February 2013

February 2013

Volume XX, Issue III

The Fenwick Review

The Independent Journal of Opinion at the College of the Holy Cross http://college.holycross.edu/studentorgs/fenwickreview/index.html

Holy Cross Likes Questions.

Father Scalia Has Some Answers.

The Fenwick Review Interviews it’s Founder

Malik Neal ‘13 Copy Editor

Last semester, I had the opportunity to interview Father Paul Scalia, founder of The Fenwick Review and member of the Class of 1992. Born in 1970 in Charlottesville, VA, Father Scalia is one of nine children born to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and his wife Maureen. Following his graduation from Holy Cross with a degree in Classics, Father Scalia entered the Diocesan priesthood in Arlington, Va. He was ordained a priest in 1996 and received degrees from the Pontifical Gregorian University and Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas in Rome. He has served as a priest at several parishes in the Arlington diocese and now serves as the Bishop’s Delegate for Clergy, wherein he facilitates logistical maters between the bishop and the

priests within the diocese.

What follows is Father Scalia’s compelling critique of his beloved alma mater. The interview seeks to provide a deeper understanding of the principles of the The Fenwick Review by highlighting the man responsible for its founding. Though this is an abridged version of a much longer interview, it should nevertheless provide remarkable insight into the ideas and principles that have made The Fenwick Review what it is today—a voice of dissent and defender of tradition on Mount Saint James.

FR: Why did you decide to come to Holy Cross?

PS: My mother grew up in Braintree, Massachusetts, and she, of course, knew of Holy Cross. The connection, though, was really Justice Clarence Thomas, who at the time was not

Can You Spare A Dime?....page 5

even a judge. I think he was still at the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission], but he was a friend of the family and my mother would speak to him and he spoke very favorably of Holy Cross.

And so, on that recommendation, my mom suggested that I apply, which I did. One of the reasons also was I was looking for a Catholic education.

I was looking for a Catholic school because even at that time I was thinking about the priesthood somewhat but not perfectly settled on it. I wanted to be in a place where I could continue that discernment.

FR: What moment or event sparked the idea for The Fenwick Review?

PS: I don’t know that there was one moment that sparked it. It was just a

sense among a group of us that the conservative principles and even the principles of the Church were not really being well represented in the College. And that a liberal education really should be rooted in tradition and should at least keep in mind those things that consider them in light of everything else. But there was very much a liberal agenda that we perceived coming from the Chaplains’ Office or certain other departments in the College without even considering certain conservative positions. For all the talk about being a liberal arts college, that’s not really a liberal education. So, there wasn’t one moment. It was more an accumulation of things.

Continued on pages 8-9

Africa: The New Front in the Global War of Terror.... page 3

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 values Holy Cross very much, and desires to help make it 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.

February 2013

Contents February 2013

Volume XX, Issue III

1 Holy Cross Likes Questions. Father Scalia Has Some Answers

Malik Neal ‘13

3 The Editor’s Desk

Matthew P. Angiolillo ‘13 4 An Illiberal View of Ethics Patrick J. Horan ‘14 5 Africa: The New Front in the Global War on Terror To The Benefactors In this issue, as in every issue, we

John Castro ‘14 must reserve space to offer a heartfelt thank you to our benefactors, without 6 Can You Spare a Dime? whom The Fenwick Review would not Nikolas Churik ‘15 exist. We extend our profound gratitude to The Collegiate Network and 7 cont. Africa: The New Front in the Global War the generous individual and alumni donors to The Fenwick Review, for on Terror their ongoing enthusiasm and support of our mission. You are always Joseph Lepera ‘14

in our prayers, and with each issue we 7 cont. An Illiberal View of Ethics publish, our first goal is to justify the incredible faith you have shown in us.

Patrick J. Horan ‘14 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.

8-9 cont. Holy Cross Likes Questions. Father Scalia Has Some Answers Malik Neal ‘13 10 Turn Back: Fiscal Cliff Ahead Amber Alley ‘16 11 The Underwhelming Choice of Soledad O’Brien for Hanify-Howland Honor Travis LaCouter ‘13

The Fenwick Review

3

Winning Ugly: A Guide to Consistently Punching Above Your Weight Academically

February 2013

The Fenwick Review 2012-2013 Staff Editor in Chief Matthew P. Angiolillo ‘13

Executive Editor Travis LaCouter ‘13

Managing Editor Patrick J. Horan ‘14

Website Editor

Andrew D. Emerson‘14

Layout Editors Claire Mahoney ‘15 Derek Grabhorn ‘15 Kim French ‘16

Copy Editors Kelsey Russell ‘13 Malik Neal ‘13

Advertisement Editor Brendan Sullivan ‘13

Many individuals may think that academic success is determined at birth by genetics but in reality this success is determined by the will to focus over long periods of time. Not all people are created with the same mental aptitude but by using the correct amalgam of strategy and tactics, one is able to compensate for many natural limitations to achieve victory in the classroom.

1) Preparation is everything: Some students can study for a couple hours and ace the test, but you are not one of them. You may have to start studying for assessments literally weeks in advance in order to have a shot at getting an A. 2) Anyone can get an 80: Any student, if they attend class regularly, can probably get a decent grade. However, what separates the decent students from the great students is the ability to persevere in studying large amounts hours for very few but critical points. You might have to study one day to get an 85 but a week in order to get a 93. Embracing this hardship is the key to separating yourself from everyone else.

3) You are not a tactile learner: Pay no attention to whatever type of learner you think you are or what a pedagogical specialist told you you were. The only way someone can learn anything is by understanding the material. Whether you do that by seeing it, hearing it, or feeling it, is irrelevant.

4) Change strategies: You will have to change strategies often throughout the semester. When an assessment does not go well, do something different to prepare for the next one. What works for one individual, does not always work for another. Completely ignore suggestions that would prove disastrous for you and maintain the flexibility to devise new ways for you to get the job done well.

