October 2015

The Independent Journal of Opinion at the College of the Holy Cross October 2015

Volume XXIII , Issue I

Quod Verum Pulchrum sites.google.com/a/g.holycross.edu/the-fenwick-review

Table of Contents POETRY

Face of a Man...............................................................................7

Sean Powers ‘18

untitled..........................................................................................11

Patrick Connolly ‘18

OPINION

Banned: How the Campus Crackdown on Free Speech

Imprils Academic Liberty.........................................................5

Austin Barselau ‘18

Is Holy Cross the “#3 Worst Train Wreck?”.......................8 Guest Contributer

The Problem with the GOP....................................................12

Kira Niederhoffer ‘16

A Different Kind of Service.....................................................14

Jessica Cormier ‘16

A Forgotten Alum......................................................................15

Joseph Murphy ‘16

All’s New in New York...........................................................16

Anthony John ‘16

What is True, is Beautiful........................................................18

Steven Merola ‘16

Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defeneded constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom, and then lost it, have never known it again.

--Ronald Reagan

The Fenwick Review 2015-2016 Staff Co-Editors in Chief Steven Merola ‘16 Joseph Murphy ‘16 Layout Editor Meaghan McGeary ‘16 Staff Writers Amber Alley ‘16 Austin Barselau ‘18 Marian Blawie ‘16 Nicholas Jalbert ‘16 Anthony John ‘16 Eric Kuhn ‘16 Kira Niederhoffer ‘16 Micala Smith ‘16 Brooke Tranten ‘17 Kilian Bede White ‘18 Faculty Advisor Professor David Lewis Schaefer Political Science Cover Art: Margaret MacMullin ‘16 “Ripples of Fall,” 9”x12”, watercolor and sumi ink

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 opnion 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: Steven Merola and Joseph Murphy P.O. Box 4A 1 College Street Worcester, MA 01610

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.​

To the Benefactors:

We must reserve the 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.

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

Letter from the Editors Dear Readers, Thank you for picking up a copy of The Fenwick Review.

Non-freshmen readers might have noticed that the Review has undergone a makeover: we are now printing in a magazine format. Last year’s co-editors initiated this change, and we have happily continued with their reform. The Review has always been a journal of serious opinion and the magazine style better reflects this quality than the old newsprint layout.

Although the format may have changed, the essence of the journal remains the same. We are still committed to offering thoughtful student commentary and critique, challenging those aspects of life at Holy Cross which run contrary to its Catholic, Jesuit identity, and voicing opinions that are counter to the dominant campus ethos. The journal has undergone a renewal, but this renewal is ordered toward this same, proud tradition.

Mr. Barselau kicks off the issue with an analysis of how microagressions and trigger warnings threaten the treasured tradition of academic and intellectual freedom.

An alumnus offers us an examination of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute’s ranking of Holy Cross as the “Third Worst Trainwreck School” in its 2014-15 college guide. Mr. Murphy tells us a bit about an outstanding but oft-forgotten alumnus: James William Colbert, Jr., father of television personality Stephen Colbert. Ms. Niederhoffer has some suggestions for how the GOP should conduct its affairs in the current primary season. Ms. Jessica Cormier reflects on the unexpected issues that arise from Holy Cross’s call to be “men and women for others.” Mr. John discusses the “Making All Things New” initiative in the Archdiocese of New York. Last and certainly least, Mr. Merola explains the rationale behind The Fenwick Review’s new motto: quod verum pulchrum, “what is true, is beautiful.”

Special thanks are due to two individuals: Ms. Meaghan McGeary, who (on very short notice) generously agreed to be out layout editor and has produced a marvelous journal; and Ms. Margaret MacMullin, whose exquisite autumnale adorns our front cover and whose sidereum aestivale enlivens an otherwise insipid article. We offer our profound gratitude to them for sharing their considerable talents with the Review, and we look forward to working with them in the future. We also wish to thank our two special guest contributors for their thoughtful pieces, our advisor Prof. David Lewis Schaefer, our talented staff, our two guest poets (Sean Powers and Patrick Connolly), and, naturally, our readership.

The purpose and pleasure of a journal are in the debate it provokes, the dialogue it fosters, and the occasion it affords for unheard voices to be magnified. We hope The Fenwick Review provides opportunity for all these things in the coming year, and we eagerly anticipate hearing what you have to say.

Pulchritudinem petite, Steven A. Merola

Joseph P. Murphy

4

BANNED:

How the Campus Crackdown On Free Speech Imperils Academic Liberty

By Austin Barselau ‘18 Staff Writer

A

frolicking puppies.” A microagression now can be defined as simply asking where someone is from, saying that the most qualified person should get the job, or using the word “American” to describe a resident of the United States. Comedians such as Jerry Seinfeld and Chris Rock refuse to perform on campuses because college students can no longer take a joke.

But it does not stop there. The same group also threatens to upend school curricula so as to launder them of unpleasant historical realities, edgy scenes in literature, and “triggers” that might induce post-trau-

s a new academic season commences, so continues the nationwide campus movement to pathologize our constitutional claim to free speech. I’m talking about the scourge of reported “microagressions,” or slights of speech that lead to ideational discomfort among a hypersensitive few. Students feeling perturbed or “harassed,” as is more commonly found in the lexicon of campus speech guides, can appeal to university administrators to establish “safe spaces” sanitized of any emotionally jostling content. The current undertakers of this cause are proceeding in a

matic stress in a student. We now live in a world where The Great Gatsby can be censored from class because of scenes that “reference gory, abusive and misogynistic violence.” At Columbia University, students protested reading assignments from Ovid’s Metamorphoses because it contained sexual violence. A Brandeis professor was convicted for racial harassment because he explained and critiqued the term “wetback.” Free speech, once asserted by Kant to be society’s “most innocuous freedom,” is being suffocated in the modern university’s atmosphere of curricula expurgated of any intellectually provocative material.

