November 2022

The Fenwick Review

Quod Verum Pulchrum | Volume XXX, Issue II, November 2022

The Fenwick Review

Mission Statement

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

Contact Us

We’d love to hear from you! Visit our website at www.thefenwickreview.com or send us an email at fenwickrev@g.holycross.edu. Follow us on social media:

Sign Up for Our Newsletter

TheFenwickReviewhas started a monthly newsletter called TheCrusader’sBrief . This publication, more lighthearted and casual in tone than our print publication, seeks to cover those day-to-day happenings at Holy Cross which those of our readers who don’t spend their lives on Mt. Saint James would otherwise miss. Within the Briefyou will find a quick list of some more comical campus sightings, followed by a couple shorter articles covering topics of slightly greater note. We hope to develop this format and include other content, be it political cartoons, brief satires, poetry, you name it! Email us or fill out the form on our website if you’re interested in signing up!

Table of Contents

Letter From the Editors

Anthony Cash ‘23 & Evan Poellinger ‘23

Holy Cross

The Hypocrisy of Affirmative Action Joe Nepomuceno ‘25

McFarland Center: The Heart of Empty Dialogue Ana Lucia Fernandez del Castillo ‘26 and Briana Oser ‘25

A Reason to Love Political Cartoon by Alexandra Antonyraj ‘25

The Catholic Tradition

A Catholic’s Duty Brendan Robinson ‘26

A Testimony of the Extraordinary Griffin Blood ‘26 Culture

Letting That Sink In: Elon Musk and Free Speech on Social Media Evan Poellinger ‘23

The Review Reviews: Ms.Marvel Anthony Cash ‘23

Disclaimer:

This journal is published by students of the College of the Holy Cross several 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 Staff.

Co-Editors-in-Chief

Anthony Cash, ‘23

Evan Poellinger, ‘23

Deputy Editor

Anna Moran, ‘24

Correspondence Director

Will Kessler, ‘23

Social Media Editor

Teresa Esquivel, ‘23

Graphic Designer

Braina Oser, ‘25

Staff Artist

Alexandra Antonyraj, ‘25

Staff Writers

Kevin Akalski, ‘23

Joe Barbieri, ‘23

Stacey Kaliabakos, ‘23

Andrew Shipley, ‘24

Sam Silvestro, ‘24

Joseph Nepomuceno, ‘25

Aiden Konold, ‘26

Ana Lucia Fernandez del Castillo, ‘26

Ashwin Prabaharan, ‘26

Brendan Robinson, ‘26

Tucker Scott, ‘26

Faculty Advisor

Dr. David Schaefer

PoliticalScience

Letter from the Editors

DearReader,

ThankyouforpickingupthenewesteditionofTheFenwick Review!Thissemesterhassofarbeenfilledwithcontroversy asuproaracrosscampuseruptedoversocialmediaposts fromourpublication’sInstagramaccount.Whilewenever apologizeforraisingquestionsofpoliticalandcultural relevance,itisneverouraimtomakeothersfeelunwelcome orunsafeoncampus.Rather,weaimtoprovokefreeand opendialogueconcerningsuchissues,oftenchallengingthe popularnarrative,anditiswithinourrightandresponsibility todoso.

InlieuofthecontroversysurroundingtheReview’s socialmediaposts,athemehasemergedforthisedition: dialogue.Thisthemewasnotpre-planned,buthappenedtobe aconnectingthreadofallourpiecesthatmanifestsbothour publication’smissionandtheHolyCrossmission.Withthis dialoguecomesaresponsibilitytorespectoneanotherenough tosetasidepre-judgmentsandrecognizethatallofushave soulsthatarevaluedbyourCreator—soulsHewishestobe saved.

Therefore,weinviteCrusadersofallkindstoengagewithour articles,whetheryouagreewiththemornot,andencourage youalltohavepeacefulandrespectfulconversationswith yourfriends,families,andcolleaguesconcerningtheissueswe raiseinthiseditionofTheFenwickReview.