5) Put on 15 pounds of muscle, not beer: It is often underestimated how much the physical can impact the mental. Every top chess grandmaster in the world is in excellent shape, as their jobs require them to exert a vast amount of nervous energy over hours at a time.

The same should be said of top academic performers.

Being in peak physical condition will help you rebound from those all-nighters whether they be on Tuesday or

Saturday and endure the infernal temperatures in the library.

6) Journaling is not for you: If you are ever in a class, in which a major portion of your grade involves either 1) journaling 2) art projects or 3) community based learning – drop the class immediately. The instructor has no idea what they are doing.

7) And lastly, make sure to train in the offseason: Make sure to take advantage of your summers either through internships or other professional activities Matthew Angiolillo February 2013

Staff Writers Thomas Arralde ‘13 Henry Callegary ‘14 John Castro ‘14 Nikolas Churik ‘15 Yvon Gachette ‘13 Kaylie Gage ‘14

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: Matthew P. Angiolillo 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.

The Fenwick Review

February 2013

4

An Illiberal View of Ethics A Review of and Response to Dismantling Privilege

Patrick J. Horan ‘14 Managing Editor

In contemporary American politics, we tend to associate the word “liberal” with the political left and the word “conservative” with the political right. However, as the political philosopher Leo Strauss once noted, the more appropriate dichotomy should be “progressive” and “conservative,” not “liberal” and “conservative.”

Liberalism, in the classical sense of the term, refers to a political philosophy that emphasizes the promotion of liberty. Therefore, classical liberalism is similar in some respects to contemporary American libertarianism. This

Libertarians and conservatives are the real liberals (relatively, speaking) because they defend liberty, and, notably, capitalism. may be confusing because, while they may differ on some social issues, libertarians tend to agree with conservatives on issues relating to the size of government scope and involvement in economic affairs. Libertarians and conservatives are the real liberals (relatively, speaking) because they defend liberty, and, notably, capitalism. So what about those on the left who claim to be liberals? According to Strauss, they are progressives who posture towards change, particularly change that results in the expansion of the size of the state. Progressivism and even more left-wing ideologies are in fact illiberal.

Go even further to the left of American progressivism, and you find various forms of radicalism and socialism. This brings us to Dismantling Privilege: An Ethics of Accountability, written by Associate Professor Mary E. Hobgood of Holy Cross’ Religious Studies Department.

First published in 2000 and revised in 2009, Dismantling Privilege is a book that aims to identify what Hobgood perceives as the underlying causes of inequality in America and solutions to such problems. In her preface, Hobgood states, “this book seeks

to offer the privileged an alternative framework for understanding themselves and others to the one provided by the liberal ideology of heterosexist, white supremacist, market capitalism.” Throughout the course of the entire book, Hobgood blames the vast majority of our social and economic problems on capitalism, which, in her view, perpetuates racism and sexism. This theory also contains a curious Christian spin, which suggests that in order to be a good disciple of Christ, one must be a socialist. One would have to write an entire book to address every point Hobgood raises, so I will respond to what I can in this short context.

In her introduction to the second edi tion, Hobgood points to three events as examples of the havoc wrought by a capitalistic global political economy: Hurricane Katrina, wars in the Middle East, and the ecological crisis. Let’s take each in turn.

Example 1: The federal government’s delayed response to the Hurricane Katrina, Hobgood argues, illustrated the inherent racism and class prejudices of American society. Rich people, who were mostly white, escaped New Orleans, while poor people, many of whom were black, were stuck in the city. The levees in New Orleans broke in the first place because the system was neglected by the federal government because politicians were too busy doing favors for the nation’s elite.

There is an alternative explanation to why New Orleans was woefully unprepared for the effects of the hurricane. In 1968, Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program, which enables property owners to buy flood insurance from the federal government. The majority of insured homes are around the Gulf Coast because the Gulf Coast is more prone to experience hurricanes than other regions. While the intent of the program may be noble, national flood insurance effectively disguises the real cost of living in a flood prone area.

This creates a moral hazard. The government made it cheaper to live in New Orleans than it would have been if there not been federal flood insurance. People may think the government is doing them a favor by providing them flood insurance, but it actually hurt the people of New Orleans by misleading them into thinking that they could comfortably live in this area. If there were no national flood insurance, people would either live in less expensive (but safer) areas or paid

higher market-driven insurance premiums reflecting the real level of danger in New Orleans. Hobgood does not address this argument at all, leaving no room for debate as to whether government action may have even partially exacerbated the situation.

Example 2: Warfare in the Middle East. Hobgood points to the United States’ vast military budget, our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the war on terror as immoral devices used to make defense contractors and other interests richer at the expense of others. She calls the “war against terrorism” a “new and unjust relation …that is not governed by the rule of law.” Hobgood is right to point out that there are industries that profit from creating weapons and other materials, but she is not right on much else. While many argue we would have done better not to engage in the war in Iraq and save our military resources for Afghanistan, it is not accurate to say that the war in Iraq was started merely for the purposes of earning money. After years of mistreating his own people and even using chemical weapons on them, Saddam Hussein had refused

correct to argue that human activities have, in many cases, harmed the environment. This has particularly been true in the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution. There was obviously much more pollution in the air after we built factories.

However, Hobgood is nitpicking the results of the Industrial Revolution. She does not point to all the good that was brought about by industrialization. Prior to the 1800s, the standard of living for the vast majority of human beings on the planet was sub-standard. In fact, according to economist Arthur Brooks, the average standard of living barely changed from ancient times to 1800. Most children did not live long.

Those who did lived to adulthood had a low life expectancy (average American life expectancy was about 40 years). Illiteracy was rampant.

