October 2012

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

October 2012 Volume XX, Issue 1 If we are not ashamed to think it, we should not be ashamed to say it.

- Cicero

The Holy Cross Affirmative Action Debate

Also in This Issue: Rethinking Gun Legislation

The Fenwick Review

2

Mission Statement As the College of the Holy Cross’s independent journal of opinion, The Fenwick Review strives to promote intellectual freedom and progress on campus. The staff of The Fenwick Review takes pride in defending traditional Catholic principles and conservative ideas, and does its best to articulate thoughtful alternatives to the dominant campus ethos. Our staff values Holy Cross very much, and desires to help make it the best it can be by strengthening and renewing the College’s Catholic identity, as well as working with the College to encourage constructive dialogue and an open forum to foster new ideas.

To The Benefactors In this issue, as in every issue, we must reserve space to offer a heartfelt thank you to our benefactors, without whom The Fenwick Review would not exist. We extend our profound gratitude to The Collegiate Network and the generous individual and alumni donors to The Fenwick Review, for their ongoing enthusiasm and support of our mission. You are always in our prayers, and with each issue we publish, our first goal is to justify the incredible faith you have shown in us.

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

October 2012

Contents October 2012

Volume XX, Issue 1

3 The Editor’s Desk Matthew P. Angiolillo ‘13 4 Rethinking Gun Legislation John Castro ‘14 5 A Look Into How President Obama May Think

Nicolas Sanchez, PhD 6 The Affirmative Action Debate Comes to Holy Cross ~ Matthew P. Angiolillo ‘13 Part I : The McFarland Center and The Kennedy Lecture 7 The Affirmative Action Debate Comes to Holy Cross ~ Chris Theobalt ‘13 Part II: An Evaluation of the Fishbowl Discussion on Affirmative Action

8 Massachusetts Question 2 Nikolas Churik ‘15

9 “Tell me what you think” Travis LaCouter ‘13 ~ Remembering Father John E. Brooks

10 The Fight for Catholic Social Teaching

Partick J. Horan ‘14

11 Advertisement

Website Coming Soon!

October 2012

The Fenwick Review

3

The Editor’s Desk

The Fenwick Review 2012-2013 Staff

A New Year, New Technology, The Same Mission

Editor in Chief

The 2012-2013 school year will bring a number of new changes to The Fenwick Review. The editorial board is in the final stages of creating a fully functional website, which will house all of the Review’s current articles and also function as an archive for past work. Due to new software, which will ensure the paper will be able to publish for the foreseeable future, the layout has been updated and will continue to change as new features are added to the paper as the year progresses. The Review is very much interested in embracing the diversity of creative talents that the student body possess and would encourage not only writers, but also illustrators, and anyone who has ideas about how to make our publication better to join our cause.

Even amongst these changes, the purpose of this Journal, at least as I see it, remains, and should remain, static. The traditional saying is that history is written by the victors but then the difficulty of how we account for the often much more poignant stories of the “losers” such as Hannibal and even Davy Crockett becomes apparent.

It might be more apt to say that history is written by those who have not only a “voice” but a means to make that voice last even when others would like it quenched. As a journal that is funded independently, and that receives no money from the College of the Holy Cross, The Review is in a unique position of actually being able to be truly non-partisan and this is a source not only of strength but of purpose. We exist to preserve an outlook on contemporary and past events at this institution that often times it would be much more convenient for a number of reasons not to publish in print. It is surprisingly easy, given that the student population rolls over every four years, to blind students to the recent history and policies of their own institution and to inculcate the belief that academic and social was “always this way” since for a majority of the student population it, in fact, always was.

A few examples should illustrate this assertion more clearly. When I was a freshman, something called “study period” actually existed, where that vast majority of the student population had five whole days to study for final exams. This disappeared the next year, and after I hopefully graduate, no one will ever know about how great a time real study period was. Students also used to go to Caro Street (mainly to escape the clipboard carrying secret police patrolling dormatories on campus) and throw decent parties, a tradition that goes back several decades, before the street became a deserted DMZ. The Fenwick Review is a rare publication that not only attempts to relate the truth of what has occurred and currently happens on campus but also encourages a proper dialogue on the best way to move forward or the benefits of simply standing still. Future actions however require an accurate rendering of the past. In a day when if you can persuade enough people, you can actually retroactively change history, say by stripping away someone’s cycling championships, or college football games legally won, it is a time which mandates independent journalism committed to the truth that refuses to varnish itself in political correctness. Some on this campus would prefer that policies and agendas present and past go unchallenged by a constantly revolving student body. We do not intend to let them succeed.

