May 2015 by The Fenwick Review

April 2015 - Volume XXII, Issue IV

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

A Goal to be Obtained

An Interview with Fr. Paul Harman, SJ

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 In this issue, as in every issue, we must reserve space to offer a heartfelt thank you to our benefactors, without whom The Fenwick Review would not exist. We extend our profound gratitude to The Collegiate Network and the generous individual and alumni donors to The Fenwick Review, for their ongoing enthusiasm and support of our mission. You are always in our prayers, and with each issue we publish, our first goal is to justify the incredible faith you have shown in us. Mr. Guy C. Bosetti Dr. and Mrs. Paul Braunstein Mr. and Mrs. Michael Dailey Mr. J. O’Neill Duffy Mr. and Mrs. Richard Fisher Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Gorman Mr. Robert W. Graham III Mr. 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.

Letter from the Editors Dear Readers, Thank you for picking up the Fenwick Review! This will be the final issue for the year, so we thank you, too, for a year’s worth of reading, thinking, grumbling, and griping. We hope that the FR has served its purpose in spurring campus discussion. Ms. Tranten, with characteristic insight and pungency, continues her look at tolerance, what it implies and what it doesn’t, and the intellectual problems it can pose. Mr. Murphy memorializes the Armenian Genocide, what some have considered the first in a century of such transgressions. Article 301 need not apply. There is an interview with Fr. Harman, the outgoing (in both senses of the term) Vice President for Mission. Mr. Churik presents a review of Jason Riley’s recent lecture along with a critique of HC in Solidarity. Mr. Barselau, with his ever critical eye, wonders at the continuing misapprehension over GMOs and tries to address it. Mr. King, always with taste for questioning conventions, considers the rising power of Podemos and SYRIZA. Mr. Padunsiak, critical critic he is, offers an analysis of the panel discussion on Christianity and Capitalism. Mr. Merola considers parallels and differences in the stories of the Resurrection and the Medea. Mr. John, writing for the foreign bureau, cuts deeply into the new state of relations between Cuba and the US, with additional reference to Argentina. This issue also presents two new additions: poetry and excellent artwork by Mr. Elias Quijada Link. One note: Mr. Churik submitted a response to the Shillelagh’s recent critique of the FR, but the editors of the Crusader refused to print because they 1) did not think it was appropriate to have a critique of the Crusader inside the Crusader, especially one written by the editor of the rival paper and 2) they did not want to give the FR any extra publicity. The only thing to say is that there is a difference between juvenile and Juvenalian, and if one cannot tell the difference, one should not write satire. We are happy to announce the editors for next academic year: the perspicacious Steven Merola and the indefatigable Joe Murphy. Both have insightful minds and good spirits, so we are glad to see them in their new positions. As the editors sign off, we’d like to ask, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” We hope so. The Editors would like to thank our excellent staff (even the less punctual among them), our layout-editor Claire Mahoney (truly the unsung heroine of the paper), our generous donors, our peerless advisor Professor David L. Schaefer, and, of course, both our loyal readers and opposition. As always, we hope you find what you read in The Fenwick Review enjoyable, interesting, or, at least, thoughtprovoking. Lift high the Cross, Chase and Nik

POETRY

Contents

Not with a bang but a crash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Andrew R. Boudon ’15

Caramel Drizzle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Ryan Kingsley ’17

FEATURE

Interview with Fr. Harman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Nikolas Churik ’15

OPINION

Heresy, Reciprocity, and Tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Brooke Tranten ’17

Painting Europe Pink and Grey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Diarmaid King ’15

Food Fight: The Scientific Consensus on GMOs. . . .14 Austin Barselau ’18

A Haunting 100th Anniversary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Joe Murphy ’17

Two Paradoxes: The Chariot of the Sun and the Empty Tomb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Steven Merola ’16

God Bless Jason Riley . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Nikolas Churik ’15

Obama, Castro y La Boluda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Anthony John ’16

Capitalism and Christianity: A Recap. . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Chase Padusniak ’15

The Fenwick Review 2014-2015 Staff Co-Editors-in-Chief Nikolas Churik ’15 Chase J. Padusniak ’15

Layout Editors

Claire Mahoney ’15 Elias Quijada Link ’17

Staff Writers

Amber Alley ’16 Anthony John ’16 Austin Barselau ’18 Kilian Bede White ’18 Brooke Tranten ’17 Diarmaid King ’15 Eric Kuhn ’16 J. Alex Cicchitti ’15 Joseph Murphy ’16 Marian Blawie ’16 Micala Smith ’16 Nicholas Jalbert ’16 Steven Merola ’16

Faculty Adviser Professor David Lewis Schaefer Political Science

Disclaimers

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

Donation Policy

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

Letter to the Editor By Professor david Schaefer

To the Editors of the Fenwick Review: I am concerned that the overall effect of Erik Kuhn’s article “Je Ne Suis Charlie,” despite the author’s stated intention, may be to palliate responsibility for the horrifying terrorist attack on the staff of the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo by dwelling on the typically offensive character of that publication’s contents. It is true, as Mr. Kuhn recognizes, that Charlie Hebdo has been an equal-opportunity offender, directing crude cartoons and articles against all three of the major Biblical faiths (as well as against other French cultural and political icons). It is true, as well, that a publication like that is more at home in a society like France’s that nowadays encourages militant secularism than it would be (fortunately) in America, which (at least until recently) has been more accepting of the role of religion “in the public square.” Nonetheless, it must be stressed that French Islamists hardly needed the vulgarity of Charlie Hebdo to justify their latest terror attack. Earlier murderous demonstrations in various European nations against the publication of cartoons mocking Islamist terror were not the consequence of any such vulgarity. Nor was the Iranian ayatollahs’ fatwa calling for the assassination of novelist Salman Rushdie for daring to offer a “heretical” treatment of Islam in The Satanic Verses. In recent years French Islamists have engaged in series of murderous assaults on Jews, as well as hundreds of synagogue attacks – all justified in the name of jihad (holy war) against “unbelievers.” In sum, Charlie Hebdo’s satire of Islam was only another excuse, not the real cause, for the latest exercise of Islamist terror. I find it curious as well that Mr. Kuhn should call it ironic that one of the frequent targets of Charlie Hebdo’s satire was the xenophobic political party Front Nationale, which in his words “has tirelessly opposed the wanton immigration policy that allowed for the attack to occur.” The Front Nationale is not only anti-immigrant; it is also militantly anti-Semitic, even (sometimes) neo-Nazi. While its current leader, Marine Le Pen, has recently tried to down the latter aspect of its program, in pursuit of electoral respectability, her father (and the party’s founder) Jean Le Pen was well-known for his endeavors to deny the significance of the Holocaust. It hardly constitutes a serious alternative to Islamist bigotry. Finally, it is hard to reconcile Mr. Kuhn’s applause for the Front Nationale with his call for an approach to immigration that emphasizes “dialogue 4 and understanding” so as to avoid “alienat[ing]