The Industrial Revolution changed all that and brought about a great surge in living standards. Innovation in technology led to greater material wealth, which in turn, allowed for greater time and resources to be dedicated to studying science, medicine, and engineering. Western civilization

Dismantling Privilege proves to be a very strange read. to let U.N. weapons inspectors into his country. If anything, the invasion of Iraq should be seen as an example of Wilsonian idealism, an attempt to spread democracy and stop evil forces, not simply as an operation driven by the desire to profiteer from war.

Example 3: Capitalism is destroying the environment. Hobgood writes, “the planetary ecological crisis is the result of the intensified penetration of the global capitalist system into every corner of the world.” Throughout the book, she points to climate

If anything, the invasion of Iraq should be seen as an example of Wilsonian idealism, an attempt to spread democracy and stop evil forces, not simply as an operation driven by the desire to profiteer from war. change, ozone layer deterioration, and pollution as evidence that capitalism is killing us all. Hobgood is actually

has prospered due to capitalism, not in spite of it. If Professor Hobgood is willing to blame our environmental problems on markets, then she must also credit them for saving so much of humanity from poverty.

“Okay,” one may say, “capitalism has greatly benefited people, but it has still harmed the environment, so shouldn’t we regulate it in order to limit its environmental impact.”

Yes, in some circumstances. Even the free-market champion Milton Friedman argued that pollution could be taxed in order to reduce it. But this is not to say that capitalism must be scrapped in order to protect the environment (socialist countries such as the People’s Republic of China and the former Soviet Union are not exactly great examples of environmental stewardship). In fact, in some circumstances capitalism has helped alleviate environmental problems.

For example, the advent of the automobile led to a great decline in horse manure in cities across America since horses were no longer needed as a means of transportation. The rapid decline in horse manure led to much healthier urban areas.

Continued on page 7

The Fenwick Review

5

February 2013

After storming the consulate grounds, militants set fire to the facility ultimately killing the U.S. Ambassador and three additional State Department officials.

Africa: The New Front in the Global War on Terror John Castro ‘14 Staff Writer

As the United States and her NATO allies prepare to withdraw from Afghanistan at the end of 2014, many Americans would like to believe that the Global War on Terror has come to an end. Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. Rather, new fronts, created by a more versatile enemy, are emerging. Numerous members of the Obama Administration – such as Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, and the President himself – have argued publicly that al-Qaeda’s leadership has been decimated. They cite the elimination of key al-Qaeda leaders, such as Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki, as evidence. This assertion is based in fact; the highly centralized al-Qaeda created and led

by Osama bin Laden has been dissolved and their safe haven in Afghanistan no longer exists. Nevertheless, to assert that al-Qaeda is no longer a threat would be a grave mistake.

Instead, al-Qaeda has fragmented into dozens of regional affiliates such as al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al-Qaeda in Iraq, and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. Many of these organizations can be broken down further into smaller local chapters, such as alShabaab in Somalia and Boko Haram in Nigeria.

For many of these newly emerging terror cells, the prospect of successfully attacking within Western nations is slim to none. Rather, they are focused on striking against Western interests in Africa. On September 11, 2012, militants inspired by al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb stormed the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya

killing U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens as well as another U.S. State Department official and two Central Intelligence Agency contractors. Most recently, militants associated with the same al-Qaeda subdivision captured a vast amount of territory in Mali, destabilizing the already fragile central government there. To prevent the complete fall of Mali to Islamic extremists, France’s president, Socialist Francois Hollande, has ordered military forces be deployed to assist Malian government forces until a U.N. force comprised of soldiers from other African states can be assembled.

Despite France’s intervention, the extremists have not been deterred.

In retaliation for Western action and the complicity of numerous African governments, al-Qaeda militants seized the Aménas natural gas facility in Algeria, taking hundreds of both

Algerian and foreign workers hostage.

Although Algerian Special Forces managed to rescue many of the hostages, dozens were killed in the operation, including three Americans.

To date, the U.S. response to the emergence of these al-Qaeda affiliates has been limited to providing monetary support and counterterrorism training to the governments of the nations where these groups operate and in some areas, such as Yemen, using drones to neutralize terrorist training camps. In the case of consulate attack, the U.S. largely left the investigation to Libyan authorities.

Regarding the situation in Mali, the U.S., along with Canada and the United Kingdom, have agreed to support France by transporting French troops on transport planes...

Continued on page 7

February 2013

The Fenwick Review

Can You Spare a Dime?

6

“Say, don’t you remember, they called me Al;/ it was Al all the time./Say, don’t you remember, I’m your pal? /Buddy, can you spare a dime?”

Nikolas Churick ‘15 Staff Writer

construed as a “threat to commit a crime.”

If, however, there are no threats involved, the act is practically tantamount to a child pleading with a parent. It may be annoying, but should not be seen as aggressive per se. b. “Touching another person or their property in the course of begging or soliciting without that person’s con-

In the city of Worcester, one must now be careful in asking for a dime, taking care that the request is not misconstrued as aggressive.

The Worcester city council recently approved of a vote, scheduled for January 29, on two ordinances: one to prohibit “aggressive panhandling” (the term used in the ordinance) and b. “Touching another perthe other to prohibit forms of solicitation in median islands and in intersec- son or their property in the tions. In the early nineteen-nineties, course of begging or solicfederal courts struck down similar iting without that person’s laws in New York and San Francisco, consent.” Touching another so questions over the legality of such person uninvited can be laws have been raised.