Matthew Angiolillo October 12, 2012 Fenwick Review Editor’s Desk

Matthew P. Angiolillo ‘13

Managing Editor Patrick J. Horan ‘14

Website Editor

Andrew D. Emerson‘14

Layout Editor Claire S. Mahoney ‘15

Copy Editors Travis LaCouter ‘13 Kelsey Russell ‘13

Advertisement Editor Brendan Sullivan ‘13

Staff Writers Henry Callegary ‘14 John Castro ‘14 Nikolas Churik ‘15 Yvon Gachette ‘13 Kaylie Gage ‘14 Claire Mahoney ‘15 Malik Neal ‘13

Faculty Adviser Professor David Lewis Schaefer Political Science

Disclaimers This journal is published by students of the College of the Holy Cross and is produced two or three times per semester. The College of the Holy Cross is not responsible for its content.

Articles do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board.

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

Letter Policy We at The Fenwick Review encourage feedback.

All comments, criticisms, compliments, and opinions are welcome. As we are striving to promote intellectual freedom and progress here at Holy Cross, opposing viewpoints to anything we print are especially appreciated.

Finally, we reserve the rights to print and edit any letters for clarity and length that we receive.

The Fenwick Review

4

October 2012

Rethinking Gun Legislation John Castro ‘14 Staff Writer

The first time I saw a film at the Blackstone Valley cinema I was surprised to observe armed security guards inside the theater. I later learned that in May 2010, a fight involving as many as 50 youths broke out at the theater and resulted in two brothers being stabbed. The guards were probably part of a precautionary initiative by mall/theater management to better respond to any future outbreaks of violence. Despite reading the story, I never thought twice about anything happening during subsequent trips to either the theater at Blackstone or to cinemas elsewhere. This changed on July 20, 2012 when society was once again reminded that tragedy in the form of gun violence can occur anywhere at the most unlikely of places.

On that morning the world awoke to hear of the tragic mass shooting at a premier of the Dark Knight Rises in a theater in Aurora, Colorado. A lone, heavily armed gunman, identified as James Holmes, entered a crowded screening room where he indiscriminately opened fire. He killed 12, ranging in age from just 6 years old to 51, and wounding 58. Although Holmes was quickly apprehended by police officers, his nefarious plot was not over.

Investigators sent to Holmes’ residence discovered that the door to his apartment was connected to a sophisticated set of explosives via a trip-wire.

Fortunately, police quickly evacuated the area while bomb experts successfully disabled the devices.

Investigattors concluded that had someone entered the apartment, the bombs would have detonated leveling the complex and killing scores more.

Aspects of Holmes modus operandi have raised serious questions. When captured, he was wearing tactical equipment nearly identical to that worn by police Special Weapons and Tactics officers across the country. It was only due to a slight irregularity in Holmes’ equipment that led responding officers to distinguish him from other tactical officers and apprehend him on scene. Many have wondered how he managed to create a disguise using military grade ballistic armor nearly accurate enough to fool officers. There is also the question of why Holmes was able to easily amass a stockpile of ammunition and weapons by simply ordering the equipment legally online or purchasing them in stores.

Additionally, many have wondered how to prevent a similar incident from occurring in the future.

In terms of Holmes armor, a quick Google search reveals an abundance of websites where one can purchase ballistic armor and other apparel resembling military and police gear. While many of these sites cater only to law enforcement and military

Scene outside the theater subsequent to the shooting. personnel with proper identification, other sites are unregulated and will sell the same type of gear with no questions asked.The same holds true for online ammunition purchases. Under current laws, only armor piercing rounds are prohibited from being sold to civilians and ballistic armor is restricted solely for felons. Holmes managed to legally stockpile about $15,000 worth of ammunition, gear and weap-

“Holmes managed to legally stockpile about $15,000 worth of ammunition, gear and weapons without alerting authorities” ons without alerting authorities. As for the weapons, which consisted of a semi-automatic assault rifle, a shotgun and a handgun, all were legally purchased.

Additionally, due to lenient gun laws in Colorado, Holmes was able to legally modify his rifle so that it would use a high capacity magazine, allowing him

to fire more rounds before reloading. This feature is banned in many other states. Therefore, except for the explosives that booby-trapped his home, the majority of his arsenal was obtained legally.

The ease with which Holmes was able to stockpile his murderous tools reveals the need to review and amend U.S. gun laws. It is not necessary nor constitutional to consider a total prohibition of civilian gun ownership. However, the laws should be practical when considering what types of weapons a citizen can legally possess. Certain types of assault weapons, many of which were banned for a period of time under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, are designed for offensive attacks and serve no practical purpose in protecting private property. These are the types of weapons most commonly used in mass shootings including the Columbine and Virginia Tech massacres. Since the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act portion of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act expired in 2004, there is no regulation of these types of weapons. Had the law still been in effect, Holmes would neither have been able to acquire the rifle nor modify it to fire more rounds legally.