Godbless, EvanPoellinger&AnthonyCash,Co-Editors-in-Chief

The Hypocrisy of Affirmative Action

On Halloween day, President Rougeau sent an email to the employees, Jesuits, and students of the College of the Holy Cross with the subject header, Today’s Supreme Court Hearings on Affirmative Action. In it, he discussed his administration’s reaction to the two ongoing Supreme Court cases challenging affirmative action: Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard University. President Rougeau stated that in August the college had joined fifty-six other Catholic institutions of higher education to sign an amicus brief in support of affirmative action. He defended affirmative action, saying that the importance it puts on race fulfills the desire for diversity at colleges and universities. However, President Rougeau and higher education as a whole are mistaken for their faith in race-based admissions. Affirmative action is not only discriminatory, but also only provides a thin façade of the diversity that universities desire.

The discriminatory nature of affirmative action becomes clear when considering its effects Asian Americans. Asian American applicants have to score much higher on the national standardized tests than students of other ethnicities. In the Supreme Court case Student for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, evidence was presented suggesting that without the existence of a race-based admissions regime, Asian American enrollment at Harvard could increase by fifty percent. But this discrimination is not new;

the United States has a long and checkered past with Asian Americans. The Chinese Exclusion Act was the first immigration ban based on race in the United States. Following the Spanish-American War, the Philippines was conquered, with its population being described by government officials as uncivilized and unclean. During the Second World War, Japanese Americans were forced into internment camps by the FDR administration. As seen in the historical record, affirmative action is merely another instance of violations of the equal protection guaranteed to Asian Americans by the Fourteenth Amendment. This is a cost many

administrators and bureaucrats are willing to make Asian Americans pay.

Many academics, including President Rougeau, who are supportive of race-based admissions argue that this program is necessary for increasing diversity at universities. To be fair to these proponents, there is

“...without the existence of a race-based admissions regime, Asian American enrollment at Harvard could increase by fifty percent.”

much to value about diversity. It allows for greater tolerance and understanding across the nation, as citizens of varied beliefs and worldviews connect and discuss for a better tomorrow. Growing from interacting with peers who are different from oneself is a valuable experience. These dynamics lead to a competition of ideas in which the most robust stand, strengthening our nation. But diversity for diversity’s sake, especially raciallyfocused diversity, is severely flawed and limiting.

Centering attention on race as a measure for diversity is foolish and fruitless. Professor Roland G. Fryer Jr of the Economics Department at Harvard wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post that scathingly describes the limitation of racial college admissions: “Seventy-one percent of Harvard’s Black and Hispanic students come from wealthy backgrounds.” He continues to explain that despite African immigrants and their children only consisting of ten percent of the Black population in the US, they make up forty-one percent of Black students in the Ivy League. This evidence shows the arbitrary nature of these racial definitions crafted

valuable to higher education and the formation of well-rounded citizens, cannot be derived from the artificial divisions of people into ethnic groups.

The only diversity that matters is a diversity of thought. Diversity of race, upbringing, and class are only important to the quality of a university’s education inasmuch as they influence the thought of an individual. The progressive march of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion offices across campuses that exist under the regime of affirmative action has not encouraged a broadening of thought that leads to a fruitful exchange of ideas. Rather, a plague of cancel culture has swept across the colleges and universities of the United States, and onto the rest of the Western world. The National Association of Scholars counted two hundred fifty-five academic cancellations. Even liberal publications have acknowledged this issue, with The Guardian reporting that sixty-one percent of English students in 2022 wanted to “ensure that all students are protected from discrimination rather than allow unlimited free speech”, a steep increase from thirtyseven percent in 2016. Academia’s obsession with race has led to a perversion of its understanding of diversity, harming itself and society as a whole.