There are concerns over what assault, if there is intent to effect these ordinances would have, harm. if any, on free speech. Opponents claim that it is an attempt to mute panhandlers by enacting over-broad sent.” Touching another person uninrestrictions. Supporters say that the vited can be assault, if there is intent ordinances do nothing unreasonable to harm. to limit what can be said but rather Touching another’s property may fall into a variety of categories, includa. “Continuing to beg or ing attempted theft. All of these are solicit from a person after crimes already. the person has given a neg- c. “Blocking or interfering with the ative response to such solic- safe or free passage of a pedestrian or vehicle by any means.”

itation.” If the panhandler makes threats, this sort of act may be construed as a “threat to commit a crime.”

simply forbid that which could be aggressive and perhaps harmful. It is true that legitimate safety concerns exist, both on behalf of the panhandlers and those they solicit. But the ordinances cover no new ground; the ordinances are intended to address “aggressive panhandling,” yet fail to offer a meaning of the term that is not already illegal under current law.

At best, then, these proposed laws are redundant, and, at worst, they unduly limit the rights of the poor.

The third section of the ordinance describes what actions constitute “aggressive behavior:” a. “Continuing to beg or solicit from a person after the person has given a negative response to such solicitation.” If the panhandler makes threats, this sort of act may be

c. “Blocking or interfering with the safe or free passage of a pedestrian or vehicle by any means.”

Existing laws already cover these actions, including physical obstruction, careless interference at a crosswalk, and loitering. d. “Using violent or threatening gestures, which are likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction from the person who is the subject of the solicitation or request for money.”

This would certainly be threat to commit a crime. h. “Begging or soliciting in a manner with conduct, words, or gestures intended or likely to cause a reason-

At best, then, these proposed laws are redundant, and, at worst, they unduly limit the rights of the poor. able person to fear imminent bodily harm, danger, or damage to or loss of property or otherwise to be intimidated into giving money or any other

d. “Using violent or threatening gestures, which are likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction from the person who is the subject of the solicitation or request for money.”

thing of value.”

The former act is prohibited under actions to “willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with (or attempt to do so), or oppress or threaten a person.”

As the excerpts of the proposal illustrate, these actions are ones that already have been addressed.

While the concern for safety, especially of motorists in traffic, is legitimate, the actions described would not be stopped by another ordinance. If the existing ones are not obeyed, future restatements of the same laws will not compel those disobeying the existing law to comply. This restriction also fails to address underlying issues mainly responsible for homelessness in the first place, such as unemployment, mental health, substance abuse/ addiction. Passing these ordinances is a shallow approach to a deep prob-

lem. Passage of these laws will not prevent panhandlers from continuing to beg. If such individuals feel that there are no alternative means of procuring income and sustenance, they will persist in collecting donations.

The fine, fifty dollars for each day the infraction occurs, will, if these individuals are homeless, likely go unpaid.

If a panhandler is aggressive, the individual will, likely, be aggressive wherever he or she may go. Not only do such laws ultimately prove ineffective, they are misguided and discriminatory in their effect. Criminalizing poverty is not an adequate social program.

h. “Begging or soliciting in a manner with conduct, words, or gestures intended or likely to cause a reasonable person to fear imminent bodily harm, danger, or damage to or loss of property or otherwise to be intimidated into giving money or any other thing of value.”

Instead of passing repetitive ordinances forbidding people from asking for charity, the city should use this opportunity to discuss ways to lessen the need to ask the question over and over again.

The Fenwick Review

7

February 2013

Africa: The New Front in the Global War on Terror cont. from page 3 refueling French fighter jets and sharing intelligence; however, there are no plans to provide France with air and ground combat assets. Undertaking large scale military action is simply too costly and further Western engagement could embolden Islamist extremists across the region. Never-

If these terrorist cells are not dealt with they will quickly achieve the operational capacity that al-Qaeda possessed pre9/11/2001. theless, the threat cannot be ignored.

While these groups are currently lim-

ited to operating within their specific spheres of influence, if they are not dealt with they will quickly achieve the operational capacity that al-Qaeda possessed pre-9/11/2001. After nearly twelve years of fighting in Afghanistan and a little over eight years in Iraq, it is clear that nation building is not the solution to eliminating safe havens for terrorists. The U.S. led War on Terror sought to place geographic boundaries around an enemy that views the globe as the battlefield.

A long-term military campaign in Mali or any other nation is bound to become another Afghanistan or Iraq, with no clear path to decisive military victory. Al-Qaeda and its affiliates will simply continue to move their operations outside the reach of conventional military forces. Alternatively, the U.S. and her allies could gather intelligence to narrow down targets and use drones and Special Forces to eliminate

French Mirage 2000D fighters take formation before targeting militant positions in Mali. targets with precision. These methtary capabilities and slash the defense ods are less costly than conventional budget, strong efforts should be made operations, are more reliable than to keep funding for these assets intact. foreign governments who have vested interests, and can be called upon for operations anywhere in the world. As the U.S. prepares to downsize its mili-

An Illiberal View of Ethics cont. from page 4

But surely Professor Hobgood raises some good points? After all, environmental problems are real. Wars are real. Poverty is real. Hobgood identifies genuine social ills in our society. Her problem is not her description of the symptoms of America’s problems. Rather, her problem is her prescription. In this respect, she is similar to film-maker, Michael Moore who loves to cite examples of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

Also like Moore, Hobgood blames free-market capitalism (an economic system where individuals are free to set prices for goods and services without government interference) when she should be blaming crony capitalism or corporatism (an economic system where goods and services are produced by private individuals, but also rely on heavily on government interference).

For example, both Hobgood in this book and Moore in his documentary Capitalism: A Love Story harshly criticize the U.S. financial sector and bemoan the policies that brought about the Great Recession. However, where Hobgood and Moore see free markets failing, one really sees corporatist markets failing. The meltdown of 2008 was largely brought about by artificially-low interest rates set by the Federal Reserve, federal policies designed to put people in homes they could not really afford, and a financial sector that had been bailed out numerous times by the federal government in the event of crisis. Misguided monetary and public policy, alongside moral hazard, were at the heart of the housing boom and bust. These issues are not identified in

Dismantling Privilege.

