Freshmen,
Welcome to Freshman Orientation! You are going to enjoy these few days, although a lot of what you will enjoy will not be the planned events (most of which you will skip) but just hanging around, seeing the campus and the city, and getting to know your fellow students.
But choose among the official events carefully, and you will find some valuable resources.
But there is one problem: you are going to be subjected to some politically correct indoctrination. And if your social attitudes don’t conform to those preferred by the University bureaucrats that run the program, you might get put on the spot.
Marquette: On Stage
The indoctrination is centered on a set of monologues on Friday morning’s program called “Marquette: On Stage.” The stated purpose of the monologues is to heighten the “awareness” of students about certain “social issues” they will face.
A Secret Program
What will be the nature of these monologues? The bureaucrat who runs Freshman Orientation, Julie Murphy, flatly refuses to reveal the nature of the monologues. So what are they hiding?
In fact, this is a regular part of Freshman Orientation, so it’s not hard to find out what goes on. It varies a bit from year to year, but the pattern is pretty fixed.
Some of the monologues are innocuous enough: one from an actor playing a student who is pressured to drink when out with friends, another from a woman with “body image” problems, and one featuring a student who has problems with depression.
But some of the monologues are from politically correct “victim” groups. A gay guy complaining that people look at him in a funny way, or a black guy who believes a woman is uneasy when he gets on an elevator with her. Indeed, there are likely to be two or three ethnic minority monologues, each with a grievance.
So how is this biased? Mainly because only politically correct victim groups are presented as facing problems with intolerance and lack of acceptance. There will be no monologue from a white student who is derided as the bearer of “white privilege” (something that happens with some frequency at Marquette). There will be no monologue from a future cop who has to listen to leftie professors talk about how police are “racist.”
There will be no monologue from a student who is demeaned for conservative religious values – perhaps derided for believing that sex outside marriage is wrong or opposing gay marriage.
But intolerance of students who support Catholic teaching is indeed a problem on campus. This past spring, there was a huge uproar about Marquette’s refusal to hire an outspoken lesbian as Arts & Sciences Dean. Just looking at protesting students, one might think that all undergraduates wanted the lesbian dean. But a fair number were silenced by the intolerance of pro-gay students. One Marquette senior complained on an online discussion forum: “Who would post what they actually think as their Facebook status? The answer is sadly very few, because to do so is to be labeled as an anti-gay bigot . . . and a blind follower of an ‘intolerant’ religion,” and further, “fear of labels silences the traditional Catholic voice.”
But you aren’t going to see a monologue reflecting this student’s view.
But It Gets Worse
OK, so you are forced (this program is mandatory) to sit and watch a bit of political correctness. So what?
Unfortunately, the monologues are just the beginning. Students are then herded into small groups and then required to “take a stand.” Students are asked a question about how they feel on some issue, and then required to move to one side of the room or the other, depending on their opinion. Julie Murphy claims the purpose of the exercise is to “show students that students come from multiple perspectives and multiple backgrounds.”
But that’s just not so. The real purpose is to single out and pressure students who have dissenting (non-politically correct) opinions.
Some of the questions will be innocuous, and students will split roughly equally. They will be asked to agree or disagree “I feel comfortable living in a city” or “I would feel uncomfortable if a homeless person approached me.”
But other questions are more politically loaded, such as “because of past oppression people of color should
have more scholarship opportunities.” Or “there is no such thing as bisexuality.” Or “I feel race is not an issue in 2009” (obviously, asked last year).
Or “Being gay is a choice people make.” (Think for a moment how biased that last question is. While lusting after one’s same sex rather than the opposite sex may be pretty much fixed at any point in a person’s life, having homosexual sex most certainly is a choice.)
Most of these issues have been addressed in “Marquette: On Stage,” so students know the politically correct answer and disproportionally take the politically correct side. One source told us “because they are freshmen, and because they are a little bit intimidated,
I feel a lot of students aren’t standing on the side they would stand on if they were by themselves or were with friends.” And further: “I know when I was a freshman it was very difficult for me to stand on the side that I thought was morally appropriate. . . .”
This, of course, has nothing to do with education, which would present both sides of contentious issues and not pressure people. It’s more like Stalinist thought reform.
So what should you do if you don’t agree with the politically correct crowd? Moving to the politically incorrect side of the room would be good. Refusing to move from the middle and saying “you have no damn right to demand to know what I think” would be good. And liberal students who care for free thought and expression might follow the latter course too, refusing to cooperate with indoctrination, even indoctrination in views they happen to agree with.

John McAdams is an Associate Professor of Political Science, who also runs the Marquette Warrior Blog, www.mu-warrior.blogspot.com.