young Muslims and driv[ing] them into the arms of extremists.” The problem posed by large communities of Muslim immigrants in Europe that have insulated themselves from the broader society in which they now reside, retaining primary loyalty to the umma (the world Islamic community) rather than to the countries in which they have gained citizenship, is indeed a vexing one – as documented in journalist Christopher Caldwell’s excellent and balanced 2009 book Reflections on the Revolution in Europe. Certainly, the isolation of Muslims from the broader society is partly the result of rigid labor laws in countries like France and Italy that make it harder for young immigrants to obtain regular employment. But the problem of Islamist terror and “alienation” from the country they reside in is no less salient in Britain, which has a far more open economy and has bent over backwards to offer Muslims educational, political, and economic opportunities. These problems are indeed complex ones to which there is no easy solution. But seeming to share the blame for the Charlie Hebdo attacks with the staff of the magazine itself – or with European “secularism” – will only fortify the sense on the part of potential terrorists that Western civilization is an empty shell, ripe for its overthrow. Like Mr. Kuhn, “je ne suis pas Charlie”: I have no taste for publications that gratuitously aim to offend other people’s religious faiths. And I believe – in common with such observers as the distinguished French political theorist Pierre Manent – that the weakening of Europe’s Judaeo-Christian foundations as the result of militant secularism is indeed a contributing cause of the hollowness of that continent’s spirit today, as seen in its member nations’ incapacity to mount a more aggressive response to terror abroad and at home, and their people’s passive surrender of national sovereignty and hence self-government to the irresponsible rule of European Union bureaucrats. But the immediate aftermath of a vicious mass murder is not the time to find fault with its victims. Instead, all partisans of freedom and the rule of law – religious and secular, liberal and conservative – need to offer a common front of resistance to evil. I applaud Mr. Kuhn’s interest in contemporary European affairs and his reminder of the limitations of secularism, even as I feel compelled to take issue with him on the points I have mentioned. Sincerely, David Lewis Schaefer Professor of Political Science

Not with a bang but a crash Andrew R. Boudon ’15

I hear the sound of shattering glass rise from the intersection below my apartment, And feet scurrying along the sidewalk. Yesterday I moved my desk away from the window, just in case. The shattering continues until I think the world must run out of windows, —Never has glass breaking sounded so much like a rainstorm. More and more feet scratch the sidewalk at a run, —Never have shoes on pavement sounded so much like wind rushing through grass. I moved my desk from the window because I am scared. People are breaking windows because they are scared. The windows are breaking because they are scared, Shivering with fright. The sun hangs stale in the sky. I imagine it pale, a ghost, like I am a ghost; I am haunted by people. Their invisible forms have danced around me my whole life. Who didn’t see this coming? Who didn’t know that there was only one thing left for the sun to do, And that was to stop. Who didn’t realize that glass had one more order of business, To shatter. Who didn’t move their desk away from the window. Who didn’t realize that the spirit would end its life By breaking. We are entirely ourselves at this moment. We are the feel of the oak desk on our elbows. We are the smell of coffee on our unshaven breath. We are the fear as well. My fingers shake as I type at my desk, —Never have knuckles felt so much like stone. The sun stands over the street, stagnant, spectral, —Never has the sun felt so much like darkness. I hear the barking call of wood as the door splinters down the hall

APRIL 2015 The Fenwick Review 5

Heresy, Reciprocity, and Tolerance By Brooke Tranten ’17 Staff Writer

agenda, and this can be extended to contemporary tolerance. In order to be tolerant of the other and the other’s opinions, I must agree with him. I must be able to brush off disagreements with that craven anthem of relativism, “Well, you have your truth, and I have my truth.” Crucial to this program is the idea that everything, values, sexuality, intellectual ideas, is a matter of opinion, and equal opinions at that. This idea of tolerance is philosophically incoherent. How can this relative statement be true if it is so broad to consider everything to be opinion and relative to the individual? In fact, it seems rather dogmatic. And to the tolerant individual, there is nothing worse than dogmatism, or maybe there is, if you feel like there is and it feels right to you. Naturally, tolerance has cleverly adapted itself from pure relativism. It is now, rather than existing as fluffy, utopian conception of making the world a better place by smiling and being nice to everyone, a more belligerent beast. And there is no better place to engage with the beast than on the American college campus. The new tolerance is unique in that it is one of the very few products of America’s system of higher education that has actually been effectively exported to the wider culture. Remember, THIS NEW DEFINITION OF TOLERANCE...IS tolerance really means dealing with something EMPTY BECAUSE IT HAS NO BACKBONE, that one is opposed to, not accepting that irritating PHILOSOPHICAL OR OTHERWISE. thing that is being tolerated. The relativistic part of tolerance is an heresy that overemphasizes personal choice. The new tolerance is one who will accept anything for a reason— providing it is not a good reason.” The broadminded is, forgive the term, a type of super-heresy. It now implies coercion, intellectual or otherwise, and or, dare I say, tolerant, individual will go along mandates conformity. Instead of the individual with just about anything, provided that not much deciding what tolerance implies, academic thought is required to go along with it. Such a departments and government agencies now person, especially in the contemporary sphere, is determine what is and what is not tolerant. And if believed to be going against the grain, but is actually you happen to disagree, then you better get in line or doing the exact opposite. Bishop Sheen would be risk academic disenfranchisement or blatant public quite dismayed, but unsurprised, that within less denouncement. Those who declare themselves to be than a century American broadmindedness has the most tolerant are really the least tolerant of all. conceptually congealed into such a state: a state of But how could this happen here in such a multicultural relativism. cozy, insulated community as the College of the As I touched upon in my last Fenwick Review article about multiculturalism, philosophical Holy Cross? The responsibility part of tolerance has been axed from the question. What has been relativism goes hand-in-hand with the multicultural

eople can be annoying. People can hold the door for you in Hogan. People can also smash the windows of your dorm’s common area on a Saturday night. In order to function at all, however, everyone requires a proper understanding of tolerance. What is it then? Tolerance, according to The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “generally refers to the conditional acceptance of or non-interference with beliefs, actions, or practices that one considers to be wrong but still ‘tolerable,’ such that they should not be prohibited or constrained.” Note: “conditional” and “considers to be wrong”. Tolerance does not mean or imply acceptance of the thing tolerated. Here’s where real and false tolerance diverge. How exactly does this false tolerance manifest itself? The concept of tolerance did not magically appear, though some appear to believe so in their zeal to demonize everything prior to the Sexual Revolution as medieval, micro-aggressive, and misogynistic. In the 1930s, Fulton J. Sheen directly took on what he saw as one of the most dangerous cultural/intellectual trends in America: broadmindedness. He gives a characteristically aphoristic definition for it: “…a broadminded man

lost in translation is the difficult part of tolerance: reciprocity. Suppose that I am waiting in line at Kimball on chicken parm night, and you and your three friends ask if it is okay to cut me because you have a meeting in a half hour. I say yes, though I certainly do not approve of your cutting me, but I let you anyway because I understand your dilemma. Is it wrong for me to expect you to not invite your other ten friends to join you in front of me? No, but if you do invite those ten other friends, you can expect my tolerance to go out the window. If I tolerate something that you are doing, you have a responsibility to tolerate my tolerance. Somewhere along the line, it was decided that tolerance goes hand-in-hand with acceptance. And, somehow, disagreement with someone immediately implies hate, especially if the issue at hand has anything to do with sexuality. Try it sometime, and watch delicate

sensibilities swoon. This new definition of tolerance, which is virtually synonymous with acceptance, is empty because it has no backbone, philosophical or otherwise. Instead of polite disagreement and rational arguments, the self-proclaimed tolerant among us prefer name-calling and emotivism to win the day: “bigot,” “misogynist,” and “homophobe.” The list goes on. I find that only G.K. Chesterton can end this brief discussion: “Societies are far gone in depravity when toleration is considered a good in itself, without regard to the thing tolerated.” I would like to remind all that if I or anyone disagrees with you, it does not imply that I or anyone else hates you. Things are only tolerated because they are not good, yet they are not the worst possible.