Thus far, I have offered counterarguments to the key points made by Professor Hobgood. I have pointed to examples of a free, capitalist society succeeding. But this model is admittedly not perfect. Who are the models in Dismantling Privilege? Who should we look to as an example in solving our socioeconomic woes? Hobgood points to Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, among others. She cites radical economist Michael Lebowitz who lives in Venezuela and maintains that a successful alternative to capitalism is emerging under the socialist Chavez. To Chavez’s credit, poverty has dropped under his leadership. However, Hobgood’s explanation of how this works is vague at best.

She describes how collectivist-minded leaders are helping bring positive social changes in the Latin American nation;

To Chavez’s credit, poverty has dropped under his leadership.

However, Hobgood’s explanation of how this works is vague at best. but her argument remains broad and unhelpful. Conveniently, Hobgood also does not describe Chavez’s crackdown on dissenters and his concentration of power. Even the extreme leftwing thinker Noam Chomsky has con-

demned Chavez’s behavior for these actions. You know it’s bad if you’re trying to argue for socialism and you don’t even have Noam Chomsky on your side.

Well, even if this model does not lead to the most efficient solution, it still leads to a more just, more Christian society, right? This argument that capitalism is inherently un-Christian is not a new one. Such a stance is founded in liberation theology, a brand of Catholic theology that interprets the teachings of Christ in terms of liberation from unjust economic and political conditions. It is a left-wing strain of Catholicism that stresses state action and even violent revolution in the name of addressing social ills. Hogbood admits that she relies greatly on liberation theology in her theories. In fact, while critics of liberation theology, including Pope Benedict XVI, have called it “Christian Marxism,” Hobgood readily endorses Marxist precepts in achieving ethical ideals.

Unfortunately for Professor Hobgood (but, fortunately for the rest of us), her ideas of collectivism, socialism, and liberation theology have not been widely accepted by the Roman Catholic Church. Socialism was first denounced by Pope Leo XIII in 1878.

Pope John Paul II called socialism a “fundamental error” and argued that liberation theology “does not tally with the Church’s catechisms.” This does not mean that the Church advocates a total free-market view. On the contrary, throughout the years, the Church has criticized the shortcomings of unrestrained markets and emphasized the need to help the poor and underprivi-

leged. However, the Church still advocates for an economic system based on private markets. Sorry, Professor Hobgood, you’re religious spin on social issues is still held only by an extremist

Sorry, Professor Hobgood, you’re religious spin on social issues is still held only by an extremist minority. minority.

Dismantling Privilege proves to be a very strange read. Hobgood comments on numerous economic issues, but she shows only a rudimentary understanding of economic theory. She vividly describes her own arguments, but she fails to fully explain alternative views, leaving little room for debate.

She relies heavily on non-mainstream ideas such as neo-Marxist theory and liberation theology, but she does not explain why it is acceptable to adopt such views given that they are rightly considered fringe views. The theories described in the book lack intellectual rigor because Hobgood arrives at such outlandish positions by nitpicking statistics, statements, and parts of Scripture, while rejecting any evidence to the contrary. Indeed, such ideas add up to form a very illiberal set of ethics.

The Fenwick Review

8

February 2013

Holy Cross Likes Questions.

Father Scalia Has Some Answers.

The Fenwick Review Interviews it’s Founder

God & Man at Holy Cross

An Interview with Rev. Paul Scalia’ 92, Founder of the Fenwick Review Malik Neal ‘13 Copy Editor

that aspect of tradition and that reverence for tradition, both receiving it and enriching it by living it in our

own day and then the teachings of Cont. from page 1 Church and devotions of the Church FR: So, what need did The Fenwick – including devotion to Our Lady Review intend to fill in the student and to the Eucharist – really weren’t body at Holy Cross? Was it that there talked about. There seemed to be, was a lack of discussion about conser- and I think still is, a sense that the vative viewpoints?

Catholic faith is somehow opposed PS: Exactly. It was to communicate to intellectual life, and, of course, that, you know what, there are other nobody would found a college thinkpoints of view on these things and ing that. If you think that, look at the it’s not unreasonable to think, for college—it’s nothing but a bunch of example, that liberation theology is smart alecks, instead of a bunch of not really a good thing when it is real- people who speak to the faith and the ly represented at the College as very intellectual tradition. So, that’s what good, despite, of course, some of the we desired to bring to the floor and very clear teachings of the Church. to remind people.

Also, just to engage the debate a little more and get people to think about FR: Just listening you now and readthings and not to accept what was ing some of the early editions of really just some pat answers about The Fenwick Review, it’s clear that things and to get a dialogue and Catholic identity meant a lot to you debate going and to represent the and the paper. What do you think conservative principles in that debate. makes a Catholic college/ university Though there was general agreement “Catholic”? about why we were doing it, we also PS: Well, first, truth in advertising, had our personal reasons. For me, it right? If I am going to wear a Yankee had very much to do with the pracuniform, I should probably play for tice of the faith, the theology, the the Yankees. And if an institution is devotions that I knew were part of going to call itself Catholic, it should the Church, but were painfully absent probably adhere to the teachings of at Holy Cross. I really see it as the the Church, and not to things that deprivation of the life of faith among deny them. That’s a baseline. That’s its students and a denial of the patrimony, a right to our faith and the fullness of it, and if not given to us, that’s really the denial of a birthright, the birthright that comes from baptism.

FR: In the opening article of the first Fenwick Review, you mentioned the paper’s purpose is to “promote the traditional values upon which our school ... was founded.” What are those traditional values?

PS: The teachings of the Church to begin with, [laughter]; and the integration of faith and the intellectual life. The valuing of the Western tradition, and of all that came before it.

I mean there’s an entire patrimony of the Church, of Western civilization, that for centuries has been handed down and enriched with each generation and that had kind of stopped.

It wasn’t happening anymore, so

For me, it had very much to do with the practice of the faith, the theology, the devotions that I knew were part of the Church, but were painfully absent at Holy Cross.

just the foundation. That is by no means the end of things. In this respect our Holy Father’s beatification of Cardinal Newman is a great example of this. Newman really saw his thought as fulfilled and really taking off when he became Catholic, not as being stunted and ended. So there

has to be that starting point. And then, as I said before, the integration of faith and reason – the conviction that these things are not opposed, and if someone holds something in faith, that does not mean the person is anti-intellectual. And that at the same time the intellect is supposed to assist faith as well.

And then the integration of disciplines. The disciplines should not be as isolated as I am afraid they were and probably are at Holy Cross. There’s not a whole lot of cross conversation between science and humanities there and even within humanities things are pretty segregated and this is why one of things we always wanted was a core-curriculum. The Church believes in the big “T” tradition, but also a liberal arts Catholic education should hand on the tradition of the West—learning those great works of literature and the philosophy and theology and those great influxes of science, math, or whatever else. These should all be handed on and there should be that reverence for tradition that came before. These are the things that go into making a Catholic university or a Catholic college.

Allow me add one more thing.

What is the goal of a Catholic university or college? Let me extend this to high school or parish school. The goal of a Catholic education is not simply to get a great job and make a lot of money. It is to form that kind of person that will glorify God in this

world and be with Him in the next.

And so, it should be inconsequential to a Catholic school really whether their graduates make tons of money or something else. And although I think there are those

The goal of a Catholic education is not simply to get a great job and make a lot of money. It is to form that kind of person that will glorify God in this world and be with Him in the next. at Holy Cross who agree that we shouldn’t just be educating for a fat paycheck, I think that really wasn’t communicated. I think that really wasn’t communicated. That didn’t seem to me to be the conviction of Holy Cross; that this is the kind of student or graduate that we want, someone steeped in the Catholic faith, someone who is educated not for any particular purpose, but just for the sake of being educated, so that there is more that person can give to God and to give in service to one another.

The Fenwick Review

February 2013

9

God & Man at Holy Cross

An Interview with Rev. Paul Scalia’ 92, Founder of the Fenwick Review cont.from page 8 FR: I have another quote for you. It's more recent, so hopefully you remember, but I think it connects perfectly with the unique situation that Catholic universities and colleges find themselves in. In your more recent critique of the Montserrat program's focus on questions, you wrote: “It would seem wiser to build a community on answers rather than questions. St. Ignatius’s experience at Montserrat would have been markedly different had he contented himself with only questions and never actually settled on answers.

It was a Catholic not an agnostic Ignatius that laid down his arms at the feet of the Black Madonna and took up the beggar’s cloak. He gave his life to her because he had found the Truth, not questions.” How can a Catholic academic institution, like Holy Cross, know the Truth and still carry out free and rigorous inquiry?

PS: The piece that you're quoting was in response to Professor David O' Brien's defense of the College’s really questionable decision to host a teen pregnancy seminar, or rather, hosting in the sense of allowing them to use the facilities. I think it featured speakers from NARAL [National Abortion Rights Advocate League] and Planned Parenthood, and, you know—what's these groups’ solution for reducing teen pregnancy: contraception and abortion. Either prevent the pregnancy or end it, then you get rid of teen pregnancy. And so, this struck me as a dubious thing for the College to do and there was some debate over it.

David O'Brien posted a response to Bishop McManus' s comments, and I found O'Brien's remarks to be really agnostic. And so to your question here: how can an institution know the Truth and still carry out free and rigorous inquiry? Well, let me point out first of all that free and rigorous inquiry presumes that there is a truth.

And if there's not that presumption that truth exists, then the free and rigorous inquiry really is cynicism, and it just calls everything into question, not only without providing an answer, but without even acknowledging that the answer exists.

And this is precisely what I encountered at Holy Cross – a questioning of things, constant questioning, especially of the traditions of Western civilization and the Catholic Church in particular. The constant question, but never an articulation of an answer. And so, even when we do have the truth already, when we speak about the doctrine, a free and rigorous inquiry should strive to understand these things more—that's the purpose of such inquiry. But once we say

that the purpose of college is to ask questions, well that's a huge problem.

The purpose is to grasp the truth.

It's within that context that questions are asked—the articulation of the truth that provides the environment in which questions can be asked. And if there is no conviction of the truth, then why ask questions? Why engage in any of these intellectual pursuits?

Because without the truth we’re all just sophists and it's just, you know, we can talk about this things a little bit and may have some fancy linguistic maneuvers, but in the end it is nothing because there is no truth.

And let me add it's not as though the Catholic Church has not had a tradition of doing this, and again this is what happens when we're disconnected from our own tradition.

The Catholic Church invented the University. It was in the training for the preaching of the faith that the university was started and that free and rigorous inquiry began. There are many examples of that in the history of the Church, so it's not as though we have to look far to find an example. We only need to look at our own tradition.

One of the problems also is that in a college environment it's not just the classroom; it's the student life. That's where a lot of things are either helpful or hurtful, and one of the difficulties was that the Catholic truth would not even be defended in student life. And so, I can understand not wanting to cram the doctrine – the Incarnation, for example – down somebody's throat in the classroom, but allow a discussion about things.

My friends and I kind of led the charge against that and SGA voted to have a pro-choice group there anyway. It was sort of in the dead of night over, I think, Thanksgiving break, or something like that, that the administration very subtly and quietly said no.

But you would expect a Jesuit institution to defend the right of the unborn and to not approve student organizations that would advocate for the right to abortion.

FR: Just for clarification, you seem to suggest that Holy Cross and Student

Life were ambiguous or lukewarm when it came to the issue of abortion?

PS: “Ambiguous” and “lukewarm” would be generous. In my time there was an attempt to have a pro-choice group approved as a campus group.