The flag of political correctness is also being raised right here at Holy Cross. One example could be

direction that direly threatens the integrity of academic freedom, the beating heart of a liberal arts education.

Among the more commonly reported microagressions on college campuses are those dealing not with legitimate gripes about perpetrations of racial or gender discrimination, but rather emotional or intellectual sensitivities to anything that threatens someone’s established beliefs. At Brown University, for example, a campus debate on sexual assault was deemed “damaging” because hearing differing viewpoints would serve to “invalidate people’s experiences.” Students then formed a safe space for those who found the notion of a debate too unsettling; the space was rather risibly furnished with “cookies, coloring books, bubbles and a video of 5

October 2015 The Fenwick Review

found last spring after Fox News commentator and Wall in college handbooks- they are really speech codes inStreet Journal fellow Jason Riley delivered a speech on cognito. campus entitled “Race Relations and Law Enforcement.”

The argument against prosecuting microagresWhen some of the opinions in the speech were viewed sors also rests on unsteady philosophical grounds. J.S. unfavorably by some of the “offended” attendees, Riley Mill’s On Liberty is a resourceful guide to defining what was later criticized for provoking too much conflict in- serves as a basis for harm reduction. Mill’s “harm prinstead of conversation. What is the origin of such con- ciple” acts as a barrier against those seeking to inflict flict? Is it the presence of opinions that one happens to harm on others. But Mill makes a categorical distincdisagree with? Those who claim emotional trauma from tion between physical harm and hurt feelings. In the experiences like these can seek refuge in the administra- fourth chapter, Mill supposes “no parity between the tive process. We can trace the College’s stance on the po- feeling of a person for his own opinion, and the feeling sition of free speech to its code of conduct where speech of another who is offended at his holding it; not more “causing emotional injury through careless or reckless than between the desire of a thief to take a purse, and behavior” is prohibited. How does one ascertain what the desire of the right owner to keep it.” College speech constitutes “careless” or “reckless” speech? This does not codes want to expand the circle of protections that ensquare gracefully with the College’s mission statement, compasses Mill’s harm principle to include statements by which students are “challenged to be open to new that might “offend” someone (some call this the “offense ideas” and to entertain “critical examination” by trying principle”). There is no equivalence between harm and on different opinions and perspectives for size. the mere discomfort that may arise from discordant

These ham-fisted attempts to distort the free ex- ideas. The bar for defining harm should remain high lest change of ideas create an environment inimical to aca- we compromise those who have more credible claims to demic exploration. It also hacks its protections.

The university is the nexat the pillars of the university’s

The fact that the colmost cherished of institutions: us of intellectual discovery; legiate marketplace of ideas free expression. According to forcefully gravitates towards the Foundation for Individual soul making requires com- self-regulation is telling. It says Rights in Education’s (FIRE) re- ing to understand of some of even more about its particicent report on free speech, close pants. According to critic Juthe more vexing questions to 60% of over 400 colleges surdith Shulevitz, college students veyed seriously infringed on “self-infantilize” themselves by of life. students’ right to free speech. eschewing sensitive or touchy The American Association of University Professors’ subjects. It does little to prepare them for the larger (AAUP) report on trigger warnings acknowledges that adult world where such security measures are nonexwhile some discomfort may be inevitable when students istent. Writing in Slate, Eric Posner posits that students are exposed to new ideas, it would be counterproduc- are more like children than adults. High schools, active to attach warnings to sensible parts of the curric- cording to Posner, are better equipped to deal with the ulum. Trigger warnings, it concludes, “reduce students cognitive immaturities of their students by “advancing to vulnerable victims rather than full participants in the the autonomy of students rather than assuming that it is intellectual process of education,” stifling thought by already in place.” The same conduct codes found in high both teachers and students out of fear that it might be schools are now being grafted onto colleges because aduncomfortable to hear. ministrators realize that students still need to be taught

Readers should be noted of the false equivalency how to navigate the adult world. The result is a wide between claims of harassment and claims of discomfort scale movement to modulate speech so as to ensure that and the protections granted to each category. In legal it does not stir up anyone’s emotions. terms, harassment is established by the 1999 Supreme If the notion that trigger warnings need to be Court case Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education a mainstay of classroom discussion has not been disto be discrimination that has the “systemic effect of de- credited, consider the psychological dimensions of the nying the victim equal access to an education program problem. In New York magazine, Jonathan Chait cites or activity.” A single claim of discomfort, if we must use analysis by the Institute of Medicine finding that trigthose terms, does not satisfy this definition. So beware ger warnings do not reduce trauma in afflicted students. of any “anti-harassment” or “anti-violence” protections The best solution is gradual exposure to the stimulus.

6

Avoidance can be counterproductive, reinforcing the anxiety over the object. Familiarity does not breed contempt- it engenders understanding. In an essay entitled “The Coddling of the American Mind,” Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt suggest that colleges begin to introduce to students cognitive behavioral therapy. This would help them identify potential offenses and expose themselves to it so as to gradually reduce their anxieties. Some of the benefits they cite include “a shared vocabulary about reasoning, common distortions, and the appropriate use of evidence to draw conclusions” to “facilitate critical thinking and real debate.” We could serve that goal by committing to public debates and forums on the controversial subject, which Holy Cross has done by holding a “Fishbowl” discussion on the nature of trigger warnings. This would encourage students and faculty to engage in discussions about worldly topics and to share ideas and opinions in an open format.