Regulating civilian ownership of certain types of weapons would be a more effective and sensible response to the increasing number of gun massacres in the U.S. than simply increasing security at public venues. Every officer who has to stand guard at Blackstone Valley, for instance, is taken away from important work elsewhere in Worcester. While in the immediate aftermath of the Aurora shooting it made sense for police to increase patrols around theaters to deter copycat attacks, this is not be a viable or desirable long-term solution.

Only prohibiting ownership of deadly assault weapons and empowering law enforcement with the necessary resources to enforce such a ban would have the potential to reduce the number of mass shootings. With each mass shooting, it becomes apparent that semi-automatic assault weapons have no positive value in our society. Citizens seeking to arm themselves for protection can choose from plenty of other weapons capable of providing adequate defense; there is no need, however, to continue to protect ownership of guns capable of rapidly slaughtering many people.. FR

October 2012

The Fenwick Review

5

A Look Into How President Obama May Think Nicolas Sanchez, PhD Special Guest Contributor

AMC Framingham 16 has been showing the movie, 2016: Obama’s America. For some, this documentary is a misleading movie; for others, it is proof of the evil intent that drives the President’s policies.

I do not find myself in either camp. If anything, it has forced me to read parts of the President’s book, Dreams from My Father, which I found in line with one of the two main arguments made by the movie.

To many moviegoers, 2016 is a challenge because it exposes the communist and socialist influences that the President faced before becoming head of state.”

His autobiographical book, when it covers Kenya, is full of the anti-colonial sentiments that “2016” claims motivate Obama’s policies. But it should be clear to those who read the autobiography that his African family is in desperate need of psychological healing, and that Obama’s policies might reflect the need to help those who are personally devastated by the lives they have led, whether in Africa or in America.

Obama’s youngest half brother, a highly educated man, almost makes that claim in the movie: He does not need the financial support of his halfbrother, but he is delighted that the President has followed policies that make better the whole world. He even disagrees with President Obama about colonialism, and feels that South Africa is better off because it did not expel the white minorities.

To many moviegoers, 2016 is a challenge because it exposes the communist and socialist influences that the President faced before becoming head of state. Five persons stand out. Frank Marshal Davis, a communist party member (Card #47544) who Obama repeatedly mentions in his autobiography—but only by the name of Frank; Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn (both terrorists and leaders of the Weathermen Underground who failed to be fully prosecuted due to prosecutorial misconduct, and early supporters of Obama in Chicago); Roberto Unger, Obama’s radical Harvard Law Professor who now claims that Obama must be defeated because he is not radical enough; and Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s mentor, pastor and follower of liberation theology, a

radical socialist theology.

A defender of the President and critic of the movie (Bryan Henry in Obama’s America: 2016 Review) makes the following statement: “Honestly, I do not doubt that President Obama’s political views are somewhat informed by anti-colonialism or that he was influenced by Marxist professors in college.

Interestingly, the film, and most of the audience, assumes that anti-colonialism and Marxism are inherently anti-American…Leninism (revolutionary Marxism) and Stalinism (totalitarianism) are certainly at odds with democracy but Marxism, itself, is not.”

For those of us who have lived under Marxist regimes, we beg to differ: Marxism is inherently antiAmerican. Yet, President Obama may be motivated by other concerns. After all, his economic policies have not been too different from those of the Bush II Administration, at least with regard to government interventions and bailouts, as the movie makes quite clear towards the very end.

The second main thesis of the movie is that the people who voted for President Obama did so because they felt guilty about their racial prejudice and were satisfied that he was not an angry black man. This may or may not be true, but it is psychobabble, to say the least. Personally, I find that people in some parts of the country (such as Texas) admit to their prejudices and realize that they must change their behavior. People in California are the least prejudiced; while people in New England are extremely prejudiced but claim not to be prejudiced at all! Yet, my personal experiences do not prove any facts, and I believe that Dinesh D’Souza, the Indian writer and director of the movie, and also President of King’s College in New York City, failed to prove the movie’s second thesis.

Before I conclude, it is important to address colonialism. First, there is no doubt that colonial policies have been a scourge on mankind. Africa, possibly the most diverse continent in the whole world, has been devastated by colonial policies. President Obama misses a great opportunity to make this point in his autobiography when he visits a national park in Kenya. Most of the wild animal reserves in that part of the world were created by the English after the

animals had been eliminated by the pastoral people of the region long ago, in the nineteenth century. These reserves were truly a reversion to backwardness, promoted to satisfy the tourist interests of Europeans.

Regrettably, this is a story that is not well known in America, where the liberal class (including President Obama) adores these animal reserves.

But on the other hand, one has to recognize that black Africa could hardly defend itself against the colonial powers, because the population lacked sufficient numbers (yes, black Africa has been historically way under-populated, despite popular perceptions) and the technologies (including writing scripts) needed in modern societies. It is really a pity that populations as different as one finds in Kenya today have to live under a single and colonially invented nation.