Popularity: 1% [?]

The Democratic Party received $62,681 in financial support from Marquette employees between 2004 and 2010 according to the online database Opensecrets.org. Out of 58 total Marquette contributors, 74 percent donated to the Democratic Party in support of presidential and congressional candidates as well as Democratic support groups. Only 13 Marquette employees supported the Republican Party, donating $7,549, according to Fundrace 2008 by the Huffington Post and Opensecrets.org.

Other Jesuit institutions such as Loyola University in Chicago, Santa Clara University in Santa Clara, Calif., Fordham University in the Bronx, and Boston College in Chestnut Hill, MA, followed a similar pattern as Marquette.

Several students reacted to the presented information with a casual, “that’s unsurprising,” or “what else is new?”

According to John McAdams, associate professor in the political science department, a university’s title does not determine or influence a faculty member’s ideology, but rather academia.

“Liberals are like ducks in water in academia,” McAdams said.

Out of 42 Loyola employees, 40 contributed to the Democratic Party candidate, donating $29,419 total. Forty Santa Clara employees donated to the Democratic Party out of 44 total contributors. They contributed a total of $34,747 to the Democratic candidate; the four Republicans donated $1,455. Of the Boston College employees 104 of them financially supported the Democratic Party and donated $77,247, while five Republicans donated $5,257, according to Fundrace2008.

John Curran, professor of English, connected the high percentage of Democratic supporters to the dismay most feel toward the development of the Republican Party over time.

“Constructive elements of the Republican Party have been suppressed and many of us in the middle are quite dismayed,” Curran said.

Timothy Olsen, manager of communication in Marquette’s Office of Marketing and Communication, clarified that Marquette employees’ political contributions are individual and do not represent the university.
Curran saw a relationship between academia and liberalism 15 years ago during the political correctness movement. Curran said there was a weeding out of people that did not agree with far left politics.

“I don’t see that anymore,” Curran said.

McAdams does, however, see a difficulty for conservatives in academia.

“Conservatives often self select out because they view academia as hostile territory,” McAdams said.

Claire Schrantz, a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences, noticed most of her conservative teachers were “hush hush” about their ideology because liberalism is in the majority. McAdams pointed out that students face fierce indoctrination in some classes and a hesitation to share opinions in opposition to their professor.

Schrantz recalled an incident in English class when her professor brought up the issue of healthcare. She described the teacher’s remarks toward the conservative approach to healthcare as “sarcastic and condescending.”

“It kind of offended me, that’s unprofessional,” Schrantz said, “I just didn’t participate that day.”

McAdams authors a blog, called Marquette Warrior (which is not affiliated with The Warrior student newspaper) about left-wing influence and indoctrination on campus.

“In the School of Education, students are explicitly taught that they should use the classroom to indoctrinate their students in liberal and left wing political activism,” McAdams said.

The Marquette Warrior blog brings awareness to such indoctrination and publicizes students’ experiences with intolerant left-wing faculty.

In 2006, a philosophy professor suggested a student apologize for sharing a cop’s perspective of arrests involving minorities. The professor found the student’s comments “offensive to the diverse group in the room.”
Curran relies “on the professionalism of [his] colleagues” to separate political ideology from the classroom and encourages his undergraduate students to think for themselves. “Students are sacred. They should not feel menaced in my class,” Curran said.

Curran credits Marquette University’s commitment to cura personalis, which means caring and respecting each person in mind, body and spirit, and while doing so, upholding the commitment to the wider world. “I feel like my opinions are respected overall,” Schrantz said, “there were just some instances with one teacher that were offensive and unprofessional.”

by Heather Ronaldson
heather.ronaldson@mu.edu

Popularity: 3% [?]

America, land of the free and home of the brave; where every person is granted the chance to make of their lives what they wish, right?

Perhaps, and perhaps not; as many of you may have heard, early this week the Arizona governor signed into law a bill which allows any person “suspected” of being in violation of immigration laws to be apprehended by authorities if they suddenly get an unclench to do so.

Maybe my life as a legal citizen of the United States has been lived under false pretenses, but I was under the impression that being stopped and required to produce documentation just because you look funny was unconstitutional? But, that is beside the point.

For a moment allow us to consider what these illegal immigrants do, oh wait I don’t need a moment to consider, I can just answer. They do all of the jobs that we privileged American citizens think are below us. You know, working in hot fields, meticulously harvesting vegetables for sub-par wages, or perhaps watering and cutting our lawns for dollars a day.

Yet, those lawmakers in power for some odd reason think they are saturating the American work force, and keeping the average Joe out of work. This is obvious nonsense.