George Orwell once stated that liberty principally understood is “the right to tell people what they

don’t want to hear.” An academic landscape unhindered by restrictions on speech fulfills the ideal of a liberal arts education. Emotional turbulence in the marketplace of ideas should not be avoided, but rather encouraged.

The Romantic poet John Keats imagined the educational process to be a “vale of Soul-making.” The university is the nexus of intellectual discovery; soul making requires coming to understand of some of the more vexing questions of life. We are thinking, feeling beings and emotion undoubtedly colors these experiences. As Keats wrote, “Do you not see how necessary a World of Pains and troubles is to school an Intelligence and make it a soul? A Place where the heart must feel and suffer in a thousand diverse ways!” A liberal arts education requires students to open their eyes to controversial and contentious issues. That is something to be promoted and glorified, rather than papered over through restrictive speech codes and safe zones with bubbles and coloring books.

Face of a Man All I see is the face of a man In this mirror of mine.

But is that the truth?

Is this man or beast?

For teeth so sharp, So stained a crimson red, Are not the teeth of man, But rather that of beast.

For eyes so precise, So honed with calculation, Are not the eyes of man, But rather that of beast.

For a mind so vicious, So consumed with hunger, Is not the mind of man, But rather that of beast.

A beast among helpless prey; A dark and scary thought.

But then again, all I see Is the face of a man

- Sean Powers ‘18 7

October 2015 The Fenwick Review

Is Holy Cross the “#3 Worst Train Wreck?”

Evaluating the Intercollegiate Studies Institute Rating in Choosing the Right College 2014-2015 By a Special Guest Contributor, who attended Holy Cross in the 1950s, was a class Agent for over four decades, and was once a member of the President’s Council

T

Holy Cross ISI Review summary:

he Intercollegiate studies Institute (ISI) is a non-profit, nonpartisan organization which promotes conservative values. As part of its mission, it publishes the above book as guidance for prospective college students and their parents. Over 150 colleges/ universities are reviewed (29 Catholic, the rest private (some non-Catholic religious) or public institutions) according to the following criteria: 1) Adherence to the mission (for Catholic institutions this includes Catholic values); 2) Rigor of curriculum/academics; 3) Atmosphere (political/openness to discussion, etc.).

Based on these reviews, a “traffic light” (red/yellow/ green) is assigned to each reviewed institution “that reveals the state of free speech on campus and intellectual freedom in the classroom.” A red light signifies minimal intellectual freedom. In addition, ten reviewed institutions are rated as either “Exceptional” or “Train Wreck”. In August 2013, the College of the Holy Cross was reviewed and assigned a red light and was rated as the #3 Train Wreck of all 150+ institutions rated. To put these ratings in context, Holy Cross was the only Catholic institution to receive either a red light or a rating in the top 10 Train Wrecks. For comparison, two Catholic institutions (Providence #7 and Christendom #10) were rated in the top 10 Exceptional institutions. Princeton was the # 1 Exceptional school followed by the University of Chicago; University of the South; US Military Academy; Pepperdine; Baylor; Texas A&M; and Gordon College. The #1 Train Wreck was Wesleyan, followed by Bard College; HC; Amherst College; Barnard College; University of California, Santa Cruz; Duke University; Bryn Mawr College; Occidental College; and Macalester College. Seven Catholic institutions were assigned a yellow light, including Notre Dame and five of six Jesuit institutions reviewed.

Strong Suits: ◆A good honors program for students who choose it. ◆Most professors, regardless of their views are fair to students who disagree. ◆Very fine Classics, political science, math and science departments. ◆Highly qualified, responsive professors teach-not graduate students. ◆A strong, if small, Catholic group promoting orthodoxy on campus.

Weak Points: ◆A vapid, one-course religion requirement, which can be fulfilled with a class on sacred gardens. ◆Anti-Western Islamic studies courses. ◆Plenty of politicized disciplines. ◆Extensive socially libertine programming promoted by the administration.

Also cited in support of the red light designation are extensive activities (invited and honored speakers, theatrical and other events, etc.) which support positions contrary to Catholic teaching, especially as regards the fifth and sixth commandments, as well as a “highly pronounced leftist bias” and a “fixation on diversity”.

Since these allegations could be construed (at least by a practicing Catholic) as of serious concern, if true, several attempts have been made to validate or refute them as follows: On several occasions since 2013, letters and emails were sent to a variety of Holy Cross administrators, including the current president and his special assistant (separately), two Vice Presidents and other leaders requesting their refutation or validation of the ISI review/ 8

ratings. To date, no response or even acknowledgement has been received. Given the high profile of the ISI as a Guide, especially for Catholic students, it would seem that the HC administration would have been aware of them and have refuted them so as to limit damage to its reputation and ability to draw students and parents for whom such information might be a crucial factor in application. In view of this lack of response, it might be assumed either that the HC administration is not aware of them (at least until receiving the first query letter in 2013), that the allegations could not be refuted and thus the queries were ignored, or that such students’/parents’ applications are not a concern to the college (to say nothing of the contributions of alumni who might find these reviews cause to question continued donations).

In 2015, contacts were made with the editor of the ISI HC review (currently working for ISI). He essentially confirmed the review and rating as being based on extensive research, including campus visits, interviews with students and faculty, review of HC documents, and so on, which were then reviewed by the ISI “professionals,” after which, the red light designation and the Train Wreck rating were assigned. He was not able to provide detailed information on the metrics used for the ratings.