Hence, there is nothing wrong with advocating anti-colonialism. What is remarkable, if we are to believe the movie and the autobiography, is the possibility that an anti-colonialists like our President, may be basing his economic policies on something that is irrelevant to the modern society we live in.

The Fenwick Review

6

October 2012

The Affirmative Action De Part I: The McFarland Center and The Kennedy Lecture Matthew P. Angiolillo ‘13 Editor in Chief

The cover page of this issue features a previous Supreme Court wrestling with the issue of affirmative action. The current Supreme Court faces a similar quandary this term when the justices will decide the case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, which will determine whether the University of Texas can use race as a factor when weighing undergraduate admissions decisions. On September 17th in the Rehm Library, Holy Cross and the McFarland Center hosted Harvard Law Professor Randall Kennedy to discuss the history of affirmative action and the possible outcomes of the Fisher case.

There was also an accompanying fishbowl discussion

tic approach to invitations in which two opposing viewpoints do not need to be directly paired but that the Center overall can aim for a diversity of opinions overall. He also stated that logistically it is difficult and rare for a College of Holy Cross’ size to bring in two speakers on every controversial issue. This is reasonable but on the key political issues of the Afghan War and affirmative action, it is difficult to argue that the McFarland Center has not give the student body a biased understanding of these issues.

Before delving into the present issue of affirmative action it is relevant to note that, even though the majority of its lectures are not overtly political in nature, the McFarland Center has made questionable decisions in the past. The Center, on November 9,

“I would encourage the Center to be more inviting and perhaps more open to opinions that it might not agree with but that are intellectually stimulating to the student body” on October 1st, which featured faculty and some students of distinction to discuss various positions on the affirmative action debate. The rationale for inviting Prof. Kennedy and the subsequent fishbowl was that the Fisher decision could possibly affect the policy of admissions into Holy Cross as the College receives federal funds through loans and other means and could eventually come under a Supreme Court ruling. This article has two parts. Part I focuses on the Kennedy lecture and the McFarland Center’s approach to inviting speakers, whereas Part II describes the fishbowl and the relative merits of the arguments raised for and against affirmative action.

I requested and was granted an interview with Dr. Thomas Landy, Director of the McFarland Center to discuss the decision to host Prof. Kennedy, and the perception by some that the McFarland Center was being overtly partisan in inviting a known avid supporter of affirmative action, without having an alternative voice speaking against the practice. Dr. Landy, who evidently does his homework when recruiting speakers, stated that he takes a more holis-

2011 invited Congressman Jim McGovern and Matthew Hoh to discuss the War in Afghanistan. Both men are vocal critics of the War, with McGovern ranked by multiple political interest groups as being one of the most liberal members of Congress and has been quoted as saying “It’s no secret that I’m a liberal,” and Hoh, whose lone claim to fame was his being the first US official to resign in protest over the Afghan War. Dr. Landy rightly stated that McGovern is the Congressman for the district in which Holy Cross is located in, which rightly makes his participation warranted and that the two men were against the war for different reasons. However even though Hoh, who used his protest resignation to land him several media and think-tank positions, may have opposed the war for different reasons, the audience watching the speakers was left with only one side of argument. For one, to support the Afghan War is not a radical or even unusual position to maintain and it would not be difficult to find someone of decent stature to give a lecture discussing cogent reasons to support the War even in-house at Holy Cross.

Concerning the Randall Kennedy lecture, Dr. Landy stated that Kennedy acknowledges that there are good arguments against affirmative action in his written work on the subject, but despite these, he ends up on the side of supporting affirmative action.

Indicating that there are reasonable arguments opposing your own is a staple of academic writing but that doesn’t make Prof. Kennedy a bi-partisan speaker.

He firmly believes that preferential treatment based on race is fully justified. The lecture itself was well spoken, if unenlightening. Prof. Kennedy had a very good knowledge of the relevant cases and of the history of affirmative action before the Supreme Court.

He was far briefer in describing how the Supreme Court would handle the upcoming Fisher case. The last segment of his lecture discussed his views on affirmative action, which he supported for the two standard reason, 1) that it encourages diversity and 2) that it is a part of a compensatory justice program on behalf of groups disenfranchised in the past. Despite the fact that Prof. Kennedy spoke eloquently, these arguments have all been heard before and there was really nothing new here. The merit of the arguments for and against affirmative action will be taken up in Part II.

Throughout its history, the McFarland Center has had a number of good speakers, but although it is more than willing to invite professed liberals, it is not at all willing recently to invite someone who is unabashedly conservative. There have been very few, if any, declared conservative speakers, which needlessly limits campus debate, and the educational experience of the viewers. Dr. Landy, stated that although he supports the McFarland Center inviting individuals of different political persuasions, in the end he invites individuals who he finds reasonable and would for instance not invite anyone who supports the beliefs of controversial figures such as the thought of Ayn Rand. Following this guideline however, the Center would not invite an individual who it finds unreasonable but that many others find enlightening or controversial as a means of encouraging dialogue. I would encourage the Center to be more inviting and perhaps more open to opinions that it might not agree with but that are intellectually stimulating to the student body, especially with regard to hot-button political issues, that have well established differing viewpoints. I have heard rumors of unapologetic conservative speakers to be on the way to make appearances at Holy Cross in the near future.

I hope these rumors prove to be true, as the whole student body would benefit.

October 2012

The Fenwick Review

7

ebate Comes to Holy Cross

Part II: An Evaluation of the Fishbowl Discussion on Affirmative Action

Chris Theobalt ‘13 Staff Writer

Over a week ago on the first of October, I had the opportunity to participate in a Fishbowl discussion in Rehm Library regarding the ethicality of affirmative action as practiced in the college admissions process. The topic is certainly relevant given that the Supreme Court is currently in the process of deciding Fisher v. University of Texas, a case which could have drastic implications for the practice of affirmative action in college admissions processes in the United States. My intention in this article is to evaluate the arguments set forth in the Fishbowl discussion and to provide a clear enunciation of my own stance on the matter.

Before delving into the specific arguments raised in the discussion, it is instructive to point out that I was the only speaker on the panel who was manifestly opposed to the practice of affirmative action. Prof. David Schaefer, who has studied and taught constitutional law, and a critic of affirmative action, was not accepted to participate. The majority of the other speakers were vehement supporters of the practice, and the remaining speakers were, while declaring themselves to be undecided on the matter, at least sympathetic to the arguments in favor of affirmative action.

That being said, let me address the first argument offered in defense of affirmative action, which is that it provides for a racially diverse student body, and consequently, promotes the diffusion of diverse ideas, cultures, and experiences among the students.

This argument rests on a questionable assumption, namely that racial diversity is equivalent to diversity of ideas, experiences, and cultures. It tacitly assumes that a racially homogeneous campus will not be diverse in these respects, while a racially heterogeneous campus certainly will. My own experience explodes this fallacy, as I have many white friends with upbringings and backgrounds which are very similar to mine, yet they have drastically different ideas, experiences, and cultures than I do. It is a great misnomer to assume that all white people at Holy Cross are the same in these regards and that the cure for this boring homogeneity is racial diversity. It is a mentality that completely rejects the notion of individual identity in favor of racial collectivism. One of my fellow speakers argued that there are certain default experiences that black people have, which whites simply do not have, no matter how similar they may be in other respects. She recounted a story in which a security guard followed her black friend around a shopping mall as an example of racial profiling, an experience, which no white person would ever have. Does she

mean to tell me that every black person in America has experienced something of this sort? If so, do experiences like that really justify preferential treatment in a college admissions process? Moreover, she implies that white people never (or at least very rarely) experience racial discrimination. I would argue that given the ever growing prevalence of affirmative action policies (not only in college admissions, but in business, government, etc.) that whites, today, are very likely to be the victims of racial discrimination.

Despite this fact, I doubt very much that the supporters of affirmative action would scramble to institute affirmative action policies for whites to rectify this injustice.

The second argument in favor of affirmative action is that it is a means of “compensatory justice.”

edly designed to reduce inequality and injustice, not perpetuate it.

The underlying theme of all the arguments which were presented at this discussion is racial collectivism, a method of thinking which ascribes a certain status to a group of people, based solely on their race. It is important to understand that this is the same mentality, which was used to justify such atrocities as slavery and state-sponsored segregation.

The primary failure of this line of thinking is its inability to account for individuality whilst classifying people into collectives based on arbitrary characteristics like race. It ignores the fact that people who belong to the same race may have ideas, experiences, and cultures that differ radically from those of other members of that particular race. The leap from ra-

“I have always believed that the best way to arrive at a sober judgment of a policy is to call it what it actually is, not to conceal its true effects with a veneer of flowery language” In other words, the practice is necessary to ameliorate the damage done by injustices in the past. This argument also employs racial collectivism in its formation.

Is it really moral, or even possible, to rectify injustices of the past by discriminating against a certain race of people in the present? Is it really just to discriminate against a white person today based on the fact that the slaveholders of two centuries ago were white?