Now, I am not misguided, and I do understand that our country requires security and immigration should be controlled and monitored. However, consider if we allowed all of the illegal Mexican immigrants that we fear so much, that we believe suck so much of our tax dollars, to be citizens; citizens that pay into our tax revenues and contribute to American society as a whole.

For one thing it has been speculated that social security would no longer be on the brink of collapse if every illegal immigrant was granted citizenship.

Secondly, consider the vast amounts of money now spent on finding and regulating illegal immigrants, and how much that would be saved if they were no longer a concern. The fact remains that I am directly in debt to my own immigrant heritage, as most Americans are.

My great grandparents came to this country from Poland and Lithuania with little money and knowing little English, exactly as most see Mexican immigrants today. But, simply being given the chance to be a part of the American dream they paved the way for my family to be successful in the U.S., and I as a university student have to always be thankful that they could stand up and succeed when “Americans” alienated them for not being from this land.

We all must never forget that the majority of us Americans’ forefathers did not come from this land, but were given the chance to prove their worth and work for their dreams. Why in the year 2010 can we not grant these people the same opportunity?

by Wade Balkonis
wade.balkonis@mu.edu

Popularity: 2% [?]

Dear Marquette,

Congrats you made it through another school year. In the school year of 2009-2010 we enjoyed a year that caused each of us to take a deep breath & realize nothing burned down (yet). During the year we sipped just a few more cups of Brew coffee, incurred just a few more hours of lost sleep, learned just a little more, shared just a few more drinks with our friends, spent just a little more money (tuition did go up), and just spent another year finding ourselves. Whether you are graduating or just surviving another semester let this article be a send off for all, a space to state all the lessons we take away from our college experience.

Handshake after handshake, we continuously have introduced ourselves to hundreds of people. At the end of the day a few of those people have stuck and made an impact on our lives both small and large. We found people who would help us study and we found those who would just YouTube video after video with us and sing Miley. We found people would who would wait outside in the cold before basketball games with us and those who stayed up all night with us just to talk about life. We met people who drove us crazy and showed us who we didn’t want to be, and met those who inspired us to want to be a better person. We found friends who would drive us to Kopps for custard and others would prefer to run to the lake instead. We found people who would drink with us until all became blurry and those who would stay in on a Saturday to watch a movie. We found those who would be there unconditionally for us and those who came and went. We found those who would walk to church with us and those who would go on a beer run with us. No matter what we searching for or needed, chances are we could find someone here.

Somewhere amongst the people we meet, we became someone and a part of something. At times it was not being afraid to keeping dancing or playing intramural volleyball–even if the score is never quite in our team’s favor. Maybe it was taking a chance and trying something you never dreamt of doing such as being part of a Fraternity or Sorority. Maybe it was just doing what you were already passionate about. At college we all have a chance to be a part of something greater. We are Fanatics and Big Brothers. We are RAs and Senators. Some of us are Athletes and others are Midnight Runners. We are people at with Active Minds and people looking to Clean Up Hunger. Here we are a part of something—we are Marquette.

And after you are done meeting all these different people and doing all those things, don’t forget to set your alarm and go to class in the morning. In between everything it’s hard to remember we came to learn. We learned the slope of supply curves & demands curves. We learned how to handle ad-campaigns, how to act, and how to speak. We learned differential equations, how to brew beer in chemistry labs, and learned how to wire circuits. At times we take that knowledge and just let it flourish, fully prepared to use it in the real world. Other times we bury it, acknowledge it, and move on. Hey its college, we can’t learn it all but at least we are learning something daily.

Chances are whatever we learned, some classes had phenomenal professors who helped you discover areas you would excel in and chances are some classes had professors who should consider moving to another profession. Good or bad they still taught us and that’s what we are here for. Each helped us add a little more to our learning process and refine it. From Day 1 freshman year until now we are always refining that process. We will use this process daily for the rest of our lives. Whether we use it to keep ourselves entertained or help further our academic and professional careers everything we learned, attempted to learn, failed to learn, and have yet to learn is helping us forge our future.

College makes us find ourselves. It enables us to ask the tough questions. What do I want in life? What do I want to do? Will I be happy? Should I be worried or unworried for tomorrow, for next week, or for what comes next? What will my impact be on Marquette, my friends, or my career after I leave this place? What am I capable of? We continually get to ask and ask and ask ourselves these questions. Perhaps the best part of college is that every day we can slightly change our answer and just keep defining and redefining ourselves.

College gives us a chance to keep meeting, keep learning, at times to keep drinking. It allows us to just keep being ourselves because we all need time before we get to the next step. So take your time because after we leave this place we will all just long to be back–longing to be back drinking beer, sitting in class, sipping coffee, paying tuition (ok maybe not that part), and just asking ourselves what the future holds for us. No matter what you learned in college just don’t forget to set an alarm, because tomorrow will come too soon.

By: Andrew Sinclair
andrew.sinclair@marquette.edu

Popularity: 3% [?]

As many of you know Sodexo is the corporation which provides food services on Marquette’s campus. Before I go into detailing the massive problems with Sodexo as a corporation, I do want to point out that the cafeteria workers, and the managers at the cafeterias, work extremely hard and do the best that they can to provide the students with a pleasurable dining experience. This, however, does not prevent Sodexo from failing in every respect in providing a positive dining experience. The amount that students pay for their meal plans is not reflected in the food which is served to them. For example, students pay between $7 and $11 per swipe depending upon their meal plan, whereas someone coming off the street pays between $4.20 and $7.35 depending upon the meal which they consume, i.e. breakfast is cheaper than dinner. This reveals that the students are paying much more than needed, and that students are flat out getting ripped off when they pay $7 for breakfast, which for many consists of a bowl of cereal or a bagel. In the end, it makes financial sense for students to just buy the cheapest meal plan every semester, and then buy food, keep it in their rooms, and eat it there. This is particularly true for students who have food allergies, or who are vegetarian or vegan.

The cost of the meal plans cannot be blamed directly on Sodexo, particularly given that Marquette takes roughly 35% off the top from every meal plan. This means, quite obviously, that when a student pays $1540 for the block 125 plan, then Marquette gets $539 and Sodexo gets $1001. What exactly happens to the $1001, has never been revealed by Sodexo, and the Sodexo representatives at the Q&A session held on April 19, claimed that they did not know where the money went. This then means that it is likely that at least a portion of the money goes to Sodexo corporate, with the rest going to Sodexo Marquette. The money going to corporate helps to pay for the costs of running family friendly things like private prisons and detention centers for immigrants in the UK, Ireland, and Australia. The money which stays on campus is then split between paying for overhead, paying the wages of the employees (which average $12 on campus according to the head of Sodexo Marquette), and paying for the food which is served. One would think that the food would be the top priority and that Sodexo would do whatever it could to provide high quality food. This, however, is not the case, particularly given that the target per plate cost is under $2, meaning that if a student wants to get $11 worth of food, that student would have to eat six plates of food, which is clearly an extremely unhealthy thing to do every meal, regardless of the health content of the food being served. What is then created is a system where students rarely get anywhere close to their money’s worth in terms of food consumed. As such, the current system, as it is in place, is entirely flawed in regards to the cost of food served compared to the price to consume it.

As one can see, the money which Marquette students pay for their meal plans, does not create a product which is based upon a significant portion of that money, but rather comes from a small portion, while the rest is divided between on several levels. This then leads to the current situation where most students agree that the quality of product served is inferior to that which can be purchased for less money at local eating establishments. While Dan O’Shea, head of Sodexo Marquette, claims that the food is of equal, if not superior, quality, and that other places where students could purchase food have shorter hours of operation, which apparently impacts food quality and price, what he does not realize, is that he is in fact wrong on both points. First of all the majority of students do in fact prefer off campus dining locations, which is why the number of students eating in cafeterias, not including at the AMU, has declined in the past several years, and this is also the reason for the destination dining program, which is designed to replicate the most common eating establishments which students frequent, in order to convince them to eat on campus instead of eating off campus. In addition, the hours of operation for the majority of cafeterias are 7-6:30, and not all cafeterias are open on weekends either. The only cafeteria which is open 7-12:00 everyday is McCormick, and as such, the argument that Sodexo provides long hours of operation, is completely untrue.

One can thus see the faults of Sodexo on campus. Most of the money students pay does not go to paying for food. The food quality is generally considered to be inferior. Those who run Sodexo on campus create smokescreen statements in order to confuse students. As such, we as students must demand that Sodexo either reforms its ways or be removed from campus and replaced by a company which will actually work in the name of the students, and create a quality product at an affordable price.

by Jonathan Stepp
jonathan.stepp@mu.edu

Popularity: 3% [?]

There’s something about moving on that inspires desperation to leave nothing unsaid. It is on the way out that the most important words come to mind. This past semester I was focused on life beyond college and struggled to find something worthwhile to write about. It seemed that every topic on which I wanted to express an opinion had been covered. Then suddenly it was April and I realized this was the last time I’d write anything for a collegiate publication. With that realization, I immediately thought of a thousand experiences and ideas to put onto paper.

The past four years have flashed by in many ways, yet I am anxious to graduate and put my new found knowledge into practice in the real world. College is more than an education, it is an experience. As is true of most experiences worth noting, its value is predicated upon the people with whom we share those experiences and the guides who show us the way. Like most students who make it through college, there are a litany of people I need to thank for my being here – don’t worry, I have no intention of making this article sound like a bad Academy Awards speech, I will not name them all. However, it is important to remember that our collegiate experience is as much a reflection of our parents, teachers, friends and mentors as it is of our own hard work.

The hardest part about starting anything new is overcoming the uncertainty that surrounds the next portion of our lives. Not knowing what comes next is unnerving, and at the same time, it is also what makes it worthwhile to get up in the morning to see what lies around the corner and meet those new challenges. My time at Marquette was full of new experiences and new challenges which, though difficult at the time, made the experience I had here the best years of my life. In navigating those challenges, a few key lessons were learned, and ways in which Marquette could improve also come to mind.

To start I’ll give just three critiques – things everyone knows need to change, but that the University seems to ignore. (It’s the last chance I’ll have to say them). First, the dorm food here stinks. Perhaps the necessity for politeness has precluded students from being blunt with the administration, but really, it’s bad. Second, it should not be a trial of patience and bureaucratic navigation to get guests into the rec center or to conduct business between the different colleges. Lastly, (and this one goes out to my predecessor at The Warrior, Rob Christensen), Lalumiere is an eye sore; the product of a combination of poor mid-century architectural design and someone’s misguided attempt to be ‘trendy.’ Not to mention it is the first building passers-by see on I-94. Let’s admit our mistakes and move forward by knocking it down and building something new.

Much more important than the discovery of Marquette’s imperfections, were the lessons gleaned from the classrooms, classes, professors and friends. Everyone here is a unique source of ideas and ways of life that create an environment bursting at the seams with new experiences and lessons. The most crucial things I have learned here are also the simplest.

I have learned that the greatest obstacles in many homework assignments are personal computers.
From being a camp counselor working with children, to deciding which career path I’d like to pursue, I have learned that the best things you do in life are often the result of the biggest risks you take. Further, it is usually one’s own limited point of view that makes risks seem more dangerous than they are; take a leap of faith from time to time.

I have learned that the worst situations are the greatest opportunities to lend a helping hand.

I have held jobs that I hated, and I have found a job that makes me excited to go to work every day. As a college student I have also found that I can live quite happily with almost no money. So, to be entirely cliché based on those two discoveries, I have learned that it is in your best interest to pursue happiness, not material goals or visions of success. Success usually follows happiness, but happiness does not necessarily follow material rewards.

Lastly, I have learned that to be wealthy is not to make millions or drive a Ferrari. Rather being wealthy is to observe sunrises over mountain peaks and sunsets at sea, to spend time with friends and family, to watch children playing and to take risks and enjoy the experiences that follow.

The lessons I take from Marquette have little to do with my degree, yet they best prepare me for the real world. To those who will return to Marquette in the fall, I wish you all the best – do try and make the most of your time here, it goes fast. To my fellow graduates, I hope your time in college has been as rewarding as mine. Congratulations to all of you. All that remains is for each of us to find out what comes next.

by Austin Wozniak
earl.wozniak@mu.edu

Popularity: 1% [?]

The Civil War and the national stain of slavery continue to influence public life in the United States 145 years after General Lee’s surrender at Appomattox Court House ended the war and the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. When Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell declared April to be Confederate History Month in his state, he received heavy criticism, especially for not including any mention of slavery in his proclamation. McDonnell initially told the media that he had not addressed slavery because slavery was not a “significant” issue for Virginia in the war, a point that many people including the descendants of the half million Virginian slaves counted in the 1860 census surely disagreed with. McDonnell later amended his proclamation to address slavery, calling it “an evil and inhumane practice that deprived people of their God-given inalienable rights,” as he should have done from the start.

No doubt the history of the Civil War and the Confederacy has an important place in American society, and study of this brutal war and both its causes and effects should be encouraged, although I am always skeptical about official government proclamations telling us what parts of history we should commemorate. Despite all the arguments about states’ rights, slavery cannot be extracted from the story of the Civil War for scholars to somehow analyze it without considering the role of the South’s slave economy and race relations.

Because of the Civil War and the Confederacy’s slavery, we have been taught not only to rightfully denounce the evils of holding another human as property but also to reject as inherently racist and bigoted the political means used by Southern politicians to defend their economic system from national government interference. Nullification refers to the right of states to reject and ignore unconstitutional federal laws. Secession refers the right to withdraw from a political entity, and specifically the state’s right to withdraw from the Union. Both “rights” have unsurprisingly not been recognized by the federal government, but neither presupposes a racist objective. They are merely means to an end, and what that end happens to be matters.

Tragically, because of our history, rhetoric about states’ rights and secession, nullification evokes images of slave owners, lynchings, and the 1960s screaming white mobs and police opposing equality for blacks. States’ rights concepts served as a shield for many racists who simply wanted to maintain their privileged positions in society, both in the decades leading up to the Civil War and during the civil rights movement. Yet states’ rights have a rich history in America long obscured by their use to defend slavery and discrimination. To accept that secession and nullification are never valid options means that, short of revolution, we must seek change through the federal legal and electoral processes while our local and state governments participate in enforcing an unjust law. When the federal government passes laws which not only seem disagreeable but also unconstitutional and in extreme violation of human rights, the state governments should stand against these injustices.

The Founding Fathers knew the dangers of unjust, central authority, which is why the United States essentially came into being through the secession of the legally constituted British colonies. Later, the ruling Federalist Party passed the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which expanded the federal government’s power to suppress criticism and deport dissenting non-citizens. Both Virginia and Kentucky passed resolutions, written by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson respectively, which declared that Constitution did not give Congress the authority to pass such law and that the states had a duty to reject the laws. During the War of 1812 which devastated the New England economy, delegations from the five New England states attended a convention in Hartford, Connecticut, and seriously discussed secession. In both cases, opposing the violation of civil rights by the Alien and Sedition Acts and opposing war, racism had nothing to do with states’ rights.

However, an even more powerful example of states’ rights took place right here in Wisconsin and in direct opposition to the forces of slavery. The national Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 required all law enforcement personnel to assist in efforts to recapture escaped slaves even if now residing in free states, instituted harsh punishments for anyone aiding runaway slaves, and gave accused runaway slaves no right to trial. In 1854, federal marshals apprehended runaway slave Joshua Glover in Racine and imprisoned him in Milwaukee. Before they could transport him back to Missouri , Sherman Booth and other brave Wisconsinites sprung Glover from jail and helped him escape to Canada, an event commemorated by the historical marker in Cathedral Square Park. Booth was later arrested, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court declared the Fugitive Slave Law unconstitutional in Ableman vs. Booth on July 19, 1854, affirming an earlier decision releasing Booth.

So, instead of criticizing Governor McDonnell, let us do something constructive to remember our own history of using states’ rights for good. Join me in celebrating this July as Wisconsin Nullification Month and honoring this heroic use of nullification against slavery and oppression. We are blessed to attend college in a state that stood up to the federal government in defense of freedom, and it is time for us to say so.

by Andrew Marshall
andrew.marshall@mu.edu

Popularity: 2% [?]

There’s no doubt many people living in the United States, much less Milwaukee, haven’t heard, read or seen the treatment that the media has recently given to the sexual abuse cases in the Catholic Church. By no means were either of the two major cases recent, but the press jumped on fresh circulation of information about the issue, and took advantage to exploit the issue to sensationalist levels. Proof of this is quite evident in the widely-read article by the New York Times published March 24th by Laurie Goodstein, in which then-Cardinal Ratzinger is bashed for “covering-up” the scandal of Father Lawrence Murphy. Goodstein bases her strongly anti-Catholic article on two sources, both having a conflict of interest in the circumstances of the article. Her primary source was lawyers, including Jeffrey Anderson, who have cases against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee as well as the Holy See, and have financial agendas in the matter. Archbishop Rembert Weakland, retired archbishop of Milwaukee, was the second source. Weakland is quite discredited, as he is publicly known for using large funds (approximately $450,000) from the archdiocese to pay hush money to a former homosexual partner, as well as poor handling (or lack thereof) of other sexual abuse occurring in schools. The above mentioned were certainly not unbiased sources, and which can only result in biased reporting.

The sexual abuse that Murphy was responsible for occurred from July 1, 1963 to May 18, 1974 at St. John’s School for the Deaf in St. Francis, Wisconsin. In the 1970s, a few victims came forward to report the abuse to civil authorities. The matter was investigated by Milwaukee police, then St. Francis local authorities, and no resulting charges were filed. Around the same time, the abuse was reported to Archbishop of Milwaukee William Cousins, Murphy was removed from St. John’s School in May, and by September had moved to the Diocese of Superior. It wasn’t until 1995 that successor Archbishop Weakland received letters of accusation, and brought the case to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), which Ratzinger headed. The CDF was informed since the accusations involved a breach of trust in the confessional, as soliciting in the confessional is against canon law, and spoken about in the Vatican document Crimen Sollicitationis (1962).The document never prohibited reporting abuse crimes.

In the Murphy case, it is important to note that the canonical trial was not begun due to circumstances. The case was reported nearly two decades after the abuse had occurred, and at the time Weakland contacted the CDF regarding the matter, Murphy was in poor health and died. In the time before his death, Murphy asked for exemption from the case being heard, and was denied. This evidence in no way suggests that Cardinal Ratzinger was “trying to hide” the abuse.

Although the goal is to minimize the possibility of future sexual abuse, the risk can never be totally eliminated. The Church, like many other organizations, is made of human members. Pope Benedict, Archbishop Listecki, Archbishop Dolan, and many, many other priests and bishops have expressed their heartfelt condolences and support to the victims of this grave crime of sexual abuse. It is no surprise that the infidelity of other priests embarrasses and scandalizes those priests who are faithful to their vocation, as well as lay Catholics. These events are by no means taken lightly by the clergy of the Catholic Church. Just the other day, Pope Benedict met with victims of abuse in Malta. One of the survivors remarked that he “admired the pope for his courage in meeting us. He was embarrassed by the failings of others.” As a result, many precautions have been taken and preventative measures put in place for those who work with the youth in conjunction with the Catholic Church.

As our own Archbishop Listecki said during the Chrism Mass, “The Holy Father does not need me to defend him or his decisions. I believe, and history will confirm, that his actions in responding to this crisiscame swiftly and decisively and his compassionate response to victims/survivors, speak for themselves.” Instead of being a supposed ‘enabler’ and turning a blind eye to abuse within the Church, our Holy Father has been an instrument leading the Church out of crisis. And regardless of the media, he will continue to do so.

by Joanna Parkes
joanna.parkes@mu.edu

Popularity: 1% [?]

We are just about at the half-way point of Lent. Some of us are dismayed and wondering how we could only be at the half-way point. Others are kind of surprised they already broke their Lenten promises. And there are plenty of us who observe lent and just do not understand what it is.

Fasting is commonly understood to simply mean giving up something. In the strict sense of the term in Catholic theology and discipline, fasting is eating one regular meal and two smaller meals which combined do not equal a regular one. And abstaining, which is often considered the same as fasting, is not eating meat.

But after restraining ourselves for a few days during Lent, many Catholics do not understand why they bothered giving up candy, facebook, soda, or whatever they chose. And then many Catholics say, “Why don’t we just promise to be nice for Lent, instead of some aimless fasting?” Or some will say, “Why bother fasting for forty days if you’re to gorge yourself on Easter morning?” And still others will say, “Why not skip fasting and do something meaningful, like helping out at a homeless shelter?”

Well, for Catholics you’re supposed to be nice 365, and occasionally 366, days out of the year, not 40. So if anything being nice should be a New Years’ resolution, not a Lenten one. And “gorging yourself” is a sin according to Catholic teaching. In fact, the sin, which is called gluttony, is considered one of the seven capital sins. And there is still room in Lent for helping out those in need.

But skeptics of fasting are on the right track. If there is no purpose, why bother? St. Thomas Aquinas himself might have said the same thing, unless of course there is a purpose.

The purpose of Lent is to conquer our temptations to sin, drawing ourselves away from the world to grow closer to God. Although we are in the world, we are meant to be dead to it. That is why Lent opens up with Ash Wednesday, when we wear black ashes on our forehead reminding us of our own mortality. As for temptation, traditionally, the first Sunday in Lent would always feature the gospel story of Jesus fasting for 40 days and then proceeding to be tempted by Satan. The forty-day long fast was meant to prepare our Lord for temptation. We were meant to follow this example so we could also conquer temptation.

Those skeptics should then be happy and energized for Lent. The whole purpose is to conquer our flesh and raise ourselves closer to God, helping us to do things like avoid gluttony and become kind. Miraculous transformations do not occur over night. We have to allow our hearts to be malleable to God’s Will in order that we might do what He wants us to do.

But once our hearts are softened ready to do the will of God, we still have a couple more things to do in which we actually do the will of God. In Lent we are told to work on our prayer lives. Aside from the beautiful Masses during Holy Week and the Good Friday Services, we still have other ways of making Lent holier for us. Among them are the Stations of the Cross in which we follow our Lord as he ascends Mt. Calvary to die. We should also try and go to Confession during Lent. These help us to love God all the more.

And once we truly love God we are able to love our neighbor. Our love for neighbor is supposed to stem from a love for God. When Mother Teresa was asked why she went out to help so many poor, unfortunate people, she said it was because she saw Jesus in everyone. This is the kind of love we are supposed to develop during Lent and the manner in which we are meant to give alms.

For those practical people out there, still unsatisfied with these intangible goals, fasting still holds great importance for you. If everyone were to follow the strict, canonical rules of fasting and abstaining mentioned earlier for the whole forty days out of Lent with at least partial abstinence on all days save Friday, you could drive down the price of food thereby making it more affordable for those in need. This is not completely implausible considering this was standard practice for years in the Catholic Church. And if you’re still not satisfied, just save the money you were going to spend on food and give it to some charity or some person who needs it more than you do. Don’t worry, they’re out there

More importantly, remember to fast vigorously, pray hard, and give alms generously for the rest of this Lent. And if we do these things well, we will grow closer to God. And maybe, at the end of this life, Our Lord can say to us as He said to the Good Thief, “This day, thou shalt be with Me in paradise.”

by Adam Ryback
adam.ryback@mu.edu

Popularity: 1% [?]

As much as anything else, strong personalities drive contemporary American politics and the accompanying 24-hour news cycle. The compelling life stories of both Barack Obama and John McCain helped them package their messages and win their parties’ presidential nominations, and certainly President Obama’s charisma and personal mannerisms contributed to his triumph in the general election. Other political figures such as Sarah Palin, Al Franken, Dick Cheney, and Jesse Jackson owe much of their support and notoriety to their styles of campaigning and speaking. Political ideas without compelling advocates tend to go nowhere, and this especially holds true for ideas and philosophies which fall between the cracks of our limiting two-party system. The media elites and intelligentsia, as well as the greater public, also dismiss as crazy those causes which are associated exclusively with a single offbeat public figure.

Following his 2008 libertarian campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, one of the few politicians I support on most issues, has used his newfound celebrity to promote a number of causes, including his signature battle against the powerful Federal Reserve system. In light of the financial crisis, his ideas, particularly his push for a transparent and full audit of the Fed, have now gained significantly more grassroots and congressional support than in previous years. However, to the media, Ron Paul and libertarianism have become one and the same phenomenon. Even as Paul’s celebrity forces the media to mention libertarianism as an alternative to liberalism and conservatism, their unfair portrayal of Dr. Paul as a conspiracy theorist, a racist, and a crazy, cranky old man allows them to quickly dismiss his ideas and the diverse and much broader libertarian movement.

Liberals and conservatives have dozens of articulate and popular spokespersons with national profiles, who each appeal to different demographic and cultural groups within the American public. Libertarians like myself seem to have only Dr. Paul, who has done an amazing job in terms of securing media appearances and communicating a consistent message that makes his opponents in both parties look like hypocrites. America would be a better place if more political alternatives were discussed in the public arena, and libertarianism will only be able to challenge the more established philosophies if the public can recognize more than one public figure as a libertarian.

Fortunately for the sake of political diversity, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson has formed a new non-profit, the Our America Initiative, to create a national platform for advocating libertarian approaches to public policy. Like Dr. Paul, Johnson represents the small and long ignored libertarian wing of the Republican Party. However, Johnson has the potential to reach Americans who are turned off by Dr. Paul’s economics lectures that I love so dearly. For starters, the former governor has eight years of executive experience with a record of making New Mexico’s government smaller and more efficient. He also benefits from being more than twenty years younger than the good doctor and having spent most of his life in the private sector building up his construction business. Most importantly, he climbed Mount Everest with a broken leg.

I had a chance to hear Governor Johnson speak at a conference recently, and he has an understated, calm, and straightforward approach which will help advocate for libertarian issues nationally. Johnson agrees with Dr. Paul on most issues and endorsed him in the 2008 race, but the governor communicates these ideas in a fresh way. He also appeals more to liberals and others wary who might view libertarianism as a right-wing reactionary cult. For example, he was the only sitting Republican governor in 2000 not to endorse George W. Bush for president, and he remains the highest ranking government official in American history to call for an end to the racist, unsuccessful, and costly “war on drugs.” Unlike Dr. Paul, Johnson also supports increased legal immigration rather than focusing on harsher border enforcement.

The American libertarian movement draws on multiple and occasionally even contradictory philosophical, cultural, and political traditions. While Dr. Paul has greatly swelled the ranks of political active libertarians and created new organizations to channel our energy, he still represents only part of the larger movement. Johnson’s return to the American political arena for the first time since he was term-limited out of office in 2003 will give the public another figure to associate with the ideas of liberty, one who cannot be so easily ignored.

Of course, part of the problem libertarianism faces will not be solved by having more nationally known libertarian figures, and that is that many people, probably including some reading this column, do not fully understand what the philosophy is all about. Johnson’s communication style will also help here, as he gave the simplest and most effective summary of libertarian beliefs I have yet heard: “I want to empower you to do your thing.” I only hope that we can hear that message from more and more new voices in the coming years.

by Andrew Marshall
andrew.marshall@mu.edu

Popularity: 2% [?]