. An inability to do so will result in the nation becoming its own enemy when it needs to come closer together.

Every day, the networks controlling critical U.S. civilian infrastructure are under attack by sophisticated hackers.

National Geographic Channel’s advertisement for American Blackout

The Fenwick Review

10

February 2014

V-Day & Vulgarity Marian Blawie ‘16 Special Guest Contributor

On Tuesday evening, The Vagina Monologues were performed by female Holy Cross students for “V-Day” 2014. The performers demonstrated real talent, and it was clear that the production was made possible through much hard work and effort. There was great conviction and feeling in the words of the actresses in the Hogan Ballroom. But their zeal is misplaced, and the “V-Day” campaign counteracts the very fight it claims to support.

This show is meant to raise public consciousness about violence against women. By telling stories of trauma (with well-placed comic relief), the show seeks to empower women to discover and come to love their vaginas—the essence of their womanhood.

But rather than demanding respect for women, this tactic acquits the perpetrators of violence against women by playing into and glorifying their very mindset.

Rather than focusing on areas of female empowerment such as emotional and intellectual strength, each scene relies on establishing a connection between women and their anatomical parts. In the monologue entitled “Because He Liked to Look at It,” a woman comes to love herself after she is in a relationship with a man who loves her vagina. When they are intimate, he tells her, “I need to see you”—meaning her vagina—and, “I need to look at it.

It’s who you are.” When he sees her vagina for the first time, he tells her that she is beautiful.

In “The Vagina Workshop,” the performer states: “[My clitoris] was me… the essence of me. It was both the doorbell to my house and the house itself. I didn’t have to find it. I had to

How can we insist that we are more than our sexuality when we objectify ourselves, claiming that our essence is found in our sexual organs?

els into the products they sell. The model is often dismembered completely and the image reduced to only her legs or breasts. Interestingly, Tuesday’s performance was even more offensive, in its pursuit to diminish women to only their sexual organs.

The Monologues have laudable goals, but the means they employ—shock tactics and obscenities—do nothing to help women. Perhaps the discomfort surrounding the Monologues is not so much a discomfort with female sexuality, but rather a discomfort with the gratuitous vulgarity of it all: the word “vagina” painted on the windows of the Hogan Campus Center, or the informal and unnecessary use of the cword. Women, are we not above this?

It would be similarly distasteful and unacceptable to plaster campus with the word “penis” or one of its more vulgar synonyms (notwithstanding the phallic drawings often found on the male floors of the residence halls).

I fail to see how The Vagina

The Fenwick Review

11

The Trickle Down Economics...

A Review of the Vagina Monologues

be it.” This particular monologue ends with the line, “My vagina, my vagina, me.”

This language should disturb and offend women. The overall message of the Monologues is that a woman’s vagina is her identity. How can we insist that we are more than our sexuality when we objectify ourselves, claiming that our essence is found in our sexual organs?

True feminism teaches women to embrace and refine their unique strengths. It celebrates dignity and self respect. On the contrary, The Vagina Monologues strip femininity of its integrity. They teach women to embrace a singular part of their anatomy—as if this can contain or adequately represent the nature of woman.

Isn’t this exactly what the perpetrators of violence against women, especially sexual violence, do to their victims? Remember, The Vagina Monologues seek to raise awareness and put an end to violence against women. The “empowerment” found in The Vagina Monologues actually vindicates the very people these Monologues claim to fight.

Those who would reduce women to their sexual organs— the misogynists, the male chauvinists, the harassers, the abusers, the rapists—are justified by this play. These people always demean and objectify their victims, and often see women as nothing more than walking vaginas. How can we expect men to view us as more than this if we limit our own definition of womanhood to sexual organs?

One may recall Jean Kilbourne’s feminist documentary Killing Us Softly, which reveals sexism in advertising. One idea on which the film focuses is the dismemberment of women in the media. Advertisers use Photoshop to turn the bodies of mod-

February 2014

...of Barack Obama and Janet Yellen

Perhaps the discomfort surrounding the Monologues is not so much a discomfort with female sexuality, but rather a discomfort with the gratuitous vulgarity of it all Monologues help to stop violence against women. The crusade to stop men who think it’s acceptable to degrade women cannot be won by showing that we can degrade ourselves instead. The fight for women to be recognized as strong and unique in our own right does not lie in our vaginas. There is nothing liberating about being reduced to mere genitals.