Were there no white abolitionists at that time? Once again, we see the notion of individual responsibility erased and replaced by racial collectivism. Students who had nothing to do with these past atrocities are disenfranchised in the admissions process based on the color of their skin. The same argument applies to present-day situations of disproportionate poverty for blacks and other minorities. Advocates of affirmative action tacitly assume that all blacks and minorities are disadvantaged in some way, and that they deserve preferential treatment as a result. As one professor in the audience pointed out, though, race is not necessarily a reliable indicator of social circumstance or status. Many beneficiaries of affirmative action are blacks and Hispanics from upper middle class neighborhoods. This is, perhaps, one of the unintended consequences of a policy, which is suppos-

cial diversity to cultural, ideological, and experiential diversity is a non sequitur; these virtues do not follow as the necessary results of racial diversity, nor do they follow necessarily from the policy of affirmative action. Moreover, the use of racial discrimination to counter the alleged effects of past and present racism is unethical and logically contradictory in itself. It, yet again, abandons all notions of individual identity and arranges for the preferential treatment of certain people based on their skin color, thereby institutionalizing the very evil it is purporting to combat. My position is that, with regard to race, people should be treated equally, and I would certainly apply this principle to the admissions process. I have always believed that the best way to arrive at a sober judgment of a policy is to call it what it actually is, not to conceal its true effects with a veneer of flowery language.

Racial affirmative action is racial discrimination, one of the ugliest forms of collectivism. I prefer to judge people on their individual merits, not on the basis of skin color.

The Fenwick Review

8

October 2012

Massachusetts Question 2 Nikolas Churik ‘15 Staff Writer Three ballot initiatives will be up for a vote in Massachusetts on November 6. The second, entitled “Prescribing Medication to End Life,” would allow physicians, after a rigorous evaluation, to prescribe medication which would end a patient’s life. Such a prescription would only be approved for use in the last six months of a terminally ill patient’s life. Proponents of this legislation may be well-intentioned; they see this bill and others similar to it as extending an individual’s right to self-determination. Nevertheless, the punishments listed for abuse of this law are surprisingly inadequate.

A person who forges a prescription will be sentenced to “state prison for not more than ten years or in the house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars or by both such fine and imprisonment.” This is similar to the eight years in prison or $30,000 fine already in existence for prescription forgery. Coercing a terminally-ill individual to apply for suicide would garner “imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in the house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by both such fine and imprisonment.”

This second sentence creates a new issue.

Supporters, such as Dr. Marcia Angell, one of the original petitioners, claim the bill takes every pre-

caution to discourage abuse. Indeed, the process of prescription is comparatively rigorous, requiring two oral requests and one written. Nevertheless, the relatively light sentence does not quite meet the claim.

A three year prison sentence puts this on par with possession of fourteen grams of cocaine or a large amount of marijuana, unarmed robbery, and more serious cases of breaking and entering. Meanwhile, murder in the first degree – willful murder with a malicious intent -- can earn an offender a life sentence. Even if the coercion is not malicious, it would still be premeditated and unlawful; those three conditions would seem to make it equivalent to voluntary manslaughter, sentenced with at least eight to twelve years in prison. In Oregon, on whose law the “Death with Dignity” bill for Massachusetts is based, however, coercion is a “class A felony” and garners the offender a twenty year sentence or a $375,000 fine.

Even if abuse of “physician-assisted dying” is not seen as exactly equivalent to murder, stringent penalties should be in placeto discourage any sort of abuse.

Such laws seem to work; under the Oregon law, no one has been charged with abuse since its introduction in 1997.

As with homicide proper, large penalties do not deter every case. It may be argued that, if the patient passed two medical inspections, even if coerced into the process, he/she would have ostensibly died in six months or less anyway, and the coerce-er is doing nothing but hastening the inevitable. Despite this, without proper protection, life in its final

“Coercing a terminallyill individual to apply for suicide would garner “imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years”

months would be de-valued. The bill does not take every precaution it could, or should. As a result, the public welfare, by which this law seeks to justify itself, in fact demands a higher level of scrutiny.

“That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.” ~ Thomas Jefferson Join Our Cause — Write for the Fenwick Review!

Contact Matthew Angiolillo at fenwickrev@g.holycross.edu or visit our website at thefenwickreview.com

The Fenwick Review

October 2012

9

“Tell me what you think” Remembering Fr. John E. Brooks Travis LaCouter ‘13 Copy Editor

students. The subject of his passion was the person of Jesus Christ. He read anything and everything he could find about Christ, his desk and office overflow Much ink has already been spilled about the ing with scholarly journals and obscure books. “Keep unfortunate passing of Rev. John E. Brooks, S.J. I can reading,” he used to constantly tell us, pushing us only echo the chorus of praise and goodwill voiced to learn, question, and judge ideas. He certainly folby those former colleagues, students, and friends of lowed his own advice. his who have spoken about his life and accomplish- For me and many others of his students, ments. He truly was a man of great intellect, grace, coming as we did from stale, parochial pockets of and wit.

New England Catholicism, Fr. Brooks vivified the

“He acknowledged the centrality – the necessity – of Christ to the success of any intellectual endeavor, and, as important, he embraced knowledge of Christ as central to knowledge of human nature.”