by government bureaucrats decades ago. The fact that Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Indians, and many others are grouped together as “Asians” according to the federal government is nonsensical, even ignoring the myriad of ethnic identities underneath national identities in Asia. Perhaps even more egregious, those Americans who originate or are descended from countries in the geographical regions of North Africa and the Middle East are all considered “White” by the government, despite the gulf in the histories and treatment of those immigrants and ones from the continent of Europe. True diversity, the diversity that is

Ultimately, affirmative action is a discriminatory race program that violates the Fourteenth Amendment and harms universities. Contrary to what is stated in the opinion of President Rougeau and the amicus brief signed by the College of the Holy Cross, affirmative action is fundamentally flawed and dangerous to the continuation of the liberal arts tradition. The arbitrariness with which it divides the student body is not only unjust but poisonous to the goals of Catholic higher education. A serious reconsideration of values and policies is necessary regarding affirmative action at Holy Cross and campuses across the nation. As Governor Ron DeSantis said, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

“The only diversity that matters is a diversity of thought.”

McFarland Center: The Heart of Empty Dialogue

What does it mean to be a Jesuit school? The mission of Holy Cross is deeply rooted in Jesuit principles, such as an emphasis on dialogue and service. The mission statement of the College asserts that the Holy Cross community is obligated to invite conversation from varying perspectives concerning morality and human life: “Dialogue about these questions among people from diverse academic disciplines and religious traditions requires everyone to acknowledge and respect differences. Dialogue also requires us to remain open to that sense of the whole which calls us to transcend ourselves and challenges us to seek that which might constitute our common humanity.” It then goes on to express the Jesuit principle of service when it acknowledges “our special responsibility to the world’s poor and powerless.” The College’s mission is from the Jesuit, Catholic tradition: to encourage intellectual discussion from every angle, and extend its resources to the underprivileged.

In order to promote dialogue, Holy Cross sponsors the Rev. Michael C. McFarland, S.J. Center for Religion, Ethics, and Culture. This department hosts big question talks in the Rehm Library, which are publicized to students through emails, artful posters, and classes. Professors often require their students to attend these events, while others offer extra credit for attendance. Talks are advertised in many departments and are often the topic of discussion in classrooms. According to its own mission statement, the McFarland Center “provides a forum for intellectual exchange that respects differences, embraces persons of all

faiths, and regards none as religious strangers.” Later, the statement adds: “Dialogue about basic human questions—the search for meaning, our obligations to one another and to the world’s poor and powerless, and the moral character of learning and teaching—informs life at Holy Cross and the McFarland Center.” This commitment to dialogue closely resembles the language from Holy Cross’ mission statement, and the section on the “poor and powerless” reiterates the College’s emphasis on service. Later in the statement, the Center highlights its Catholic loyalties: “The McFarland Center recognizes a special responsibility to foster Catholic intellectual life and to further Catholicism’s ongoing conversation with other faith traditions in the distinctive context of a Jesuit liberal arts College.” The McFarland Center’s proclaimed goals mirror those of Holy Cross – fostering conversation with every perspective and serving the less fortunate.

On September 21st, the McFarland Center brought in three guest speakers to offer a defense of abortion from their respective faiths. One woman was an Episcopalian priest, another a Jewish law professor, and the third a Muslim religion professor. The College is surely right to welcome perspectives from those of different religions and opposing viewpoints. However, when the College encourages only one side of the argument, it forgets its obligation to dialogue. The talk in September is just one example from a long list of pro-abortion events that have taken place at Holy Cross. More recently, on October 26th, the McFarland Center hosted a talk called “Privacy’s Tangled History and Its Tenuous Post-Dobbs Future.” The lecture highlighted the questions surrounding the legality of abortion and the constitutional right to privacy in the light of Dobbs v. Jackson. This would be fine, except that Holy Cross has not endorsed enough pro-life talks to balance the heavy pro-abortion representation hosted by the McFarland Center. In welcoming solely pro-abortion speakers, the College both excludes dialogue and neglects its responsibility of service while abandoning its Catholic heritage.