Caramel Drizzle Ryan Kingsley ’17

Under a sodden sky I watch him weave on his daily ride, not from his autism, but to dodge the puddles, and especially the storm drains pooling with autumn. Helmeted acorns bob in the cold brook, spinning, diving resurfacing and refusing to drown. The rain persists though the lightning’s ceased, and he keeps on, aware, or unaware — of the downy rain and the neighbors playing football in the mud. Pedaling down the street, twice around the red mailbox, onto the sidewalk, finally chuckling through two potholes he grinds his heels to the asphalt, by the main road, pausing with the rain to resurface and admire the fading sunshine dripping from browned gerbers, like a sweet glaze of caramel drizzle.

APRIL 2015 The Fenwick Review

A Goal to be Obtained An Interview with Fr. Paul Harman, SJ By Nikolas Churik ’15 co-editor-in-chief The following is an interview with Fr. Paul Harman, SJ, vice president for Mission. Since Fr. Harman will be leaving this position at the end of the year, we thought this would be the right time to hear his thoughts on the value of the mission statement and purpose of his office. We again thank Fr. Harman for his time. Any errors are my own.

students seemed to have less contact with one another in walking around the campus. That they’re either on their phone or listening to something, so it’s more difficult to have eye contact or have people recognize you or to see people talking to one another. That was a bit of disappointment. It’s an impression, but students seem more isolated.

FR: I guess students are used to seeing that, so I’m The Fenwick Review: Since you’ve started here and not sure we ever realize it. now have returned, what are some of the biggest changes you’ve seen? FH: It’s not a phenomenon peculiar to Holy Cross – it is everywhere. People say you look Father Harman: I was here from 1970 until 1984, back and have rosy colored glasses about the past, and then I came back in 2009. In returning to the but my recollection is that there was much more college in 2009, I was delighted to find out that many engagement with students coming out classes, but faculty, staff, and employees whom I had known at now when I watch out my window or something, I an earlier time were still here. I was delighted, too, almost always see people checking cell phones. to find out that Holy Cross has FR: As you read remained true to the mission being a liberal arts statement, what college and has not do you see as the been tempted to main focus of the become anything College’s mission? other than that. I’ve noticed that FH: You need a students seemed to little history here. be more excellent In the 1970’s and and that the faculty the early 1980’s, the seemed to be even word mission was more excellent. I not in common was delighted, for use. There was a instance, at the statement of goals increased number and purposes, a of courses and small paragraph majors in the arts, in the college which were not here when I came in 1970. There no catalogue. In the late 1980’s, that word came into was no music department, no theater department more common use - not only in education, but when I came in 1970. There is an excellent new everywhere. You can go into a hospital or a business science center. or library, they have a mission statement. I was not I also noticed that here, as elsewhere, here in late ’80’s when college drafted its mission 8

statement. Again every college and university was doing something of this sort. So, when I came back in 2009, and read the mission statement I knew there had been a lot of hard work, that it had been approved by the board of trustees in 1992, when it became the official mission statement of the college. I think it has served the college well for the past 22 years. Everyone on campus might want to change a few things here and there, but I do not see any need for any major revisions. When I came in 2009, we were preparing for our 10 year accreditation. When you write your self-evaluation, you have to write how you’re carrying out your mission so that was already underway. I saw some of the preparations, but that was not my responsibility at the time. When the accreditation team came here they were quite impressed by our mission statement for this reason: it is much longer than you find at most colleges or universities. It is four long paragraphs. The New England Association of Schools and Colleges accreditation team talked to everybody, that’s part of what they do during the week they’re here. They see if what you say in your self-evaluation measures up with what they find. What amazed them was that people had read it, people could talk about it, and people knew it, and people could say “Oh yeah, that’s why we do this.” And that impressed them. They said this is a school that doesn’t have an identity crisis. It knows who it is. I think it is a statement that serves the college well. How did this office come into being? If you went even in 2009 to most Jesuit colleges and universities, even most Jesuit secondary schools, there was someone designated with special responsibility for oversight of how the institution was implementing and living out not only its mission statement, but also its mission as a Jesuit and Catholic institution. Because of its size Holy Cross did not have one. I remember Fr. McFarland said that when he first came here, he did not see any need to have anyone designated with that responsibility. As he came to the end of his time here, 11 years later, he thought it probably would be a good idea to have somebody, and he asked me to take on that responsibility. I said immediately that I thought I was a bit old for the position; he said he thought I could do it for some number of years. As you know, Fr. Boroughs had that role at Georgetown for eight years before coming here. So that’s how I became the vice president for mission.

FH: I can only hope that the office has been of some help to the institution. I am evaluated annually, as every vice president is. There is a standing committee of trustees which antedates my time here and which is focused on the mission and identity of the College. I think the office has been some help to that committee and to other groups. There was also, before I returned to the College, a mission and identity committee, which had first been chaired Fr. Jim Hayes. That was created before I came here. In some sense, I see that what I’ve done since 2011 has been to carry that forward a bit and undertake

THEY SAID THIS IS A SCHOOL THAT DOESN’T HAVE AN IDENTITY CRISIS. IT KNOWS WHO IT IS.

FR: How do you think the creation this office changed the way the individual office, departments, groups in general “live the mission”?

some new projects which had not been in place. I hope that my successor will take this even a greater distance. The office of the college chaplains reports to me. But I don’t have any other staff. I rely heavily on working with other vice presidents and directors. And I very much enjoy working with them. I found them all very committed to the mission and eager to think and implement new ways of enforcing the mission. It’s a very daunting mission statement. It includes a lot, and of course you never live up to it all. Sometimes you are focusing on one part of it, and then you think this other part of it needs more attention, and you have to focus more on that. FR: What do you think is difficult about keeping your eye on all parts of the mission? How do you create the balance between all the parts? How do you keep yourself and other people on target? FH: I don’t have a direct answer to that question. When you drive up College Street, there is a sign up there that says “College of the Holy Cross.” In a sense, that sign defines who we are. We’re not a university, we’re not a hospital, we’re not a seminary, we’re not a church, and we’re not a social center. We’re a college: it’s an academic institution. That’s primary to our mission: to be an excellent academic institution. Then the name speaks at least to our Catholic identity. Then, if you dig a little deeper, then you realize that the college was entrusted to the Jesuits by the second bishop of Boston. In one sense, that sign has the basic outline of what our mission is. Different parts of the college work to keep that mission alive and strong and well. So the vice president for academic affairs, the dean

APRIL 2015 The Fenwick Review

of the college, again working with others, work to make sure that we are a good, reputable, ever more excellent liberal arts college. Then lots of others on campus, including my office, work at the Jesuit and Catholic piece of that. The ideals, which are wonderful and lofty, are always in tension with the day to day operations. There are only so many hours to the day. Nothing could be more human than some little aspect, or less than little aspect, not receiving enough attention. Or, when we talk about, as we do, in our mission statement, respect for one another that’s a wonderful ideal, but in the day to day living, people can be are sometimes disrespectful, not just at Holy Cross, but everywhere. There’s always tension. I never go to bed saying “We’ve done it all. There is a perfect correlation between our mission statement and everything we do.” There isn’t. It’s a goal to be attained.. The ancient Greek philosopher-astronomermathematician Ptolemy has a line that says, “Those who seek to attain high ideals are easily assailed by the mob.” It’s not easy to strive after high ideals; it’s an ongoing day to day project individually and corporately.

I’m getting at in part is that sheer numbers don’t mean quality or thoughtfulness. What are some changes I noticed? When I was here in 1970, the College had far fewer applications than it has now. Typically as I listened to students, when I’d ask what do you think of the school? They would tell me that it’s okay. They’d talk about their teachers - I have two really good classes, but the others are so-so. They were right. We had some less than good courses and some less than desirable professors. When I came back here, one of the things I noticed immediately: the students might say one of my courses or professors is really difficult, but I have not heard students complain about the quality of the faculty or the courses. To me, that’s a sign of both the quality of the students – that we’re are more selective, and that we have a much more desirable faculty and curriculum. I use the word “stagnant” before, but “sleepy” or “drowsy” might be a better word. FR: What do see as the future of Jesuits at Holy Cross? What do you see as the role of Jesuits in the future of the College? With fewer Jesuits do you think that their role will have to change?