My friends and I kind of led the charge against that and SGA voted to

I don’t want a professor who’s going to be promoting any kind of politics.

I would want a professor who is going to teach the discipline and who’ s going to challenge students to think more clearly, who’s going to inspire students to really desire to find the truth that does, in fact, exist. have a pro-choice group there anyway.

It was sort of in the dead of night over, I think, Thanksgiving break, or something like that, that the administration very subtly and quietly said no. There was a very muted response from the administration, and there was no one stepping forward and saying, wait a minute, we're a Catholic institution; we believe that every child in womb has a right to life, and we don't want to lend our facilities to those who would advocate the killing of the unborn as a legitimate choice anymore than we would lend our facilities to those who advocate slavery or racism, or, you know, any other thing like that.

In other words, we all draw the line somewhere to what the institution will permit and what it will not permit, and the greatest example is that some people wanted The Fenwick Review to be silenced, in the name of freedom speech. And well, we all recognize that the Catholic institution has an obligation to ban certain advocacies. Now it doesn't mean you're going to shut people down in the classroom, but it does mean you don't need to lend your facilities to them promote things that are contrary to the faith.

FR: One of your main criticisms of Holy Cross was what you called, “the flagrantly biased liberal opinions ... and tunnel-visioned faculty.” How do you respond to critics who say that Fr. Scalia wants exactly what he criticizes: a narrowly partisan faculty, just on the other side of the political spectrum?

PS: Well, I might take issue with the

political spectrum part [laughter].

It's not ultimately a matter of politics—that's not the issue. I don't want a professor who's going to be promoting any kind of politics. I would want a professor who is going to teach the discipline and who' s going to challenge students to think more clearly, who's going to inspire students to really desire to find the truth that does, in fact, exist. Yes, I think it's an easy accusation to make, but I mean we were [chuckle] never advocating that Holy Cross hire dyed-in-the-wool Republicans and have equal time for Republican things in the classroom.

No, we just were making the simple, rather modest argument that the professor shouldn't bring his opinions to the classroom and inflict them on the students. That's unjust in a lot of regards. So yes, it's an easy accusation to make, but in the end it doesn't really hold because that's not what we were advocating and not anything I've ever advocated. If you read the principles of The Fenwick Review, you will find that we weren't really desiring anything of that sort, just a modest thing that the opinions be left out and unfortunately the opinions that were spouted were, really way to the left.

FR: If you had to do it over again, would you attend Holy Cross?

PS: That's hard to say. In the end Holy Cross was where God wanted me to be. I benefited from many of the teachers there, and I still have some very good friendships from Holy Cross. I learned a lot of things there that benefit me now as a priest and just as a Catholic man. Some of that was incidental to being at Holy Cross, so that's not something I can really say because of God's providence. I know that is where He would want me to be. If I were as an 18-year-old as I am now, I would not go, but that's dealing in temporal fiction, so I rather not, you know, pronounce on that.

FR: As an alumnus and founder of the Fenwick Review, what would you like to be remembered for?

PS: Well, ultimately I just want to be remembered for being a good priest.

That's all I would like, but as an alumnus of the College and founder of The Fenwick Review, hopefully to just be a voice for those aspects of the Catholic faith, Catholic tradition, the tradition of the West, the strong tradition of higher education, just to be a voice for that. Not the most articulate, not the most learned, but one who is just calling out for attention to things that have been forgotten and witnessing to something that had been at least forgotten, if not rejected.

February 2013

The Fenwick Review

10

Turn Back: Fiscal Cliff Ahead Amber Alley ‘16 Staff Writer

Many Holy Cross students spent their Christmas breaks visiting family members, travelling the globe, or simply catching up on much-needed sleep. But I bet no Holy Cross student was spending his or her break deciding the economic fate of

“Going over the cliff” would be both economically compromising and would result in harm to our national image. the country, which is exactly what President Obama and Congress were attempting to do over the holidays.

But what exactly were they doing?

Many Holy Cross students may not fully understand the often opaque and

complicated processes of Congress.

How could we when Congress has a language and rulebook all its own?

What we can do is ask crucial questions: what is a fiscal cliff and how does it, if at all, affect Holy cross students? Was the situation over the holidays resolved? How long will this solution last?

The “fiscal cliff” is a term used to signal the simultaneous expiration of the Bush tax cuts on both the upper and middle classes and a sharp reduction in government spending. “Going over the cliff” would be both economically compromising and would result in harm to our national image. An increased tax revenue and a reduction in spending does not seem so scary and may even sound like an good idea. Hypothetically, the fiscal cliff situation would significantly reduce America’s deficit (which is the amount of debt accumulated in one year) because government is spending less and the American people are being taxed more.

But the fear surrounding the fiscal cliff is by no means unearned.

Although the deficit would be significantly reduced after going off the cliff, money going into the economy would decrease also. In a time of

slight economic growth, taking money out of the economy would stifle delicate growth and could possibly lead America back into the much-dreaded recession it only recently left behind.

The new plan that was agreed to

by Congress falls short of many Americans’ expectations. It hardly addressed spending cuts, which seem to be a large contributing factor to the cliff crisis. The proposed plan will raise taxes on those making over $450,000 a year, while also raising a payroll tax that was reduced in President Obama’s first term back up to 6.2% which will affect every wage-earning American. The Bush tax cuts will be extended for middle class citizens, although the extension is only valid through the next five years.

The plan Congress agreed on is shortsighted and proved only barely passable. It will not prove to be a sufficient defense for America to avoid having to deal with the fiscal cliff again. In the end, the product matched the effort of Congress and the President to come to an agreement: sloppy, rushed, and half-hearted. Despite this, it is safe to say that a mediocre plan outweighs economic calamity, even if it is just for a little

while. Congress can only bide time for so long, however, until quick patchworks fail and heavy duty refabricating is needed.