The web site of the Cardinal Newman Society (a non-profit organization whose mission is to promote Catholic values in education, especially as regards “Catholic” institutions) was accessed to determine the comparison of adverse news reports regarding actions taken by HC and other Catholic institutions regarding support of activities and events contrary to Catholic doctrine during the period January to June 2015. HC was cited for three such events compared with: Notre Dame (12), Marquette (5), Georgetown (4), Fordham (3), BC (2) and one each for Gonzaga, Creighton, Xavier, Santa Clara, St. Louis and Loyola Marymount and Loyola Chicago, suggesting that HC fell in the middle of mostly Jesuit institutions on this measure and, at a minimum, was not the outlier suggested by the Train Wreck rating.

The HC online catalogue was accessed to determine the validity of other allegations as follows:

As regards the religion requirement, the common requirement of all students is to take one course in studies in religion which can be fulfilled by the course cited in the review. In reviewing the Religious Studies Department, under the term “Religious Studies”, there is only one 200 level course listed which addresses Catholicism (“Comparative Catholicism”), while there are multiple courses on other religions (including Ecol-

ogy). Listed separately from the religious studies are nine courses on the Bible and twenty-four courses in Theology (heavily weighted toward Catholicism but only presented every other year for the most part). It is not clear whether these latter two groups of courses are eligible to meet the core requirement. It would also be necessary to know the extent to which students take these courses to adequately assess the degree to which Catholic courses are currently being chosen by students beyond the mandated course. There is also a course section on Ethics with no mention of Aquinas in the course descriptions. Aside from an introductory course on “Contemporary Christian Morality”, the Ethics curriculum mainly addresses applied ethics (war and peace, medical ethics, Sexual Justice, HIV/AIDS, etc.). There is also an opportunity to put together a “Catholic Studies” concentration from several departments whose goal is becoming an “active contemplative.”

Again, enrollment statistics are needed to determine the extent to which this is chosen.

Due to the failure of any response from HC administration and the limitations of the course descriptions, any bias in the Islamic courses could not be determined.

The disciplines listed as “politicized” in the ISI review do exist but the minimal course descriptions do not permit a detailed evaluation and many such concentrations do not confer degrees. A survey of students and faculty is needed to determine the perceived extent of this politicization as well as are data on the extent to which these courses are selected by students.

As noted above and documented in the full ISI review, the activities at variance with Catholic doctrine do occur with some regularity.

The comment regarding a “fixation with diversity” could not be determined from the material available but there could be three dimensions to this issue: curriculum content, student diversity, and faculty diversity. The curriculum does contain a number of politically and demographically diverse course offerings but without enrollment statistics, it is not possible to determine the extent of enrollment in these courses (especially since most are “concentrations” which do not confer degrees). The same limitation applies to the degree of diversity in the student body which would require data from the HC administration on enrollment by sex/race/ ethnicity, etc. However, from the catalogue, there seems to be relatively little diversity among the faculty beyond sex (roughly equal numbers of male and female faculty are listed). Thus, over 80% of the faculty appear to be Caucasian with the largest minority group being Asian 9

October 2015 The Fenwick Review

(12% of men and 9% of women). In contrast, there appears to be 1-3% of the faculty who are African-American and 4-6% who are Hispanic, almost half of whom are in the Spanish language Department. Thirteen Departments list no African-American or Hispanic faculty while eight list only one of either race/ethnicity. Thus, by this measure, there is little evidence of an “obsession with diversity” as regards faculty appointment.

In the absence of randomized survey data (especially from students) regarding the presence or absence of political bias which is adverse to free speech and intellectual freedom, the designation of a red light category cannot be validated.

Analysis Content and methodology of the ISI review:

A major weakness of the review methodology is the reliance on anecdotal information from non-randomly selected sources which have the potential to introduce respondent bias. This is especially the case for the strong points listed for which no corroborative data are provided. As to the weaknesses listed, some are clearly validated by external data as noted above while others cannot be validated with the information available. In particular, the assertions regarding the single required religion course and the programming adverse to Catholic teaching are clearly demonstrated while the “obsessed with diversity categorization” was not validated at least as regards racial/ethnic diversity among faculty. If the HC administration were so inclined, several sets of simple statistics (e.g. enrollment numbers for Catholic focused religion courses, student enrollees by gender/race/ethnicity, etc.) could help clarify several issues as noted above.

Reliability/validity of the Ratings

The absence of any clear metrics by which these ratings were accomplished (to say nothing of the qualifications of the raters) raise concerns about the validity of these ratings. In addition, to the extent that data could be accessed from comparable Catholic (and especially Jesuit) colleges such data suggest that HC is not the gross outlier suggested by these ratings. If fact, several other schools seem at least as culpable as HC on at least one of these dimensions (e.g. honoring speakers and presenting activities at variance with Catholic values).

Before these ratings are taken as valid, more supporting documentation of the rating process and methods is needed.

Discussion and Summary:

In 1967, a conference was held in Land O’Lakes, Wisconsin, organized by the Reverend Theodore Hesburgh, then-president of the University of Notre Dame, of major Catholic colleges and universities which declared these institutions to be free from the authority of their bishops as to their educational missions. This declaration subsequently became institutionalized and supported these institutions in their efforts to develop secularized programs of instruction so as to compete for students and grants with “elite non-Catholic colleges and universities”. Since then, many of these institutions (especially Notre Dame and several “Jesuit” institutions), have endorsed curricular and programming changes at variance with traditional Catholic teaching as is clearly evident at HC from this assessment. The “weaknesses” identified in this review of HC are now common among these institutions (and well documented by the Cardinal Newman Society). While HC clearly endorses these changes, the ISI assignment of extreme outlier status (red light/#3 Train Wreck) when compared with other similar institutions cannot be validated given the data available. Thus, it would appear that, if the ratings assigned to HC are valid, they apply equally to these other “Catholic” institutions. This assessment, absent the clarifying data suggested (attitude surveys, student enrollment data and more extensive comparative data from other similar institutions), suggests that, if HC meets the rating criteria indicated, the other similar institutions deserve similar ratings.