I WOULD SAY THE COLLEGE IS MORE CATHOLIC AND JESUIT IN 2015 THAN IT WAS IN 1970. FR: In doing this job, what have you learned about your own and the college’s Jesuit and Catholic identity, and how to keep that true when dealing with the many voices you hear? FH: By the mob I wasn’t referring to any particular group. All that statement means is that we’re always assailing our elected leaders because they’re not living up to our ideals. This may come as a surprise to you, but I would say the college is more Catholic and Jesuit in 2015 than it was in 1970, when there were over 70 Jesuits, and it was an all-male and 95 percent Catholic. Because nobody was really thinking about it or paying attention to it. It was sort of stagnant, as I look back. In the sense that, everyone took everything for granted. Everyone was doing the same thing, so that I think we are much more intentional today. To be sure, there are fewer Jesuits and fewer Roman Catholics, if we’re doing strictly a head count. I’m serious about that, I think we’re more deliberate in saying we want to be a Jesuit Catholic institution. We are welcoming of people who do not share our faiths or conviction, but welcoming precisely because we are Jesuit and Catholic. What 10

FH: Numerically there will be fewer Jesuits. If you look nationally at 28 Jesuit colleges and university, apart from very few large universities, most of the Jesuit schools have a small number of Jesuit. And just about half the presidents are Jesuits. We’re fortunate to have the number of Jesuits we do, we’re fortunate to have a Jesuit as president, and to have a Jesuit in this office. And have Jesuits in the chaplaincy and on the faculty. In many Jesuit schools, my position is not held by a Jesuit. Will that change? In all likelihood, it will. Does that keep me awake at night? Thinking if we’re not here, it will no longer be a Jesuit and Catholic school? I don’t think so. We’re fortunate to have and continue to attract people who are very committed to what it means by saying we are Jesuit and Catholic and want to continue that tradition. If that were not the case, I would be very worried. FR: Do think the mission statement would be a way of maintaining the Jesuit and Catholic identity of the school? FH: If you look at schools that don’t have a Jesuit as president or vice president for mission, I think you’ll see it continues to be informed by the mission of the Society of Jesuit and the mission of the Church. Any Jesuit institution is Jesuit and Catholic insofar as it is recognized by the Society of Jesus as implementing

the mission of the Society and as implementing the characteristics set forth in Ex Corde Ecclesiae by John Paul II. Those would be the two guiding norms for identifying an institution as Jesuit and Catholic. If an institution is not linked to the Society of Jesuit, it cannot call itself Jesuit. If an institution is not linked to the Church, either through the Society or by itself, it cannot call itself Catholic. But if those two things are preserved, it can call itself Catholic. FR: Attendance at different masses is lower than it has been in the past and continues to be low. What do you think that says about the Catholic identity of the college? FH: I think nationally most Catholic students come from families that do not attend Church on any regular basis, so it is no surprise to me that they are not in the habit of attending Mass. Certainly our numbers here are higher than the average in a diocese or around the country for the most part. So there are students who come here and for the first time in their life choose to attend Mass regularly. What we want to do, is to make the College, for those who want to learn more about their faith and become more involved in their faith, to make this place an opportunity for that to happen. Are we always talking about what more we can do, what other ways of inviting people, of encouraging people? Yes, we are. One of the reasons why we are committed to building the contemplative center is precisely so that there will be a designated space for people, who might not otherwise have the opportunity to go to a place of stillness and quiet in beautiful surroundings, and a place where the voice of God can be heard more easily than in a very busy place. That’s part of our effort: to have opportunities where people can experience God in places that are deliberately designated as prayerful and conducive to reflection. FR: What do you think is your fondest memory at Holy Cross? FH: It’s not a recent memory, and to be honest I

cannot remember the exact year. Holy Cross had a wonderful alum; in fact there is a chair in the English department named after him, William Jenks. After his freshman year here, he was paralyzed from the neck down. For the rest of his life, he was unable to move his hands, so he wrote and typed, with a sort instrument that he held in his teeth. An extraordinary man, very well read. Very thoughtful, prayerful. Much loved by the people who knew him, especially a man by the name of Dr. Kane, who always looked after Will Jenks. The man lived in the Mid-West. Sometime in the late ’70’s, early ’80’s, Dr. Kane said to the president, Fr. Brooks, “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if William could be brought to campus for about a week and get to know students and faculty and just to have the opportunity to see the campus again?” Now, he would have to completely cared for, he would have to be transported to buildings, this is a hilly campus. You would need students who are willing to take care of him on a 24 hour basis. To feed him, to clothe him, to bathe him. Push him around. And Fr. Brooks said to me, what you think. I said think we can do it, I think it’d be wonderful. Then I thought, will I really get enough volunteers? We thought, we’ll put notices around campus that we need volunteers. There was a woman in the chaplains’ office at the time, who said to me if you want to make sure you get the right volunteers, say that the meeting for those who are interested will be at 7 in the morning in Kimball. The people who are really interested will show up. We sent word out if you’re interested in taking care of Will Jenks; we described who he was, why he’d be coming to campus. We said the meeting for volunteers at 7am in Kimball. I went to bed that night saying O Lord, we’d need at least 10 or 12 and that meant they would have to work around the clock. And I thought what if only 5 should up? I went down the next morning, and there were 70 students there. There were tears in my eyes. It said to me what sort of wonderful students we have here. I still believe we have wonderful students here. That’s a very fond memory for me, as you can imagine. I think it gets right to the heart of who we are.

APRIL 2015 The Fenwick Review

Painting Europe Pink and Grey By Diarmaid King ’15 Staff Writer

ur story starts in 1970s in Latin America. The militaristic regimes of the region were supported by the United States through Operation Condor, which served the dual purpose of verticalizing South American economies and repressing any, especially Leftist, political challenges. The brutal repression occasionally enacted by these regimes led to a well-spring of popular political movements in the 80s up until the 2000s. In order to reform the state, truly ‘popular’ governments were needed to transform the state into machinery working for the greater good of all. In South America, it took thousands of ‘disappeareds.” The Dirty War of Argentina, the murder of countless military officers, politicians and figures of importance, and rampant inequality left many paralyzed by perpetual fear before they could form new and more responsive governments. When leaders within the Podemos movement say that their roots are in the struggle of populist socialism, one has to be a bit skeptical. Those movements that were spawned in Latin America, were born out of increased political uncertainty and economic injustice on scales unparalleled in Europe. Do similar conditions exist in Europe? Both Syriza and Podemos think so, and have developed platforms intended to address the issues and problems of Eurozone economics, and the austerity measures imposed on the governments (and peoples) of these countries. I don’t think that these political movements need to tie themselves to a legacy of oppression to be successful or to promote their increasingly intertwined brand of populist socialism. I think both of these groups can capitalize on the fact that there is an intense anger in citizens who are subjected to paying back over-expenditures and faulty business decisions that they themselves

did not make. The contemporary politicization of leftist populist groups in Europe has its roots in the indignados (the angry ones) protests in 2011 in Spain. Demonstrating against the injustices of the state and the problems of party politics in effecting change, citizens began occupying squares and public spaces in Madrid. This protest was then linked to the larger, world-wide, and anti-capitalist movement we know as Occupy. Decentralized, and encompassing a wide variety of left-leaning ideologies, the Occupy movement was a far cry from its most powerful and politically-active derivative: the aforementioned new wave of populist Leftism. But new socialist movements are not the only anti-capitalist forces to be born out of Occupy. To some extent identity politics, and theories of intersectionality have seen a boom in academic and popular support, in large part due to the massive amount of media attention given to these issues in the wake of the Occupy Movement. Occupy has also seen the growth of various type of anarchist activism. This past month protests erupted at the University of Amsterdam when students, enraged with the decisions of management, occupied the central administrations office and called for radical change on campus and a “New University.” The university had been undergoing a program to cut costs and save in excess of 12 million Euros, but the students saw this as a threat to their basic services, and began advocating for more direct democracy and a more deregulated administration. David Graeber, an anarchist professor at the London School of Economics and a central figure of both the Occupy movement and this new protest in Amsterdam, talked to students and staff about the total bureaucratization of all aspects of everyday life under neoliberalism. Graeber’s message was heard loud and clear by students and citizens

across Europe. Students are continuing to fight for a decentralized and democratic “New University,” one that does not view students as mere shoppers looking to purchase an educational experience, but as human beings aiming to realize their potential. Although intellectuals such as Graeber are popular, populist causes are more so. Therefore they are the most likely to make an immediate impact. With Syriza forming a government in Greece, and Podemos winning seats and pushing for power in the cash-strapped and unemployment-heavy province of Andalusia, we are witnessing a moment of both celebration and reflection. Celebration is needed as these movements are gaining ground and promoting a very powerful alternative to dominant neoliberal economic practices. Let us, then, reflect on the legacy of the populist left in Latin America. The Justicialist Party of Argentina is a good example of both the positives and negatives of politicized populism. At first the party advocated a third way policy, which opposed the enduring problems of Communism and Capitalism. Up until 1974 the party had strong anti-colonial and Marxist views, and was dedicated

If Podemos is built on the legacy of these populist movements, then clearly there is a cause for concern. The arrival of real alternatives to neoliberalism in Syriza and Podemos is both uplifting, and a bit concerning. It is uplifting to see that in the wake of such inequality there is a modern force, committed to confronting the ills and negative aspects of capitalism. However if we look at the example of Latin America after Operation Condor, the populist movements changed for the worse. A combination of the fall of the Eastern Bloc, globalization, and the pressure of economic institutions turned these governments away from their intentions and towards more neoliberal and popularly-harmful policies. The same thing can happen to the idealistic young crowds of Europeans shouting for freedom and democracy today. While Syriza ran on a platform of fighting against loan repayment, the party now seems eager to open channels of communication with the IMF, the World Bank, and Germany as regards the repayment plans. While Podemos tries to fight corruption, taking such a moralistic stance is a recipe for disaster; it is a position it cannot live up to with the development of a business-political “culture” of deal-brokering and power arranging of and ...BEING PRAGMATIC AND SOLVING in parliaments. Even the protesters at the University MINOR SOLUTIONS OF A SYSTEM OF of Amsterdam seem unsure the direction of the “New INCOMPETENCE AND NEGLIGENCE WILL in University” and how best to the free pursuit of NOT RESULT IN THE DESIRED CHANGE. achieve knowledge. to programs to develop the citizenry as well as the Underpinning all of these problems is the production of the nation, with free schooling even reality that shading some Europeans institutions at University and more infrastructure projects in pink and gray does not correct the underlying being of particular importance. In recent times, problems that those institutions have. There seems presidents have been more worried about their own to be a consensus that current institutions and cult of personality than policy, and the adoption of apparatuses of the state would function optimally neoliberal economic policies has led to increased if only the regime were fairer. However, if populist verticalization, and massive and unfair debt. In Leftism is to succeed in Europe, there must be a recent times, new building projects in Argentina debate as to whether current institutions can be have lead to skewed loans from the IMF, which popularly beneficial, and whether they can break in turn opened the country up to more foreign out of the “cultures” of bureaucracy, inefficiency, investment. At the same time, outside forces and corruption. If Podemos, Syriza, and the New have pushed for Argentina to adopt political and University Movement want to bypass the failure of economic practices that have severely negative Latin American populism, they have to learn one impacts on citizens (degradation of the economy, very important lesson: being pragmatic and solving corporatization of infrastructure, etc.). Dilma minor solutions of a system of incompetence and Rousseff, the current president of Brazil, is a populist negligence will not result in the desired change. If and a former Marxist guerrilla fighter who was jailed they truly want to advocate for the change they seek, in the 70s. As president, however, she was forced then these groups must look for answers outside of to adopt neoliberal policies for the World Cup and the current political institutions and systems. In the the Summer Olympic Games in 2016, including words of one Irish politician: “To paint Europe a new repealing the ban on drinking at the sport stadiums. colour, we cannot use the same brush.” She also has increased forced displacement of native peoples for building projects and increased the cost of basic services like public transport in major cities.

APRIL 2015 The Fenwick Review

Food Fight: The Scientific Consensus on GMOs By Austin Barselau ’18 Staff Writer

of tainted bacon or mutant ketchup on supermarket hat do potatoes, salmon, and papayas shelves seems too outlandish to be considered have in common? The answer, you may prophetic. Despite the fact that there is not a single or may not have guessed, is each of these documented case of injury by GMO consumption, organisms has genetically modified variants available GMO opponents continue to find fault with them. in supermarkets everywhere. A genetically modified Considering that the Food and Drug Administration organism (GMO) is classified as any crop or animal (FDA) has approved hundreds of transgenic that has been inbred or genetically altered to promote food products for consumption, it is only logical or eliminate a particular trait, like drought-resistance that GMOs be considered a safe alternative to in wheat- or oxygen-induced discoloration in apples. conventional and organic foods. Plenty of ink has been spilled answering the question If making genetic modifications to animals of whether GMOs are safe to eat. Sadly, the majority of and plants will lead to higher production, then that commentary is not consistent with the established GMOs could be the answer to feeding the next scientific consensus on GMOs: that not only are they generation. Rather than turning to alternative good to put in supermarkets but also that they might IT IS ONLY LOGICAL THAT GMOS BE CONSIDERED help save the world from its own destruction. A SAFE ALTERNATIVE TO ... ORGANIC FOODS. Critics of GMOs claim that altering the genetic structure of plants and farming techniques or overusing pesticides, farmers animals comes with many health and environmental from around the world can harness the power of dangers, yet much of those concerns are GMOs to deliver greater yields. In climates adverse unwarranted. Breeders have been cross-pollinating to crop development, transgenic seeds can lead to flora and fauna for centuries, which would explain the proliferation of necessary food staples like corn how most items at the local Stop&Shop look very and wheat. GMOs can also be utilized to limit the dissimilar to their unmodified genetic precursors. effects of plant diseases, which destroy some 15 The Center for Food Safety estimates that 60 to percent of global harvests. “It’s an overwhelmingly 70 percent of US foods have had genetic surgery, logical thing to do,” says Jonathan Jones, an expert including 94 percent of soybean, 91 percent of on plant disease at Sainsbury Laboratory in the U.K. cotton, and 89 percent of corn. If we classify As rising populations put upward pressure on food selective breeding as a type of genetic reconstruction, production, GMOs could create some relief and help then most farm animals are GMOs. Today’s classic to feed a hungry planet. Thanksgiving turkey would look unrecognizable The GMO debate in the US persists in the to Ben Franklin, as the average turkey weight is face of a scientific consensus. Earlier this year, a new projected to grow to 40 pounds by 2020 from 13 in transgenic version of the potato was introduced in 1930. A development of modern agriculture, GMOs order to reduce bruising. The potato, developed by are here to stay and there’s no reason to fear them. the J.R. Simplot Co. of Boise, Idaho and given the Over 2,000 studies of biotechnology and moniker “Innate,” has already been rejected by some GMOs have led to the conclusion that neither poses of the biggest potato buyers on the market, including the human health threats its critics allege. Research McDonald’s and Frito-Lay. They are worried about published in the journal, Food and Chemical the pushback from anti-GMO crusaders set on Toxicology, suggests that consuming GMOs does wiping out GMOs from every grocery basket and not lead to any toxic health effects. In another study, dinner plate. “It’s really strange how GMO has researchers from the University of California at become a curse word,” says Michael Jacobson at Davis observed data regarding more than 100 billion the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Many animals, concluding that GMO feed is just as safe as would undoubtedly agree. Genetically modified non-GMO feed. Eighty-eight percent of scientists organisms are here to stay, whether you agree with surveyed by the Pew Research Center believed that the science or not. Let’s end this food fight once and genetically modified foods were safe to eat. The fear for all and put GMOs on the menu.

A Haunting 100th Anniversary By Joe Murphy ’17 Staff Writer

ince last semester, the College of the Holy Cross has been engaged in the “HC in Solidarity: Campaign.” The campaign was only supposed to last a week, but the college decided to focus on solidarity for the entirety of the second semester. The exact goal of the effort is unclear to me, but perhaps that is the point. Since the mission is vague, I take that as a sign students should help to shape the definition. Holy Cross seems to have focused on engaging in solidarity with others in the world around us. Almost all groups of people, in one way or another, feel discriminated against by others. This year our school has brought to campus speakers to give greater insight into race relations, religious perspectives, and gender identities. However, solidarity should also take place across time and space; it is important for men and women for others to empathize with those they do not know and never will know. Rewind: April 24th, 1915 was the beginning of one of the 20th century’s worst mass murders, the Armenian Genocide. The Ottoman Empire during World War I decided to engage in a systematic mass killing of the Armenian people. In 1915, there were approximately 2 million Armenians living in the Empire. By 1922, however, there were fewer than 400,000 Armenians living in the country. The other 1.5 million Armenians were murdered. Many of these victims were raped, some starved to death, and some were simply marched through the desert until they collapsed. The operation is considered by some to have inspired Adolf Hitler to believe that the systematic killing of a people was possible. There are very few mass killings in the world that are widely considered genocide, but the atrocities inflicted on the Armenian people are widely considered such by scholars. At the same time, the language used to describe this event is still being debated today.

Present-day Turkey was a part of the Ottoman Empire, and Turkey currently refuses to recognize the murderous acts against the Armenians as a genocide. The issue has taken on a new relevance because of the coming centennial. Last year, Turkey recognized that the treatment of Armenians had been inhumane but the word “genocide” is still not used to describe the killings. Lawmakers in the United States House of Representatives are currently debating a controversial resolution that would officially label the act genocide. Obviously, condemning the actions of another country is almost never good for international relations. The resolution has been debated for three decades and lobbyists supporting Turkey have been blocking the passage of the resolution. President Obama has even backed down from the issue. During his presidential campaign in 2007 he promised that he would refer to the killings as genocide once elected, but he has yet to use the word. Regardless of whether or not the word genocide is used in the future, most of the world, including Turkey, has come to recognize the events of 1915 as dark days in human history. To my knowledge, Holy Cross is not hosting any events commemorating the 100th anniversary of this atrocity. Of course, this is not to blame Holy Cross for any inaction. Our school cannot address every aspect of solidarity, but I think it is important that this event be remembered. Solidarity must include remembering the people who came before us, and the tragedies that befell some of them. If genocide can be pushed from our minds, can we truly consider ourselves to be open to solidarity? Hopefully, this anniversary will never be forgotten.

APRIL 2015 The Fenwick Review

Two Paradoxes: The Chariot of the Sun and the Empty Tomb By Steven Merola ’16 Staff Writer

e would like to think that reality simply Jason’s betrayal of his oath to love and protect her. lies open for all to see, self-illumined The two have travelled far and wide together, and and transparent by the sole virtue of its Medea has committed murder several times out of existence. The issues with this perception aside, her devotion to Jason. Some time after they settle there necessarily arise truths whose reality cannot in Corinth, he abandons her and their two children be denied, but whose nature remains elusive and to wed the daughter of the local king Creon. At the difficult to grasp. The word for what I am describing same time, Creon orders that Medea be exiled. In here is “paradox,” a reality that seems to contradict her rage, Medea exacts revenge against Jason by every apparently self-evident truth, but, in spite of arranging the gruesome death of his new bride. every issue it raises, commands assent. The paradox, Her desire for revenge is not satisfied, however, and despite its inscrutability, is a light by which to she resolves to murder her two children to increase perceive the rest of reality, the unseen illumination Jason’s torment. As she enters her house to do the that reveals whatever awesome or awful truth lies deed, the chorus of Corinthian women (who act as moralizers for the audience) desperately shout within its radiance. Now that the Easter season is upon us, THE BRILLIANCE OF THE EMPTY TOMB two such paradoxes have been running through ILLUMINES THE CROSS ABOVE IT AS THE my mind: the triumph of Medea in the ancient TRIUMPH OF A MAN WHOSE NAME IS LOVE. tragedy by Euripides, and the resurrection of Christ. Each defies nearly at the door and beg her not to kill her sons. We everything we would expect to come from their then hear the cries of the two children as Medea circumstances, and each proposes an equally slaughters them, and the chorus laments over her unexpected view of reality. That resurrection, wrath and jealousy. however, asserts a truth that, despite its paradox, Then, as Jason arrives at the house the commands assent more than the horrid light of chorus informs him of Medea’s deed, and he Medea’s chariot. Euripides’s tragedy becomes enraged. As he pounds on the door and tells the tale of the witch Medea and her husband demands she come out, the unexpected happens: Medea appears, not at the door but high above the stage on the machina, the apparatus for actors who play the role of gods. Yet Medea appears here, riding in the dragon-drawn chariot of Helios (the sun god), bearing the bodies of her murdered children. Medea’s triumph is the light by which we view the rest of the play. We have watched her poisons melt the flesh of Creon’s daughter; we have gazed upon Creon himself destroyed as he wept over her corpse. And now, unsatisfied, we have seen her murder her own children in an excess of hatred while the chorus condemns her wrath and laments her sons’ deaths. Whatever right to revenge she may have had before, it seems now that she is the one at fault. But all of this anger and jealousy is illumined anew in the terrible light of Helios. Medea is in the place of the gods. Even as 16

the chorus rebukes her, she emerges triumphant, favored, and unpunished. In this light, the gods have vindicated her plotting, her revenge, and even her filicide. As Jason stands beneath her, he curses her and wishes the Furies would exact revenge upon her. Yet she laughs at him, asserting again and again that he is wholly to blame for the death of his children and that Zeus knows what sort of torments he has put her through. She lovingly cradles the corpses of her sons, promising to bury them at a temple of Hera and denying Jason his requests to hold them one last time. Her taunting and her assertions all seem too horrible for words, yet she proclaims them from the position of the gods. Ultimately it is she who rides off in victory while Jason can only weep over the deaths of his children. Despite her words’ malice, from her place above they can only be understood as true. The chorus sings one last time (they seem shocked and nearly at a loss for words), and says that “Things expected do not come about, but the god finds a way for the unexpected.” And what gods these are, who have so bitterly illumined so many horrible deeds. Medea’s story is, ultimately, offers divine sanction for unbridled selfishness. Contrast this story, then, with the Resurrection of Christ. If the paschal narrative were to end on Calvary, we would have the unjust execution of a man who, while claiming to be the Son of God, endured a cruel scourging,

a humiliating coronation with thorns, and a crucifixion as a criminal. When laid in the tomb, he seems a pitiable, deluded figure, wellintentioned perhaps, but ultimately crushed by the hatred of those around him. But when he rises again on the third day, Christ is proven to be the Incarnate God he claimed he was. And the Resurrection then lends the entire passion narrative a glorious radiance. Each scourging, stumble, and nail is shown not to be a pathetic mockery but a divine act. His self-sacrifice is revealed as God’s infinite love for humanity, a love that extends even to Golgotha. The brilliance of the empty tomb illumines the cross above it as the triumph of a man whose name is love. The paradox of the Resurrection emerged into a world bathed in the light of Helios’s chariot. And, as we know, that light faded away under the radiance that emerged from the empty tomb. The latter paradox was (and is) in many ways a much more challenging one to accept. The implications of the transcendent God hanging on the cross raises more questions than does Medea’s triumph. Yet, in the Paschal Mystery we find a truth that speaks much more to the human desire for the good than the vindication of hatred ever can. In Christ is the unexpected but fitting answer to an eternal desire. His light, despite its mystery, is much better to stand in than the cold illumination of Helios’s car. 17

APRIL 2015 The Fenwick Review

God Bless Jason Riley By Nikolas Churik ’15 co-editor-in-chief

Courtesy of JasonRiley.com

n Monday, April 27, Wall Street Journal oped columnist Jason Riley gave a talk entitled “Race Relations and Law Enforcement,” based in part on his book Please Stop Helping Us. For everyone who attended, it was surely thoughtprovoking. For anyone who did not, it was a missed opportunity for one of the best lectures offered at the College this year. The take-aways were many, but foremost, I think, is the evidence that “HC in Solidarity” has failed. As a recap of this Solidarity semester, it was born at the end of the fall term and extended into this one. Since the winter, the movement that began with “Black Lives Matter” was coopted by the administration and transformed into an attempt at universal solidarity. While this is an admirable goal, there is something to be said against biting off more than you can chew. Before trying to fix the problems of every marginalized group, it would have been better to address the problems originally brought forth and try to manage those. Unfortunately, in a utopic need to be all things to all people, the administration and those guiding “HC in Solidarity” lost their original thread. An article written by the editorial board of the FR in the January issue offered our hopefulness for a fruitful and meaningful discussion on problems of race and identity in the US. The blatant contempt shown to Mr. Riley is proof enough for me that this discussion has not quite come to bear fruit. I must admit that “HC in Solidarity” has

failed for all parties involved. For the protesting side, the disrespect shown to Mr. Riley presents an image that refuses to hear conflicting viewpoints or ones that do not tow the party line. Whatever the past grievances are, and surely there are many, people like Mr. Riley, who break with political orthodoxies, still have a right to be heard. For the other side, the lack of attendance (by my count, there were about a handful or so of students present who supported Mr. Riley.) tells of a continued failure to enter into the discussion for any number of reasons, not all of which are good. Being a conservative who cares about racial problems can still carry a stigma from within the right-leaning community. I realize that the labels “liberal” and “conservative” are not totally appropriate in this context, but they are expedient and good enough for the purposes of this article. I

THE TAKE-AWAYS WERE MANY, BUT FOREMOST, I THINK, IS THE EVIDENCE THAT “HC IN SOLIDARITY” HAS FAILED.

also realize that there are more than two positions, but going into all of the nuanced opinions goes beyond the scope of this piece. Certain comments made to Mr. Riley were utterly insulting and would not have been acceptable with any other speaker. Certain students questioned his marrying a white woman (while his in-laws sat at the side, nonetheless) and his identity as a black man. One professor plainly infantilized Mr. Riley when she offered

critiques as if she were grading his class paper. Throughout the question and answer period, many students posed questions in a contemptuous and disrespectful manner. There were those who were quite thoughtful and insightful in their questions and to them we should all be thankful for their good examples. It is unfortunate that senior administrators who were present or even the moderator of the talk did not step in to remind the audience of the need for civility. Again, I understand that many people feel disappointed and betrayed by the College’s choice for “HC in Solidarity” programming, but I find it hard to believe that Mr. Riley was the one who deserved the resulting animus. First off, I have to give Mr. Riley great credit for voicing what may be the least respected position in American politics: that of the black conservative. Black conservatives are eschewed as sell-outs by the Left and treated with suspicion by certain elements of the Right. His position was one that goes against political orthodoxies found in most public discourse, especially discourse at the College. Among other things, Mr. Riley called for honest dialogue that goes beyond platitudes and trite repetitions. His view of an honest discussion includes looking at the facts and historical trends. His claims about the efficacy of government intervention and problems associated with the dissolution of the family, particularly the black family, have backing in government data and statistics, and their effects are as demonstrable as any trend. Since the institution of affirmative action programs, the number of successful black college students has fallen, but this trend was

reversed in California when the UC system did away with such programs, and, according to Mr. Riley, students were placed in colleges of the appropriate level. As far as the family is concerned, being raised in a single parent, particularly single mother, household becomes an indicator of crime and incarceration. The correlation becomes stronger when poverty is considered. Poverty, of course, is often cited as the strongest correlative factor. Mr. Riley further claimed that if we truly believe “black lives matter” we will stop focusing on police killing black men, which accounts for 2% of such homicides, but rather will focus more fully on the causes and existence of black-on-black violence. There were certain points that Mr. Riley could have articulated better or more fully. When he spoke of “black culture,” he cited the nefarious influence of so-called southern “redneck culture” that promoted violence. He could have discussed what some consider to be more authentic “black culture” that involves great reliance on and connection to the extended family. This reliance on the extended family is what many say helped the black family survive the hardest in American history. In regard to the cited decline in black employment, a professor brought up the fact that the nature of the economy has changed dramatically in the past fifty years. This shift needs to be taken into account for better analysis. Ultimately, I am glad that Mr. Riley was given the opportunity to speak and offer a different, if unpopular, opinion. The presentation of his perspective can give his listeners, whether they agree or not, hope for a continued dialogue that will perhaps one day be open and honest.

APRIL 2015 The Fenwick Review

Obama, Castro, y La Boluda ByAnthony John ’16 Staff Writer

Batista. With misgivings about Castro’s ince the Cold War, the US and Cuba have Communist political ideology, the US saw how maintained a poor diplomatic relationship. his regime increased trade with the Soviet Union, Recently, President Obama met with Cuban nationalized US-owned properties, and hiked taxes president Raul Castro at the Summit of the Americas on American imports. After slashing Cuban sugar conference in Panama City in an effort to ameliorate imports, Washington instituted a ban on nearly all relations since the Cuban Revolution of 1959. This exports to Cuba, which President JFK expanded historic meeting, which some would argue is long into a full economic embargo that included overdue, has also caught the attention of other stringent travel restrictions. Latin American countries like Argentina. Argentine In 1961, the US severed diplomatic ties president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who with Cuba and began pursuing covert operations was present along with other Latin American and to overthrow the Castro regime. The Bay of Pigs Caribbean leaders at the conference, defended invasion, a botched CIA-backed attempt to topple Cuba for showing profound dignity during the US the government, fueled Cuban mistrust and blockade in 1962. This gesture seems supportive of, and a reversion to, previous hostile relations. [KIRCHNER’S] RESPONSE TO PRESIDENT Having spent more than two months abroad in Buenos OBAMA’S INITIATIVE TO MAKE AMENDS Aires, I have already noticed how much disdain exists WITH CUBA IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE for President Kirchner, especially during this year’s MOST UNINFORMED COMMENTARIES SHE presidential election. Her response to the US-Cuba HAS EVER MADE. meeting has made my nationalism, leading to a secret agreement allowing perception of her resonate with the negative views the Soviet Union to build a missile base on the of porteños (Argentine locals) which point to how island. The US discovered these plans in October poorly she resolves issues. Nevertheless, President of 1962, setting off a fourteen-day standoff. As a Obama’s “turning the page” of US-Cuban relations result, Kennedy demanded the destruction of the continues to be the top story in all of Latin America. missile sites. The Cuban Missile Crisis ended with In 1959, Fidel Castro and his group of an agreement that the sites would be dismantled revolutionaries seized power in Havana, if the US pledged not to invade Cuba, and this is overthrowing US-backed President Fulgencio the policy that is currently being rectified. What President Obama and President Castro see as a slow recovery of diplomacy is what President Kirchner sees as an opportunity to ridicule both the US and Cuba. Following the events of 1961–62, economic and diplomatic isolation became the major issues of US policy toward Cuba. President Obama’s desire to restore full diplomatic ties for the first time in fifty years actually reflects recent new travel and trade regulations, which include U.S. insurance companies covering health, life, and travel insurance for individuals living in or visiting Cuba as well as allowing US companies to invest in small businesses. At 20

Castro embracing Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev (1961)

the Panama City conference, however, President Kirchner was quoted as saying “Let’s not be confused. Obama said he finds history not important or something like that. I love history because it helps me understand what happened, what happens and foresee what might happen. To understand why things happened; Cuba is not here and we are not here (only) witnessing the encounter of two leaders… Cuba is here because it fought with an unprecedented dignity”. Kirchner’s failure to understand the motivation behind restoring international diplomacy reflects her poor leadership as the president of Argentina. Having spoken with several porteños during my semester abroad, I think that Kirchner’s realization that she has only nine months left as president is what really frightens her most of all. Nevertheless, her response to President Obama’s initiative to make amends with Cuba is probably one of the most uninformed commentaries she has ever made. When vice president Richard Nixon met with Fidel Castro on April 19, 1959, it was the last

Castro in Washington, D.C., arriving at the MATS Terminal (1959)

time an American leader would meet with one of the Castro brothers. Because President Obama took the initiative in restoring diplomatic ties, regional powers have praised his efforts, arguing that engagement instead of isolation could help improve human rights in Cuba. In addition, some experts and supporters of President Obama say restored ties between the US and Cuba will boost Washington’s standing in the region in the near future. President Obama recognizes that Cuba is not a threat to the United States, but that while the two countries will still have serious differences, there are going to be areas where they can cooperate as well. Despite all these good intentions, Kirchner remains firm in her beliefs towards the relationship between the US and Cuba; anyone whether Argentine or North American can see how unhelpful her focus tends to be. On the plus side, while President Obama plans to remove Cuba from the US List of Nations that sponsor terrorism, Argentina cannot wait to remove Kirchner from its political landscape permanently. APRIL 2015 The Fenwick Review 21

Capitalism and Christianity: A Recap By Chase Padusniak ’15 co-editor-in-chief

Allow me to explain. Professor Hobgood’s talk seemed filled with unexamined platitudes, and, as far as was made obvious, made precious little reference to the actual substantive basis of the Christian religion. As she said, “God finds injustice blasphemous.” This may be true, but it lacks context. The world, as we are taught by the Church, is a necessarily unjust place; there is no utopia waiting for our human wills to build it. Instead, it is our job to minister in places of injustice: to help the downtrodden, the alienated, and the otherwise dejected and rejected. Her many references to “biblical justice values” struck me as lacking substance. What are “biblical justice values?” To what

EVEN HIS ATTEMPT TO UNDERSTAND “SABBATH,” THAT IS REST, AS SOMETHING MARKETS MAKE NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE, WAS A FULFILLING AND HONEST ANALYSIS OF THE TENSION EXISTING BETWEEN CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY AND CONTEMPORARY ECONOMIC ARRANGEMENTS. extent did Christ come to eliminate (as opposed to alleviate) injustice? And, finally, how can she appeal to questions of “unjust power arrangements,” when the Bible makes little to no case for democracy as such. The answer is simple: Christ was not a political figure. Any attempt to appropriate him for a directly political cause (by the Right or the Left) is month or so ago, our campus hosted a misguided and misses the substance of his message. discussion about capitalism and culture, Love is not a political agenda. including Professors Hobgood and Fritz Moving forward, Professor Fritz’s analysis of Religious Studies and Prof. Kwok Pui Lan of was more appealing. Rightly, he points out that the Episcopal Divinity School. Each of the three markets are imperfect and, through the value speakers provided a different critique of the system they place on competition and productivity, at work, and each had its merits. In my own opinion, endanger certain values held close by religious Professor Fritz’s critique was by far the most robust folks, conservative and liberal alike. His quoting and least, generally-speaking, ideological. Milton Friedman about the possibility of moving beyond capitalism was well-placed, considering that thinker’s association with the “libertarian” (and

A 22

therefore capitalist) movement. Even his attempt to understand “Sabbath,” that is rest, as something markets make nearly impossible, was a fulfilling and honest analysis of the tension existing between Christian theology and contemporary economic arrangements. As he rightly pointed out, wealth rots away. But if wealth rots away, then I must pose the question: why should its redistribution concern the Christian? Is it not better to live as best as one can outside of that system of “getting and spending” that is most “Christian.” Here, I think of the communist Apostles living love in the aftermath of Jesus’s death and resurrection. It was left to Bar Kokhba to overturn the political system; that was simply not their concern. Still, Professor Fritz’s points were mostly valid. There is a legitimate tension between the eschatology and thus the soteriology of the Gospels as compared with the motivations and results of a capitalist system. In this sense, I think his critique was best formulated if only because it avoided much of the explicitly political language of Professor Hobgood’s segment. Love is not a political agenda, and Professor Fritz seemed to understand that. Professor Kwok’s take, while chronologically last, stands squarely between those of the other two. First, she made reference to actual Gospel and or Scriptural passages, engaging in some degree of exegesis, which was a welcome change (something Professor Fritz also did). Her questions seemed largely economic, which again raised the question, at least in my mind, what precisely Christianity, in any direct sense, has to do with economic questions or trends. But most strange for me was Professor Kwok’s emphasis on the multitude, that is on the masses. While I understand an appeal to the people, those who are Christians, those whose broad faith traditions might allow for greater dialogue, too much emphasis on such concerns leaves us open to the will of the mob. Hierarchy and order exist precisely in order to limit the propensity for demagoguery, something understood by many thinkers since Antiquity. Hierarchies may make unjust decisions, or even themselves be unjust. Such a critique is fair, but the idea that hierarchy itself can be abolished is not only dangerous, but un-Biblical. We may call Christ a king because that metaphor made sense 2000 years ago, but we cannot destroy

the central truth embedded in that symbol: Christ does rule over us; he is God, and therefore we cannot even compare with him. Such a truth cannot be forgotten. The panel, then, was stimulating, if not occasionally over-the-top. Placing someone who actually found capitalism compatible with Christianity might have provided for a better and more diverse discussion. That said, my concern is that this school and its emphases, while perhaps well-meaning, are occasionally misguided. Christ is not a political figure. The Gospels are not a political message. And while we can observe that tensions exist between the market and the Logos, we cannot act as if they are operating in the same sphere. Christian allegiance is to said divinity, not to a market or to a revolution against the market. Starting there leads to much greater changes in the hearts of men then the imbedding of Christianity within a political program can ever hope to do. Love is not a political agenda.

APRIL 2015 The Fenwick Review