It was a testament to his indefatigable will that, through his tenure as College President and his bouts with illness, Fr. Brooks made a point of teaching a class every semester for the past half century. I had the honor of taking one of his last Christology seminars during the fall of my Junior year; drawing on that experience, I feel I can offer some brief insight into why he was such a visionary leader, and the lessons he still holds for Holy Cross today.

Chairman of the Holy Cross Board of Trustees P. Kevin Condron ’67 was right when he described teaching as “the profession that sustained [Fr. Brooks] and engaged him every moment of his life.” He did not understand himself primarily as a reformer or a leader (though he was both those things, surely), but rather a lover of truth engaged in a life-long mission to illuminate that truth for his

person of Christ in a way we’d never seen before.

His was not a Christ – indeed, his was not a Church – that fit vague, gauzy generalities; rather, Fr. Brooks challenged us to truly encounter the mystery of our faith and ponder the central questions of our lives as Christians. What does it mean that God became man? How can we understand the role of suffering in our lives? How does Christ call us into His love?

These became questions of immediate and existential import as Father Brooks led us through the history and intricacies of our rich Christian faith.

His faith was rooted in a deep intellectual – and, subsequently, deep emotional – bond with Christ and Christ’s Church. This is the true educational legacy of John Brooks: He acknowledged the centrality – the necessity – of Christ to the success of any intellectual endeavor, and, as important, he

“Father Brooks’ legacy has also been captured in Diane Brady’s book Fraternity, on sail at the Holy Cross bookstore”

embraced knowledge of Christ as central to knowledge of human nature. In an academic culture that has increasingly moved towards materialism, departmentalism, and specialization, Fr. Brooks staunchly defended a unified, holistic view of knowledge. And in a Church that increasingly entertains philosophical laziness and careless innovation, Fr. Brooks’ faith would not tolerate any intellectual sloppiness.

I distinctly remember one day during office hours, Fr. Brooks and I were discussing Joseph Ratzinger’s biblical hermeneutic. We had been disagreeing slightly on a point of detail, and I prepared to mount a brave defense of my position.

“I feel like this approach allows us to understand …”

I managed to say, before Father interrupted me.

“I’m not interested in what you ‘feel,’ tell me what you think!” he said.

It was a minor episode, but it revealed a great deal about the man sitting across the desk from me that day. Fr. Brooks did not want to hear the unformed ruminations of an over-ambitious undergrad who fancied himself the next great philosopher; rather, he wanted to impose method and direction upon my attempt to understand God. On a question of such central importance, I could not be content to just follow my feelings. A well-formed intellect was vital for grasping philosophy and theology, and, consequently, for living a full life.

This focus on reason is a hallmark of the Catholic Intellectual Tradition, and was something that John Brooks took very seriously. It is also something that ought to be reclaimed and celebrated here at this leading Catholic college. As Father understood better than most, feelings are all well and good, but ideas hold the potential to unlock new vistas of understanding and reveal a truth deeper than the hereand-now.

The Fenwick Review

10

October 2012

The Fight for Catholic Social Teaching Patrick J. Horan ‘14 Managing Editor

As we begin a new academic year and approach another presidential election, there are important questions we must ask ourselves. How is our country doing? How can we get our economy back on course? Which politicians have the right answers? We are currently living through what many economists consider the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression. Federal deficits have exploded. Unfunded liabilities continue to grow.

Unemployment still remains high. While everyone across America should be asking these questions, Holy Cross students must also wrestle with another question: how does our Jesuit education inform our ideas about these questions?

In April, House Budget Committee Chairman and current vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan visited another Jesuit institution, Georgetown University, where he made the case for the Republican Party’s budget proposal. The proposal, nicknamed the “Ryan Budget,” entails an overhaul of Medicare, a simplification of the federal tax code, and a cap on non-defense discretionary spending. It is the GOP’s alternative to the budget proposed by President Obama. At the home of the Hoyas, Ryan horrified many progressive Catholics when he claimed, “The work I do as a Catholic holding office conforms to the social doctrine as best I can make of it.” In other words, Ryan believes that his plan that cuts future government spending on programs, including those meant to help the poor, is actually based on Catholic tenets.

The Left, including the Catholic Left, was

failure to meet “moral criteria.” In June, a group of four nuns began a bus tour to protest the theology behind the Wisconsin Congressman’s plan.

So it’s the USCCB, a number of academics and priests at Georgetown, and nuns versus Paul Ryan.

Disadvantage: Ryan? Not so fast. While the Left claims it has the moral high ground in this fight, Ryan has a key Catholic principle on his side: subsidiarity.

Formally defined, subsidiarity is the idea that a central authority should only have a subsidiary role, performing only functions that cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level. Pope Leo XIII first introduced the idea of subsidiarity in Catholic social teaching in 1891. Pope Pius XI further developed the concept in a 1931 encyclical in which he explained, “It is a fundamental principle of social philosophy … that one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and industry.”