In a perverse way, if the atmosphere described in the ISI review (e.g. “pronounced leftist bias”) is the currently preferred situation desired by the HC administration and the enrollment of students with other political or religious beliefs is not particularly encouraged, these ISI ratings could be seen as a competitive marketing edge to encourage student enrollment at other similar institutions not as highly negatively rated by this conservative guide. In such a case, these ratings could also serve as a fair warning to prospective students without the “leftist bias” to look elsewhere. If such is not the intent of the HC administration, it is unclear why they have not addressed these issues and provided the data requested.

10

Adjacent to deception, Behind my reflection, Circles the truth of my perception, Debunked by my rejection.

Everything under the sun, Fades in shadow engulfed in one Great umbra and with the Half-light converge to none.

In my eyes I trust, though Jaded and glazed; Kindred to the blind mans sightLast image burned in my brain.

My mind is my deception.

Nowhere is my reflection.

One lie is my perception.

Programmed is my rejection.

Queerer by day the truth becomes, Restless nights I spend.

Stupefied by stale thoughts of a Tiny rock, mostly empty like the space around it.

Undone is my deception.

Verified is my reflection.

Wonder is the truth of my perception.

Xenolithic will be my rejection.

Yokels who marvel at their trivial lives are the Zealots of tomorrow.

- Patrick Connolly ’18

11

October 2015 The Fenwick Review

The Problem with the GOP: Improving Republicans’ Bad PR Problem

By Kira Niederhoffer ‘16 Staff Writer

A

sk a liberal to describe the Republican Party and to a system that isolates and homogenizes each party’s you’ll get a mixed bag of popular stereotypes viewpoint. Positions are not challenged, only affirmed. (backwards, stupid, old, male, and so on). Here’s Candidates become incapable of understanding reanother one you hear a lot: Mean. In a column for the sponses other than their own, and emerge from the priwebsite Forward Progressives, Allen Clifton writes of mary disconnected from the reality of the wider poputhe Republican Party: “they detest homosexuals, treat lation. It also sets up a dangerous logic that encourages women as second-class citizens, and have almost no re- politicians to hold the party itself higher than any idea spect for anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their brand of for which it is supposed to stand. It is deemed more Christianity.” Although the source important to be “a Republican” is somewhat less than scholarly, I suggest adding one than to stand consistently for small and blatantly wrong about the vast question to be asked of government or conservative social majority of Republicans, this kind policy. There is no ideological link all candidates in the poof reputation follows us in popubetween being anti-stimulus packlar culture. If we want to put for- litical debates: “What is age (an anti-inflationary monetary ward a viable candidate in the next policy) and opposing the Supreme one position you hold presidential election, we have got Court decision to legalize gay marto address the public perception that deviates from your riage (a technical point about reliof our party, both where it comes gious freedom and the role of the party’s mainstream and from and what we can do to change judicial system) yet somehow these it. two policies have become inextriwhy do you hold it?”

Think back to the last Recably linked in our political landpublican presidential debate: most scape. of the candidates came off seeming posed, loud, pushy, So how do we fix our system? We cannot have and self-aggrandizing. Also, it was composed entirely Democratic candidates at every Republican debate and of Republicans. This may seem obvious (after all we are vice versa. There simply is not sufficient time to argue preparing for the Republican primary) but it gives rise every issue from basic principles, but some ideological to a mentality at the heart of Republicans’ problem: lack cross pollination is necessary for a functioning political of understanding. First, by speaking only to a republican system. I suggest, for starters, adding one question to be audience we necessarily make the average opinion more asked of all candidates in the political debates: “What extreme. A candidate’s moderate opinion can seem to is one position you hold that deviates from your party’s be on the extreme left when only compared against oth- mainstream and why do you hold it?” We the audience er Republicans. This polarization hurts the party in the should expect every candidate to have a substantial anlong term because it produces candidates who cannot swer to this question and to differ in some significant appeal to the larger population. way from the party line. Total agreement should never

It also forces us to shape our opinions in an in- be the goal of political discourse, but rather an undertellectual echo chamber. A candidate is not given range standing of the various solutions to the problems we all to approach the issues freely, and answers are shaped by share. Each of us, whichever party we claim, should exthe mass of the party and the Super PACs that fund it. pect to vote for a candidate who disagrees with us on This issue is not particular to Republicans, but rather some major issue and we should understand why they 12

read a serious political text to develop a more nuanced understanding of the issue or listening to a friend who holds a different position than us. We need to push ourselves in order to push the larger system.

There’s another personal change that we need to make if we expect our political discourse to improve.

Stop oversimplifying opponents. The issues we face are complex, and on any given position there really are good reasons on both sides of the aisle. Very few Republicans are women-hating, racist pigs. Very few Democrats hate freedom and want to see our country destroyed. Every politically aware student should be able to give a good defense of not just her own positions, but the best arguments for the opposing side as well. We should stop thinking of ourselves as Republicans or Democrats first and then approach issues with fresh eyes as an isolated problem free from the baggage of unrelated issues. If I say I believe life begins at conception that should give you no hint as to my opinion on the nuclear deal in Iran.