In attempting to find an example of a talk that considered the pro-life position, we had to scroll down on the McFarland Center’s website all the way to their 2017 events. The talk was titled “Beyond the Abortion Wars: Finding a Way Forward in a Time of Polarization” and it was not an explicit defense of the pro-life stance. It was an argument for unification and potential discourse between the two sides of the movement in order to find common ground and work together. The only recent events defending the pro-life stance have been hosted by student-led clubs on campus, such as the Society of Sts. Peter and Paul.

Because of its Catholic foundation, Holy Cross’ commitment to the “poor and powerless” cannot overlook the defenseless unborn. In its mission statement, the College calls to mind its Catholic heritage: “The College of the Holy Cross is, by tradition and choice, a Jesuit liberal arts college serving the Catholic community, American society,

and the wider world.” In an age of moral division, the College’s values remain expressly Catholic. The McFarland Center says as in its mission statement: “The McFarland Center recognizes a special responsibility to foster Catholic intellectual life and to further Catholicism’s ongoing conversation with other faith traditions in the distinctive context of a Jesuit liberal arts College.”

In the eyes of the Catholic Church, abortion is a horrendous crime, equivalent to murder. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law…”(CCC 2271). In consistently endorsing lectures that argue in favor of this “moral evil,” Holy Cross betrays its traditions and contradicts its apparent devotion to serving the less fortunate.

If Holy Cross endorses an ideology that violently contradicts its own principles, it forfeits its right to claim a Catholic and Jesuit identity. By welcoming a parade of host speakers who oppose the views of the Church, it ruptures its connection to the Catholic tradition. Moreover, its abandonment of that tradition discourages any dialogue. Of course, Holy Cross is religiously and ideologically diverse. Discussion on campus should acknowledge this diversity. However, the College cannot continue to forget its roots, lest it destroy itself entirely.

“If Holy Cross endorses an ideology that violently contradicts its own principles, it forfeits its right to claim a Catholic and

A Reason to Love

THE CATHOLIC TRADITION

pp. 12-15

A Catholic’s

I am Catholic. I grew up in an Irish Catholic family in an Irish Catholic town. I am strong in my faith and am grateful for the meaning that it gives my life and the lives of those around me. My Catholic faith builds a foundation which allows me to love others and God, to seek opportunities to become a better person, and to help others find their own paths to salvation.

In recent times I have found myself vacillating between the opinions of parties regarding many questions in politics, social issues, and individual freedoms and obligations. The confusion that often stems from what I know to be true as is told in the Bible and in church teachings, as is told by the opinions of fellow lay people, and as has been made clear to me through intuition, experience, and reflection.

Most issues in our world have become so polarized that any remark of opinion leads to the alienation of individuals involved, and so those left who seek opportunities to express their views either do so for attention, feelings of power, or money. Of course, there are some dedicated people who state their opinions as a virtue of ability; they believe that their involvement in political discourse is altruistically derived and isn’t only bred from their satisfaction in getting their opponents “rekt” or “owned”.

Much of modern American politics has become nothing more than boastful gossip, judgment unto

others taken from the lofty soapbox of infinite information which we now hold in our hands. Even at Holy Cross, resentment has been bred from arrogant judgments; I have personally witnessed such vehement hatred coming from those who associate with both parties that I am hesitant to write an article about politics for this column, as it may turn my peers against me. But as Christ said “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged,” we too must seek objectivity in our actions and opinions lest we stray from His will. “For with the judgment

you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?” (Matthew 7:1-7:3)

How does this apply? you may ask. How can politics function without proper judgment and trial? While it’s true that only through thorough reasoning and debate can we develop sound, objective,

“Most issues in our world have become so polarized that any remark of opinion leads to the alienation of individuals involved...”

Duty

Brendan Robinson ‘26, StaffWriter

and principled arguments, that’s not to say that what’s acceptable in political debate is appropriate elsewhere. Freedom of speech doesn’t protect us from others’ freedom to regard us, so don’t think that it’s your freedom of speech being challenged when grandma asks you to stop talking about it and enjoy your thanksgiving dinner (even if your uncle across the able is so disillusioned in your eyes that it hurts to shut up).