So how will this new deal affect students at Holy Cross and their families? Only 1% of all taxpayers earn $450,000 or more per year, so many if not most Holy Cross families will be unaffected by this part of the plan. However, since many Holy Cross students have jobs or are anticipating jobs after graduation in the next few months and at least one of their parents is employed, the raising of the payroll tax back up to 6.2% could make a noticeable difference in many families’ net incomes.

11

The Fenwick Review

February 2013

The Underwhelming Choice of Soledad O’Brien for Hanify-Howland Honor Travis LaCouter ’13 Executive Editor

Holy Cross recently announced TV personality Soledad O’Brien as the 2013 Hanify-Howland speaker. The announcement follows past on-campus speeches by Chris Matthews, Mark Shriver, and Cornel West. The administration and HanifyHowland selection committee can be forgiven for their obsequious deference to liberal celebrities (after all, prominent Republicans like Brent Scowcroft and Clarence Thomas have been invited to speak in the past – Robert George is coming on campus this spring). This is not simply about

...what is so troubling about the choice of Ms. O’Brien is that she represents at best a questionable professional judgment and at worst a habitual tendency to twist or ignore facts in order to advance her particular point of view. politics. Rather, what is so troubling about the choice of Ms. O’Brien is that she represents at best a questionable professional judgment and at worst a habitual tendency to twist or ignore facts in order to advance her particular point of view. The College should have sought a speaker who more fully embodies the ideals of open, honest debate and fidelity to critical inquiry than Ms. O’Brien.

O’Brien has made a steady career as a news producer, reporter, and now anchor on various news programs, mostly morning shows. She has struggled to remain in one place for a long time, and her current show, a 7:00 – 9:00am slot on CNN called Starting Point, has just been axed after consistently being crushed in the ratings by its Fox and MSNBC counterparts.

She won an Emmy for co-hosting a show on the Discovery Channel in the ‘90s. Since then, she has been lauded for her reporting of Hurricane Katrina and the 2004 Indian tsunami and, for no apparent reason, even has an award named after her at the traditionally-black Morehouse School of Medicine.

But in her later career, Ms. O’Brien has moved from chipper morning personality to unapologetic liberal hack. During the 2008 and 2012 elections, Ms. O’Brien was one of the most steadfast and aggressive defenders of the current president among the mainstream media. And she filled this role with an apparent unconcern for the nuances of fact or accuracy. Her foibles and misstatements on-air are numerous.

For example, in September 2008, she claimed that then-Governor Sarah Palin had cut special education funding in Alaska by 62% when in fact Palin had increased funding dramatically, tripling per-student spending over three years. In 2012, O’Brien misrepresented details of Mitt Romney’s Medicare plan, accusing Romney of supporting a $700 million cut he consistently said he opposed. When interviewing (interrogating?) Romney surrogate Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia, O’Brien falsely claimed Barack Obama held a 15-point lead over Romney in Virginia ahead of the final debate when in fact Obama lead by a mere 5 points (nearly within the margin of error for that poll). Most recently, in the wake of the tragic attack at Sandy Hook Elementary School, O’Brien had on a guest, economist John Lott, whose book argues that gun-free zones and strict gun bans do little to curb gun violence. Instead of engaging in a fact-based conversation about the relative merits of Lott’s position, O’Brien interrupted him repeatedly, ignored his actual argument, and eventually ended the interview by admitting, “your position just completely boggles me.” Similar other examples exist.

Time and again, O’Brien played fast and loose with the facts

in order to paint Republicans and conservatives in the most unflattering light possible: By essentially accusing Sarah Palin of being against special needs children, Mitt Romney of being against the elderly, and defenders of the 2nd Amendment of being unconcerned with the deaths of 20 children, Ms. O’Brien has shown a callous willingness – even eagerness – to lower the standard of dialogue on important issues.

This attitude is not unique to Ms. O’Brien. Politics is a dirty business and both sides at times engage in dishonest and underhanded tactics to score points against the other. But Ms. O’Brien is neither a commentator nor a pundit; she is, or is supposed to be, a journalist, responsible for safeguarding the integrity of public debate in this country. She repeatedly asserts that she is trying to ‘keep both sides honest,’ yet the near totality of her most memorable on-air confrontations have been with conservatives or Republicans. Unfortunately, Ms. O’Brien’s first loyalties appear to be to a point of view, not the truth.

The mission of the HanifyHowland lecture is to showcase an individual who can “address the College community on issues of public affairs.” Though this is surely an

But in her later career, Ms. O’Brien has moved from chipper morning personality to unapologetic liberal hack. over-broad definition, it presumably does not include someone who has mangled her professional code as badly as Ms. O’Brien has.

Again, it is not Ms. O’Brien’s blatant partisanship that makes her undeserving of the Hanify-Howland

O’Brien’s first loyalties appear to be to a point of view, not the truth. honor. Past recipients have included some of the strongest voices from both sides of the political spectrum.

Sincere and staunch liberals like Gov. Bob Casey Sr. of Pennsylvania, the Hon. Shirley Williams, and Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. have all been rightly honored with the Hanify-Howland lecture; prominent and serious conservatives like Leon Kass, Mary Ann Glendon, and Justice Antonin Scalia have also presented lectures. This is the level of discourse the HanifyHowland search committee should strive to uphold, one that brings together accomplished, respected, and thoughtful speakers to present their ideas in good faith. This type of dialogue honors the College’s commitment, as stated in its mission statement, to “critical examination of fundamental religious and philosophical questions integral to a liberal arts education.”

One struggles to understand how Ms. O’Brien continues this noble tradition.

February 2013

The Fenwick Review

12

In Gratitude to Our Sponsors and Partners Want to advertise in the Fenwick Review? email Brendan Sullivan bgsull13@g.holycross. edu