A functioning political system requires a change in our expectation of what serious discourse sounds like from our peers as well as our politicians. We should expect our candidates to hold reasoned positions of their own rather than regurgitating majority views, and we should expect the same of ourselves. To use a cliché, change starts within.

do and that their solution is reasonable. Our modern political parties too often seem to be a rigid checklist of set opinions rather than a collection of people who agree on some key points.

An issue with this proposed question is that it is simply not possible to answer it credibly in a thirty second sound bite (which is the case for most of the questions the candidates are asked). It’s the not fault of the news agency hosting the debate or even the answers the candidates give; it’s us, the viewers. In the famous 1858 Lincoln-Douglass debates each candidate was given an hour and a half to speak, and that was considered speedy. Is there a single college student who wouldn’t be tempted by Naked and Afraid over three hours of serious political speech? I am not suggesting we return to 1858, but I do propose we rethink the purpose of our debates. The time limits, staging, and fishing for conflict has made our debates seem more like a new game show or reality TV than a conversation with the possible future president of our country. Our candidates are transformed into celebrities. Winners and losers are decided as much by tone of voice, body language, and strong rhetoric as by the merit of the policies they hold. We need to stop asking for debates that cater to the shortest attention spans among us. Perhaps that means reading the transcript of the next debate after the fact rather than watching it live. Maybe it’s pushing ourselves to

13

October 2015 The Fenwick Review

A Different Kind of Service:

What Holy Cross Misses When It Asks Us to be “for Others”

By Jessica Cormier ’16 Special Guest Contributor

E

number of students here, this assumption inevitably arlier this year, I received an invitation to apply places some students in the uncomfortable position of for Alpha Sigma Nu, the Jesuit Honor Society. being unable to afford spending hours of the work-day I was greatly honored by the opportunity, and in service to others, or worse, in the position of receivquickly looked into what the application process ening pity from peers due to socioeconomic standing. We tailed. While I met most of the criteria, I found myself as students are always expected to be the men and womunable to supply enough evidence for one vital condien for others, but it is never considered that some of us tion: community service. are the others. Some of us rely on the financial help of

Immediately I felt remorse and guilt. I wondered generous donors and alumni to attend college, yet still whether I had really lived the mission here at Holy must supplement their generosity with hours of labor in Cross. Am I really a woman order to afford the rest. And for and with others?

Holy Cross students, faculty, in performing this labor we

I should not have been and organizations should con- provide for the good of our feeling this way, however, as campus and local communiit is nearly impossible to be sider widening their definity. Our service is simply rena man or woman for others dered in a different way than tion of service to accept that when one must, out of neceswhat most at Holy Cross have sity, be a man or woman for students of different economic come to expect. oneself. Community service backgrounds are sometimes

Even the phraseology of is a luxury, something done the “other” seems to further in one’s free time, often when forced to exercise charity in emphasize this divide. Holy one feels secure enough in their own capacities.

Cross students are not considone’s own life position to deered men and women for and vote his or her time to others. with men and women. The word “other” creates a clear When one must support him or herself, however, it bedistinction that seems to raise the student above the alcomes nearly impossible to juggle a Holy Cross coursemost inhuman classification of “other”—a group that load with the underlying, nagging worry of simply payis portrayed as completely dissimilar from Holy Cross ing for tuition, staying on top of bills, feeding oneself, men and women. Every time we serve for and with othand affording textbooks. ers, a person receives that service.

I have consistently worked multiple different

My service to the community may not be dejobs for multiple different departments and offices on fined by the textbook classification of “community campus concurrently, logging nearly full-time work service.” Yet I still believe, in my own capacity, I have weeks in addition to my studies. With such pressure been a woman for and with men and women. Students to keep up with the financial burdens of college, it bewho struggle to balance education and work serve their comes a sink or swim situation. If the choice is between communities every day through their continued dedSPUD and a job that enables me to remain enrolled at ication and sacrifice. Holy Cross students, faculty, and Holy Cross, there really is no choice at all. organizations should consider widening their definition

Holy Cross frequently seems to assume that its of service to accept that students of different economic students are in a position of privilege, that we all come backgrounds are sometimes forced to exercise charity from affluent families and need not worry about keepin their own capacities. ing ourselves afloat. While this may be the case for a 14

A Forgotten Alum

Stephen Colbert’s Surprising Connection to Holy Cross

By Joseph Murphy ‘16 Co-Editor

S

In 1953, Dr. Colbert left Yale to become the Dean of the St. Louis University School of Medicine; at the age of 32, Dr. Colbert became the youngest person ever to hold the deanship of a medical school in the United States. At this time he became chair of the St. Louis chapter of Doctors for Kennedy and met the future president at a campaign meeting.

His final position would be as Vice President of Academic Affairs at the Medical University of South Carolina beginning in 1969. Dr. Colbert’s illustrious career was cut short in 1974 when he and two of his sons, Paul (18) and Peter (15), were killed in a tragic plane crash in Charlotte, North Carolina. Stephen Colbert, the youngest child, was ten at the time of his father’s death. The accident prompted an investigation that led to the Sterile Cockpit Rule in 1981, which requires pilots to refrain from non-essential activities during critical phases of flights.

James Colbert was a Holy Cross graduate that served the military, maintained a steady devotion to Catholicism, was involved in the struggle for civil rights, was a devoted family man, an educator and a doctor. He is a shining example of what Holy Cross values in its best graduates but his time at Holy Cross has been largely forgotten. It is almost impossible to go to Holy Cross for four years without repeatedly hearing how Clarence Thomas and Chris Matthews went here. We tend to highlight only the achievements of living alumni but that can lead us to sell our college short to the world.