Yes, women have vaginas.

But we, as women, are more than our anatomy. Sexism—as manifested in the gender wage gap, the lack of mandatory paid maternity leave in the US, and the worldwide prevalence of sex-selective abortion, to name a few—will never be solved with these tactics.

David Odell ‘14 Staff Writer In recent months, as mid-term elections inch closer, a divide between Congressional Democrats and the White House has emerged. Members of both houses seeking re-election have distanced themselves from the President on contentious issues such as the flawed implementation of the Affordable Care Act and a Trans-Atlantic free-trade agreement. In fact, as campaign season has kicked off, several Democrats facing tough races have been reluctant to campaign with President Obama and instead have turned to Vice President Joe Biden, Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton to garner support.

However, President Obama and Congressional Democrats have taken a united stand on one key issue and made it an important aspect of their 2014 agenda: income inequality.

During his State of the Union Address, Barack Obama utilized the largest bully pulpit in the world to discuss economic inequality and jump-started the fight to narrow the gap between rich and poor Americans.

I believe economic freedom and limited government participation in the affairs of the private sector creates an environment suitable for growth, prosperity and upward mobility. That being said, when 85 people control 46% of the wealth in the world I can’t help but favor reform. Therefore, I support raising the minimum wage and President Obama’s recent Execu-

tive order increasing compensation for federal contractors. In an economy that is larger then Germany, France and Japan combined, increasing minimum compensation by a few bucks will not send the economy in a tail spin and will help millions of Americans enjoy an improved life. However, while I support raising the minimum wage, especially as a substitute to a tax increase, if President Obama is serious about reducing income inequality, he would be wise to focus less on Executive orders and more on his constitutional right to appoint Federal Reserve Board members.

Since the financial crisis and the subsequent Great Recession reverberated through the United States economy, Ben Bernanke has embarked on a dovish monetary policy through Quantitative Easing (QE). In order to reduce borrowing costs, increase spending, and in turn, lower unemployment to 5.5%, the Fed, operating under a Keynesian mindset, has purchased Mortgage backed securities and long term Treasury bonds and decreased the federal funds rate, mortgage rate and Treasury yield. In doing so, Chairmen Bernanke hoped that by lowering interest rates across the board, American consumers would be encouraged

to spend and in turn invigorate the economy.

So, what does this have to do with President Obama’s wish to reduce economic inequality? Well, as a consequence of the Fed’s asset purchases bond yields have been depressed leading to heavy investment in U.S. equities. As you can surmise from the chart , with each announcement prolonging the Federal Reserve’s easing program, the S&P 500 received a boost. Since 2007 the S&P 500 has climbed from $600 to $1800 producing significant returns for equity shareholders.

It is no secret that the majority of stockholders in the United States largely come from the upper-middle class and the top 1%. According to Spectrum Group, wealthy Americans allocate roughly 85% of their funds to equities and bonds, and both Janet Yellen, Barack Obama, & Ben Bernanke (Source: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) asset classes have benefited sig-

nificantly from the Federal Reserve’s policies. Therefore, while millions of Americans are unemployed or have seen their wages stagnate, the rich have experienced a significant wealth enhancement.

Now, I realize that Ben Bernanke was an appointee of George W. Bush, but nevertheless, President Obama nominated Janet Yellen to succeed Chairmen Bernanke.

Janet Yellen is a strong believer in maintaining a low interest rate environment to reduce unemployment, which will continue to make stocks attractive.

Therefore, although the Federal Reserve has begun to taper its annual purchases and reduce the Fed’s $4 trillion balance sheet, based on Chairwomen Yellen’s published theories, it is safe to say that interest rates will remain historically low creating an environment where equities offer the highest returns benefitting the richest of the rich.

While millions of Americans are unemployed or have seen their wages stagnate, the rich have experienced a significant wealth enhancement.

February 2014

The Fenwick Review

In Gratitude to Our Sponsors and Partners

12