The same goes for social media platforms. Corporations don’t care about what you have to say or whether it is misaligned with their values and beliefs. They’re in it for the money, and so companies will silence whomever they believe to be contrary with the majority of users so as to make them “feel better,” more entitled and more complacent in their little online lives, and thus loyal to their provider.

A problem facing our world today is that we don’t have an appropriate forum on which to project our views. Behind a screen, users don’t have the same social penalty that they do when interacting with others in person. This coupled with the ease of access to information that supports their views (and, subsequently, the ease to disregard information which challenges them) polarizes users in virtual echo chambers, littered with misinformation and hate.

And so in the reflection of our justified judgmentalism, how do we find ourselves in the throes of a system where healthy debate becomes slander, where arrogance and entitlement becomes virtue? I have neither the wisdom nor word count to solve these issues in this article, yet I hope that you as the reader consider the consequences of the means by which you use slander, provocation, or casting of judgment onto those with whom you disagree in the name of righteousness, especially involving individuals who are vulnerable.

Returning to our Catholic and Jesuit identity, it is our duty as Christ’s disciples to uphold our covenant, and above all as we know which is the Greatest Commandment: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your

soul, and with all your mind,” and that which is equally important: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Mark 12:29-31)

And as it was made clear that “to love one’s neighbor as oneself,’... is much more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices,” (Mark 12:33) we must understand that no defense of an issue of

political matter is higher an offering to God than our expression of love for and with others. As Catholics, we are called to love each other before we express how we think that another’s actions are immoral. Because in doing so we are not acting according to God’s will to love our neighbor, and it makes it kind of difficult to love someone if they’re attacking your beliefs and values right off the bat, no matter the other person’s intentions.

So then as a Catholic, I believe that no teaching in our catechism should be an excuse for us to not love our neighbor as ourselves. Just as we no longer hold ourselves obligated to ancient ceremonial law, we should understand that the priority of Christ’s coming was to provide us each with an opportunity to find salvation through the love we have for each other and for God. We must use our gift of love as an instrument of unity and understanding before we can use it to enlighten others. As the world deals with its bleak issues of suffering, war, and hatred, we as Catholics must hold ourselves to be the peacemakers, loving and accepting each other for who we are despite all else.

“And so in the reflection of our justified judgmentalism, how do we find ourselves in the throes of a system where healthy debate becomes slander, where arrogance and entitlement becomes virtue?”

A Testimony of the Extraordinary

“What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.” - Pope Benedict XVI

On February 17th, 2022, I experienced my first Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), sometimes called the extraordinary form. This was not on any special feast day nor was it a majestic Sunday high Mass, it was a simple Thursday low Mass at 6 pm at The Shrine and Parish of the Holy Innocents in New York City.

I opened the doors of the church and was hit with the intense smell of incense as I proceeded into the dimly lit church. I was immediately struck with the sensation that this was something different, profound, and holy. I performed a deep bow towards the altar and immediately noticed how crowded the church was, full with people from all backgrounds and of all ages.

The priest came before the altar and began reciting the preparatory prayer at the foot of the altar; I had no idea the Mass had started. All I could hear was the faint whispers of the priest amidst the otherwise silent church, the perfect space for meditative and contemplative prayer. I kept my eyes fixated on the priest and the altar, watching every movement. As

the Mass continued I was totally lost for I had no missal or guide to help me through the Mass, but this ultimately mattered little. Comprehension of the readings, though incredibly important, was only secondary to what was of primary importance. What was primarily important was the adoration of our Lord; the recognition that I am a created being and God is the creator who is omnipotent, omniscient, and all good and glorious.

When it came time for the consecration, I knelt in awe staring at the consecrated host, whispering “my lord, my God” as I had heard was the custom at the

TLM. When it was time to go up to the communion rail I knelt and received on the tongue for the first time, another profound act of adoration that I did not know until now. After the reading of the last gospel, the Mass had ended and all I could feel was this spirit of awe at what I had witnessed. For the first time in my life I felt the total theocentricity of the liturgy, I felt in awe at the sacrifice I had just witnessed, and I felt compelled to return to this Mass.

Two Sundays later, I ventured back to Holy

“After the reading of the last gospel, the Mass had ended and all I could feel was this spirit of awe at what I had witnessed.”

Innocents to experience my first high Mass, this time equipped with a daily missal, comprehension was no longer a concern. The experience was even more divine, from the beautiful Gregorian chant to the use of incense. I knew I needed to find a parish near me that offered the Traditional Mass. A short Google search led me to discover St. Mary’s parish in Norwalk CT, about a 40 minute drive from my house. Over the summer, when my Sunday mornings finally freed up, I drove down to St. Mary’s to present myself at their majestic 10 am

borrow a term from Dr. Peter Krasniewski, creates a “sonic iconostasis.” This reminds everyone that we have entered into a sacred space, a space set apart for God. The TLM is an invitation to more seriously encounter the sacred and to step out of the world for a moment and into the love of God.

At the TLM there is no mistake for why you are there. You are not there just to sing hymns, socialize after Mass, or even to learn a biblical lesson, although these are all desirable and admirable. You are there to witness the unbloodied sacrifice of our Lord at Calvary. Nothing on earth is more important than that sacrifice, nothing on earth will ever be more important than that sacrifice.

solemn high Mass. After a few weeks I felt I had achieved a peaceful stability in my spiritual life thanks to the spiritual nourishment of the TLM. I even began to attend weekday low Masses when I could.

There is no more glorious way to start Sunday morning than hearing the cantor sing “asperges me (thou shall sprinkle me)” to which the choir joins in chanting “Domine, hyssopo mundabor, lavabis me et super nivem dealbabor… (with hyssop, O Lord, and I shall be cleansed; Thou shalt wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow)” as the priest, adorning his cope, sprinkles holy water on you and the other congregants. The TLM acquires its significance because it is ancient, distinct, and aweinspiring. Its divine simplicity is unlike anything else we encounter in the world because the Mass is not entirely of this world; it is the meeting of heaven and earth. The use of the Latin language in the liturgy, to

As I mentioned earlier, the TLM concludes with the Last Gospel, John 1:1-14: “In the beginning was the word…and the word became flesh.” It has been noted that the recitation of John’s prologue beautifully harmonizes the two parts of the Mass: the Mass of the Catechumens, in which we encounter Christ through the words of scripture, and the Mass of the Faithful, where we encounter Christ in the flesh via the Eucharist. I am forever grateful for the TLM for fueling my spiritual journey as a Catholic by bringing me closer to the sacrifice of Christ, our King, our Redeemer, and our Savior. Ite, missa est (go forth, it has been sent).

“The TLM is an invitation to more seriously encounter the sacred and to step out of the world for a moment and into the love of God.”

Letting That Sink In: Elon Musk and Free Speech on Social Media

On October 26, 2022, SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk walked into Twitter headquarters in San Francisco carrying a sink basin, posting a video of his dramatic entrance with the caption. “Let that sink in!” One day and one particularly egregious dad-joke later, Musk officially became the owner of Twitter. Before the day was over, CEO Parag Agrawal, CFO Ned Segal, and policy chief Vejaya Gadde were all sent packing, and on October 31, Musk dissolved Twitter’s board of directors, making him Twitter’s only director. While heads are already exploding on the left side of the aisle over Musk’s takeover and terminations, a good house cleaning at Twitter may be precisely the change that the right has needed with regard to social media.

Social media has generally been notorious for censorship, but Twitter stands near the peak of ideological restrictiveness. Prominent conservative accounts have been either temporarily suspended or permanently banned from the site for transgressing Twitter’s nebulous and often biased conduct policy. Notable accounts banned include Jordan B. Peterson, Project Veritas founder and journalist James O’Keefe, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, and, most infamously, President Donald Trump. More egregious still, Twitter censored key stories pertaining to the authenticity of Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop and the questionable efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine and lockdown measures.

Lest anyone come to the conclusion that the bans were not driven by an ideological impetus, Twitter staff ranging from executives to low-level workers have openly expressed a dramatically left-wing worldview. In 2010, future Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal brazenly tweeted “If they are not

gonna make a distinction between Muslims and extremists, then why should I distinguish between white people and racists.” Former Twitter CEO and co-founder Jack Dorsey established in an interview that conservative employees at Twitter often did not feel comfortable expressing their opinions publicly in the office. With a CEO devoted to identity politics and an echo chamber environment favorable only to left-wing ideas, is it any wonder

“While Musk does have a prior track record of supporting Democratic candidates, he is a businessman first and foremost, and a platform with a reputation for censorship makes for bad business.”

that the Twitterati became the principal arm of leftist ideological enforcement on social media?

It is increasingly apparent that left-wing stranglehold on the social media landscape is a threat to freedom of expression and presents the prospect of interfering with the American system of government itself. On October 31, the Department of Homeland Security was forced to release a cache of documents revealing an elaborate scheme by the agency to expand its control over social media platforms. Among DHS’ priorities were finding ways to restrict and eliminate what the department termed “misinformation,” which has come to be defined as a catch-all for any sort of opinion or disinformation which conflicts with the mainstream narrative. DHS took a particularly strong stance on alleged misinformation pertaining to the pandemic, withdrawal from Afghanistan, “racial justice,” and the 2020 election, and, during the latter event, used its reach to flag numerous posts it found to be problematic in order to demand their removal. The leaks present a bleak picture of social media’s future, a future in which the government is empowered by partisan companies to dictate what is acceptable within online discourse.

Musk’s acquisition of Twitter presents the possibility of a fresh start for social media as a medium. While Musk does have a prior track record of supporting Democratic candidates, he is a businessman first and foremost, and a platform with a reputation for censorship makes for bad business. In addition, Musk has not been shy about expressing his support for freedom of speech, going so far as to call himself a “free speech absolutist.” Accordingly, it is safe to expect that Musk will throw his support behind the downtrodden and maligned right-wing voices on Twitter and begin the process of dissolving Twitter’s excessive restrictions.

Of course, Musk faces an uphill battle should he choose to undertake this endeavor. Shortly after Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, the notoriously partisan and censorship-friendly Anti-Defamation League first sought to coerce Musk into working with them in order to find new ways of curtailing free

speech on Twitter. When this failed to materialize, the ADL went on the offensive against Musk, demanding that advertisers boycott the website and castigated Musk for what they perceived to be a failure of leadership.

Still, all is not lost. On November 10, two prominent Twitter executives left the company over differences with Musk. One of those executives was Yoel Roth, the senior director of trust and safety, who was heavily in favor of incorporating additional restrictions on the platform and has a history of left-wing partisanship, even going so far as to refer to Trump supporters as “Nazis.” With Roth gone, it would seem that Twitter has lost one of its most vociferous speech arbiters. While Twitter has not yet emerged as a bastion of free expression, under Musk’s unorthodox leadership, it seems the worst of the site’s censorship rats are fleeing the ship.

The Review Reviews: Ms.Marvel

SPOILER ALERT — This year, Disney + released Ms. Marvel, a short series focused on a Pakistani American teenager from Jersey City who learns she has powers similar to her role model, Captain Marvel. Kamala Khan is then thrown into a wild adventure through her family and country’s history, her evasion of the authoritarian Department of Damage Control, and her place as a superhero within a religious minority group.

The show not only has an interesting plot filled with action scenes and fascinating history, but it also showcases the struggles of members of religious minorities, especially teenagers. There were many scenes where Kamala and one of her best friends, Nakia, discuss DODC’s targeting of their mosque after Kamala had saved a boy from falling from the minaret, showing the all-too-common association of Muslims with terrorism.

AvengerCon. A scene right before she sneaks out to AvengerCon shows her self-consciously looking at herself in the mirror wearing the form-fitting costume. Her friend Nakia — a convert to Islam — confides in Kamala concerning her struggle with her parents when she wears her hijab.

In the final episode, Ms. Marvel reveals her own superhero costume, gifted to her by her mother. The costume mimics Captain Marvel’s costume but is accompanied by a swoosh, a mask, a sport skirt, and a sash. This costume combines the utility of a superhero outfit with Kamala’s religious values of modesty. This theme throughout the series gave religious minorities visibility without stereotyping or degrading of their beliefs. The theme resonated with Muslims, Orthodox Jews, and Oneness Pentecostals in particular.

Additionally, Kamala struggles with how to dress as a superhero who values modest attire. One of Kamala’s struggles with her parents concerns the modesty of her Captain Marvel costume at

In regard to the future of Disney’s Marvel Cinematic Universe, Kamala’s best friend Bruno pulls Kamala aside in the final scene to talk to her about why she has powers while her family does not. He states, “There is something different in your genes… like a mutation,” before the 1990s X-Men theme song plays. This hint effectively confirms the X-Men’s eventual appearance in the MCU, an idea circulated since Dr. Strange: Multiverse of Madness and intensified after She-Hulk: Attorney at Law’s final episode.

"...this series gave religious minorities visibility without stereotyping or degrading their beliefs."

Overall, this series was an incredible superhero arc filled with references to Partition and the theme of balancing your religious principles with living

in a pluralistic society that doesn’t share those principles. Ms. Marvel is truly marvelous!

Thank You to Our Donors

We must reserve the space to offer a heartfelt thank you to our benefactors, without whom TheFenwickReviewwould not exist. We extend our profound gratitude to the Collegiate Network and the generous individuals and alumni donors to TheFenwickReviewfor their ongoing enthusiasm and support for our mission.

Greene

Mr. George Van Setter

Mr. Bob Abbott ‘66

Mr. Kevin Collins

Mr. John J. Ferguson

Mr. Robert W. Graham III

The Hon. Paul J. Hanley

Mr. Brian Kingston ‘68

Dr. James E. Mulvihill ‘62

Dr. William Sheehey ‘59

Mr. Mark Tassinari ‘82

Mr. Guy C. Bosetti

Dr. and Mrs. John P. Connors

Mr. Michael F. Fox

Mr. and Mrs. Thomas W.

Mr. Robert R. Henzler

Mr. Robert J. Leary ‘49 Mr. Kevin O’Scannlain

Mr. Sean F. Sullivan Jr. Mr. Chris Millard ‘82

Dr. and Mrs. Paul Braunstein

Dr. Thomas J. Craig ‘59 Dr. Dennis C. Golden Mr. Paul M. Guyet Mr. William Horan Mr. Bernard Long ‘62 Fr. Paul Scalia

Mr. Patrick Murphy

Mr. Bill DiSciullo ‘94

Mr. Jim Carter ‘59

Mr. and Mrs. Michael Dailey

Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Gorman

Mr. Patrick D. Hanley

Mr. Joseph Kilmartin

Mr. Francis F. Marshall ‘48 Dr. Ronald E. Safko

Dr. John Verdon

Ms. Katherine Gill Mrs. Theresa Carbone

Donation Policy

The Fenwick Review is funded through a generous grant from the Collegiate Network as well as individual donations. TheFenwickReviewis a student organization affiliated with, but not funded by, the College of the Holy Cross. We welcome any donation you might be able to give to support our cause! To do so, you may either donate via credit card through our online donation link, found at the top of our website, or by writing a check to College of the Holy Cross (memo line: The Fenwick Review) and mail to:

Anthony Cash & Evan Poellinger

P.O. Box 4A 1 College Street Worcester, MA 01610

Haters Gonna Hate