Holy Cross is a community that should remember the past as well as the present. In a time when the liberal arts are under intense scrutiny, Holy Cross needs to make sure that the achievements of no graduate go unnoticed.

tephen Colbert is currently showing off his comedic talents on The Late Show, acting as successor to comedy legend David Letterman. This moment in television history is a good time to point out Stephen Colbert’s own connection to our school: his father was a distinguished graduate of the College of the Holy Cross.

James William Colbert Jr. was born in New York City on December 15, 1920. He was raised as a devout Catholic and graduated from Holy Cross in 1942 with an A.B. degree in philosophy. Unfortunately, Holy Cross, for whatever reason, has not highlighted the fact that James Colbert attended this distinguished college.

He is not significant simply in retrospect, now that his son is one of the most famous comedians in the country. James Colbert went on to a distinguished career in medicine after his time on Mount St. James.

After graduation, Colbert decided to pursue a career in medicine. He immediately began his education at Columbia University and received his M.D. in 1945. Dr. Colbert decided to join the U.S. Army Medical Corps in 1946 and spent the year in service to others in Europe. When he returned to the United States the following year he began his medical residency at Yale University School of Medicine. His residency led to an appointment as an associate professor before being made an Assistant Dean of the medical school in 1951.

Dr. Colbert’s rapid ascent in the field of medicine coincided with his rapidly growing family. He married his childhood sweetheart Lorna Tuck in 1944 at the age of 24. By the end of his life he would father 11 children (James III, Edward, Mary, William, Margaret, Thomas, John, Elizabeth, Paul, Peter, and Stephen) and raise them all in the Catholic faith.

15

October 2015 The Fenwick Review

All’s New in New York

On the Archdiocese of New York’s “Making All Things New” Intiative

By Anthony John ‘16 Staff Writer

I

dinal Dolan. The formal phase of “Making All Things New” was launched in September 2013, with every parish performing a self-examination, then joining other nearby parishes in a cluster to develop proposals for the future of the Catholic Church in that area. The proposals were reviewed by the 40-person advisory committee comprised of clergy, religious men and women and the faithful from across the Archdiocese, and, finally, by the Priests’ Council, other close advisors and key staff.

Cardinal Dolan, the main figure who has followed the process closely and gave final approval to the plans that emerged, said the changes were necessary for the Archdiocese to thrive as geographic shifts in the Catholic population led to an overabundance of churches in some areas and not enough in others. In addition, the Cardinal has spoken of financial and personnel concerns stating,

“For too long we have been in the business of maintaining buildings and structures that were established in the 19th and early 20th centuries to meet the needs of the people of that time, but which are not necessary to meet the needs of the Church and its people as it exists today.”

It is true that the physical maintenance of Catholic churches and schools is an ongoing problem, but it is a bit of stretch to say that such buildings are not necessary. These churches and schools are what built communities, families and neighborhoods. They created devout lay organizations and preserved Catholic tradition for decades. To say that they are not meeting the needs of the Church and its people today is fundamentally wrong.

Cardinal Dolan has announced that 31 parishes

n the past few years, His Eminence Timothy Cardinal Dolan, has been leading a pastoral planning initiative known as “Making All Things New”, which seeks to address how the Archdiocese of New York can best meet the religious, spiritual, and pastoral needs of Catholics now and in the future. This proposal, as opposed to several others promulgated by the Cardinal, has not resonated well with some Catholics both inside and outside of the city. For myself, as a suburban New Yorker, I have witnessed changes in my hometown and in neighboring towns as a result of this project. These changes include priests and other religious being transferred to other parishes, and the closing/merging of Catholic churches and schools. Having attended Catholic school all my life, it is shocking to know that there once were three active Catholic elementary schools in my town, but now only one (mine) remains. Moreover, it is disheartening to see remnants of Catholic communities and education disappear; especially when these institutions are those that nurtured the faithful as they grew up, and are no longer present to promote evangelization. As the church progresses into the twenty-first century, there is no question that changes will occur within individual communities, and the “Making All Things New” initiative has certainly solidified these changes for the next generation of Catholics in New York.

This pastoral planning process, which began in 2010, involved surveying parishioners, priests, deacons and religious from every parish throughout the Archdiocese, consulting with the Archdiocesan pastoral council and reviewing the observations offered by Car-

It is disheartening to see remnants of Catholic communities and education disappear; especially when these institutions are those that nurtured the faithful as they grew up, and are no longer present to promote evangelization.

16

will merge into 14 new parishes, representing the final round of parish mergers and closings of a restructured Archdiocese under the lengthy review and consultation process of “Making All Things New”. The mergers, announced May 8, are in addition to the changes announced last November, which when combined with the new changes will leave the 10-county Archdiocese with 296 parishes, now that all mergers went into effect on August 1. Some of the mergers involve more than one parish, for instance three parishes in the Northeast Bronx will merge with St. Frances of Rome, thereby combining four parishes into one. In some cases the church buildings of the merged parishes will continue to offer regular Masses and services, and in other cases the buildings will be used only on special occasions. But the cardinal said that in the long run the decision was necessary for the strength and vitality of the Church. He has stated,

“From the beginning, this process has been about helping the Archdiocese to better accomplish the work of evangelization and outreach, preach the Gospel, perform works of charity and educate people in the faith, all of which is at the heart of the Church’s mission.

That’s what the new evangelization is all about.”

What lies ahead for the Catholic Church is, indeed, a twenty-first century evangelization. This, however, cannot occur if the Church’s mission is not maintained by means of individual towns working together preaching and promoting the Gospel within their respective communities. It is because of “Making All Things New” that this process of evangelization is slowly disappearing, and can only be revived through the preservation of churches, schools, priests, religious and lay people that want the best for the Church in their respective communities in times that offer neither respect nor sympathy towards the faithful.