On the hundredth anniversary of Leo’s introduction of the principle, Pope John Paul II stated, “The Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies; an inordinate increase in bureaucratic public agencies is not the best way to solve these problems.” In short, subsidiarity says that whenever possible, charity and helping others should be left to individuals, not the State.

Progressive Catholics may concede that the subsidiary principle calls people to primarily help themselves through self-initiative or private charity, but they may still counter that the State, in this case the federal government, should intervene in economic matters as a last resort. They may admit free-markets are generally a good solution, but they maintain that there still should be a safety net. Democrats

“Subsidiarity says that whenever possible, charity and helping others should be left to individuals, not the State.” not too happy. 90 Georgetown Professors, including several Jesuit priests, signed a letter scolding Ryan for his “misuse of Catholic teaching to defend a plan that decimates food programs … and gives more tax breaks to the wealthiest few.” They even compared Ryan to Ayn Rand, the atheist novelist who praised selfishness and excoriated the Christian belief in compassion (while Ryan has admitted to being influenced by Rand insofar as promoting capitalist ideas, he has denounced her atheism and refusal to care for others). The United States Congress of Catholic Bishops has criticized Ryan’s plan for its

have claimed that the Ryan plan is “heartless” and that it “destroys Medicare.” However, the Ryan plan does not destroy the welfare state. PolitiFact, a non-partisan fact-checking site, rated the claim by Democrats that Republicans voted to end Medicare as their “Lie of the Year” in 2011. The 2012 plan, a variation of the initial 2011 plan, allows seniors to opt to stay on Medicare while also letting private plans compete with Medicare. Given that Medicare suffers from trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities due to inefficient government bureaucracy, private sector alternatives to the program do not seem like such a

bad idea. Furthermore, even if the Ryan Medicare plan still seems “radical” for some, the voucher program would not take effect until 2022 and would not apply to current seniors in the program. People would have adequate time to prepare for a transition.

What about the other parts of the Ryan plan, though?

What about the spending cuts for the poor and the tax cuts for the rich? Progressives fail to realize that their methods for bringing about social justice on these issues can bring about results that are just as negative as the problems they seek to address.

As Mr. Ryan pointed out, the current pontiff once said that governments and individuals running up high debt levels are “living at the expense of future generations” and “living in untruth.” The current national debt is over $15 trillion. One of the reasons for our deficits is that the government, under both Presidents Bush and Obama, spent a great deal of money to help the American people pay their bills and to get the economy back on track. However, despite these good intentions, we are left with more people unemployed, a lackluster recovery, and gargantuan debts to boot. To fix these problems, Ryan is merely suggesting a plan that lets the private sector take the initiative in handling the economy, and, thus, helping all Americans.

This article is not intended to end the debate over how Catholic social teaching should be applied towards social and economic policy, nor is it intended to persuade readers that the Pope has endorsed Mr. Ryan’s plan. This piece is meant to advance the debate around solving our country’s looming fiscal problems as well as to invite reflection on how Catholic social teaching might be applied to these issues.. At Georgetown, the Wisconsin Congressman told his audience, “If there was ever a time for serious but respectful discussion, among Catholics as well as those who don’t share our faith, that time is now.”

Hopefully, regardless of our political views, we can all agree with Mr. Ryan on that point.

October 2012

The Fenwick Review

11

Coming Soon!

Read The Fenwick Review online and catch up on the archived classic issues of the past

A Prayer for the Unborn

Guide the work of scientists and doctors, so that all progress contributes to the integral well-being Lord Jesus, of the person, You who faithfully visit and fulfill with your Presence and no one endures suppression or injustice. the Church and the history of men; Give creative charity to administrators and economists, You who in the miraculous Sacrament of your Body and so they may realize and promote sufficient conditions Blood so that young families can serenely embrace render us participants in divine Life the birth of new children. and allow us a foretaste of the joy of eternal Life; Console the married couples who suffer We adore and bless you. because they are unable to have children Prostrated before You, source and lover of Life, and in Your goodness provide for them. truly present and alive among us, we beg you.

Teach us all to care for orphaned or abandoned chilReawaken in us respect for every unborn life, dren, make us capable of seeing in the fruit of the maternal so they may experience the warmth of your Charity, womb the consolation of your divine Heart. the miraculous work of the Creator, open our hearts to generously welcoming every child Together with Mary, Your Mother, the great believer, that comes into life. in whose womb you took on our human nature, we wait to receive from You, our Only True Good and Bless all families, Savior, sanctify the union of spouses, the strength to love and serve life, render fruitful their love. in anticipation of living forever in You, Accompany the choices of legislative assemblies in communion with the Blessed Trinity. with the light of your Spirit, so that peoples and nations may recognize and respect ~ His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, the sacred nature of life, of every human life.

November 27, 2010

October 2012

The Fenwick Review

12

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