17

October 2015 The Fenwick Review

What is True, is Beautiful What’s Behind The Fenwick Review’s New Motto

By Steven Merola ‘16 Co-Editor

truth have an inherent aesthetic appeal? Why does it follow that, if something is what it ought to be, it must be beautiful? Cicero’s own answer to this question is he motto of this journal was once the Latin that the relation is accidental. His descriptions of the phrase quae nocent, docent – what harms, in- decorum-beauty reality seem only to say that it is simply structs – and its acerbic veracity reflected well the nature of things for it to be so. And so, although his the Review’s predilection for tough love. Then for one exploration of this relation provides us insight into its issue (November 2012) it was changed to the less blunt unfolding within nature, we are still left to ask whether but equally strong Ciceronian aphorism “If we are not there is any grounding to that relation at all.

In an effort to discover this grounding, we ashamed to think it, we should not be ashamed to say should begin by trying to pin down what we mean by it.” For whatever reason, however, that quotation never again appeared as the journal’s maxim. “To give witness “beauty.” As St. Augustine observed about time, we all to the truth” (testimonium perhibere veritati) stayed for seem to know what beauty is until asked to define it. a few issues three semesters ago, but after that the pa- And although we cannot deny that the Sanctus of Palestrina’s Missa Papae Marcelli or the per was left without any pithy precoming New England autumn, for scription to adorn its front page. Truth is beautiful by virexample, possess the rapturous and

But as any observer of this tue of its givenness as delightful quality we call beautiful, edition’s cover can observe, the year-long dearth of dicta has come creation and its partici- the reason two things as disparate as the October florae and a Reto an end. We have chosen for our pation in the Trinity. naissance Mass should evoke (ultimotto three Latin words which mately) the same ineffable expericontain elements of the above ence remains mysterious. Yet when three phrases (essentially, the need we consider the beauty that nature or music effect, we for the truth) and add to them a description of the nature of that truth. It is simply, quod verum, pulchrum can acknowledge that this beauty is utterly gratuitous; it need not be. As (among others) theologian David – what is true, is beautiful.

In his treatise on moral obligations, Cicero (by Hart has argued, beauty is an end unto itself. It is not no means the first to see the relation between truth and ordered toward any one end, as most other things are, beauty) expounds on the concept of decorum. In his but simply exists to exist. It is a gift we are delighted to context, this Latin word refers not to its modern con- receive amidst our participation in reality. But although notation of seemly behavior, but rather expresses the beauty is a gift, we would be foolish not to acknowledge idea of propriety and rightness. Decorum is the ideal that without beauty our experience of reality would be but attainable form that a thing possesses, to which it severely lacking – indeed, entirely different. In Hart’s aspires and away from which it is imperfect. In short, words, “the beautiful presents itself to us as an entirely it is the truth in which an entity is called to participate unwarranted, unnecessary, and yet marvelously fitting fully. And Cicero argues that someone or something gift.”

With this understanding in mind, we proceed to which has attained this true form is beautiful for hav- ing attained it. We perceive things that exist rightly as a modified form of our original question: if something expressing an inherent pulchritude and lacking that de- is true, and for that reason beautiful, does truth express corum we apprehend them in their deformity. Beauty, the same gratuity its aesthetic appeal portends? If we are to understand truth as a gift, we are led to contemplate then, is the experience of truth.

Cicero’s observation (if we think it accurate) the idea of creation. All that exists exists solely because necessarily points us to a larger question: why does it participates in the transcendent reality of its Creator.

T

18

Creation is the temporal unfolding of the eternal logos, The beauty of the Trinity is our origin and the end for and as such finds its source and sustenance in a reality which we are made. both eternally beyond and wholly immanent to itself.

To answer the question prompted by Cicero’s In short, being as we know it is only so by the grace of initial observation, then, truth is beautiful by virtue of the ineffable Godits givenness as crehead. Truth is an ation and its particiunwarranted, unpation in the Trinity. necessary, and yet Though I canmarvelously fitting not adequately treat gift, and by virtue these matters in a of that givenness mere editorial (or in is inherently beauany capacity, for that tiful. matter), I hope I have

Yet because at least made clear of the gift of Revesome of the logic lation, we can delve behind The Fenwick even further into Review’s new motthis transcendent to. Our past mottos understanding of (and indeed our misbeauty and truth. sion as an indepenFor as Christians dent journal) have we confess belief in always expressed a the Trinity, a God striving towards and who is one in being defense of the Truth. and three in perThose who write for sonhood. The three the Review are often persons neither diat odds with the previde the Godhead dominant animus at nor are confused Holy Cross, and as among themselves, such have been made but rather the Son to endure ridicule, and the Holy Spirvehement opposiit eternally protion, and even the ceed from the Faaccusation of being ther, and, though hateful. Nonetheless, not created, are our hope is simply to begotten by Him give witness to what through all eteris true and to turn nity. Though we from what is false.

“Thomas and the Perseids,” Margaret MacMullin ‘16 cannot say that the And our new motto persons of the Trinity are unnecessary as we are, we can should serve as a reminder that regard for the truth is nonetheless see that the pattern of the divine life is one not hateful. It is just the opposite; to pursue the truth is of eternal and necessary gift and thus eternally beauti- to pursue the ultimate, ineffable beauty toward which ful. Since we, therefore, exist in a reality whose source we aspire and to which, from all eternity, we have been and sustenance is this same divine giving, our truth is called. a temporal reflection of that eternal outpouring of love.

19

October 2015 The Fenwick Review

The Fenwick Review is proudly sponsored by: