The nerd in me would love to see whether or not there is a statistical correlation between the warm weather and lower exam grades. Someone could have an outstanding senior thesis if they tracked changes in average temperature and grades over the final month of school. First semester exam grades, when the temperatures hover about 10 degrees, could be compared to the second semester, when students first break out their shorts and flip-flops. I would love to see a piece done on this is it hasn’t been done already.

In an ultra-classy letter to Father Jenkins, which was also released to the press to avoid random speculation, Glendon noted that, in effect, she felt that she was being used by Notre Dame. She is exactly right. In defending its invitation of Obama, Notre Dame has repeatedly pointed out that Glendon, a staunch conservative Catholic, would be speaking at the same event. Notre Dame, in one of its earlier press releases, admitted rather weakly that “we think having the president come to Notre Dame, see our graduates, meet our leaders, and hear a talk from Mary Ann Glendon is a good thing for the president and for the causes we care about.” Glendon pointed out rather astutely that commencement is not the time nor place for conflict or debate. It is supposed to be a joyous day.

Furthermore, it is unacceptable for Notre Dame to be justifying its actions by promoting some seperate event that it might be doing correctly. Mary Ann Gledon’s invitation to commencement does not justify Obama’s. In fact, his invitation is a metaphorical slap in the face to her life’s work. As a frequent advisor to the Conference of Catholic Bishops, Glendon noted that Obama’s invitation is “in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops–to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.” Notre Dame can have Obama or Glendon, not both.

One of my first experiences as an admitted student to Boston College regarded the protests over then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s 2006 commencement address. Professors asserted that because Rice had a part in planning the invasion of Iraq, she should not be honored by the university in such a way and should furthermore not be allowed to address the graduates. The ironic part of the Bill Ayers protests is that professors who objected to Rice’s commencement address are now demonstrating for Bill Ayers, effectively turning the “free speech” issue into a “free speech when I like what’s being said” issue.

A few weeks ago, the Clough Center came under intense criticism for trying to help bring Bill Ayers to campus in collusion with the Lynch School of Education, the College Democrats, and Americans for an Informed Democracy. The Clough Center was the last of these groups to agree to cosponsor the event, and never initiated the original idea. It is important to understand that the event was already in motion by the time the Clough Center signed on. I have come to believe that the Clough Center only had the best of intentions at heart. While some student groups certainly were superficially looking to provoke a response from the administration with this event, I believe that many people at the Clough Center were simply interested in listening to someone who fundamentally does not believe in the Constitution of the United States and actively sought to overthrow it.

In contrast, the Center cosponsored an event with the Madison Foundation and the Witherspoon Institute at Princeton this weekend which discussed the Establishment Clause. The event, I can safely say, was clearly right of center, with professors citing gay marriage as an unjust law, and Roe versus Wade as a prime example of judicial fiat. That being said, the conference was deeply intellectual, interesting, and presented some compelling arguments for rethinking the implications of the First Amendment.

I fail to see how either event is truly indicative of the Clough Center. I, instead, believe that both events must be taken together in order to understand how the center will work in the future. The center is interested more with dialogue, both conservative and liberal, than with ideological hit jobs. Professor Kersch has come under a ton of unwarranted fire over the past few weeks and will probably never see the credit he deserves for pulling off two ideologically opposed events in the span of less than a month. Dialogue without a predetermined end is becoming increasingly rare in our universities and it is wonderful to see that Professor Kersch subscribes to the idea of walking into events with an open mind.

Revisionist history, even though it is implicitly written well after the historical events it concerns, is not necessarily better than the original consensus of historians. For example, although revisionist historians in the late 1990s challenged the impression that the Carter Administration’s foreign policy was an utter failure, much of this was based upon pre-existing evidence that was available soon after Carter left office (memoirs of his staff, press conferences, and personal statements). On the flip side of this issue, some revisionist history has corrected terrible historical inaccuracies. Although Eisenhower seemed to be a novice in foreign policy, revisionist history challenged this widely held view once documents became declassified that showed Eisenhower to have a very real presence in the making of foreign policy during his administration.

How the academic community should separate revisionist history that provides needed change to historical inaccuracies and revisionist history that simply exists for the sake of challenging the status quo is difficult to determine. Looking at the evidence revisionist history is based upon is an excellent way of determining whether or not it is work reading. If it is based upon newly found or newly presented evidence, then chances are good that it has something worth while to offer the academic community. If it is merely an attempt to rehash old evidence in order to draw different conclusions, chances are good that it is more wishful history than useful.

If the students and alumni are really serious about defeating this secularization of Notre Dame, they should concentrate on removing Jenkins. The alumni represent the core of Notre Dame. They always have and always will. I have never seen such a tight alumni network that literally stretches around the world. If the alumni refuse to give voluntary donations to the university until Jenkins is removed, I guarantee he will be removed within a week. This will send a strong signal that Notre Dame grads and undergrads alike will not stand for policies that contradict the fundamental values the university was founded upon.

On a wider scale, removing Jenkins would have implications for Catholic institutions across the nation. Former PA senator Rick Santorum, while recently speaking at Boston College, noted that Jenkins has “unloosed the gates of hell against Notre Dame” (which received a rather ruckus applause from the BC student body). This is indeed true. Notre Dame has the opportunity to set a new tone for Catholic institutions across the nation. There are few things which can cause Notre Dame and Boston College students to get together, but this is certainly one. Let’s work together to get Jenkins removed.

The College Democrats have strongly protested this position, citing that Ayers is a well-respected professor at the University of Illinois. The President of the CDs even went so far as to suggest to the Boston Globe that Ayers augments Ignatian values. At the very least, this is a remarkable revelation of ignorance, and quite possibly a insult to the intelligence of BC students and alumni. St. Ignatius stood for the core, fundamental values the Catholic Church professes to follow, including life, truth, and dialogue. Ayers, as an unrepentant domestic terrorist, has never exhibited any of these values. His blatant disregard for human life and dialogue were seen with his work in Weather Underground, and he seems to be very flippant about truth, accusing Boston College being beholden to a mob mentality.

I cannot understand why Bill Ayers was coming to BC in the first place. Had he not been brought out of the shadows by Obama’s campaign, few under the age of thirty would have ever heard of him. Instead, he made his name during the campaign as a controversial figure in Obama’s past, not for academic prowess, brilliant books, or any other accomplishment in the academic community that would tantalize a group of college students to put down their books and attend his lecture. In essence, this is nothing short of a “freak show.” College students are not interested in his views on democracy, but rather want to see the man who led a domestic terrorist organization and got away with it. This is not a man who even vaguely understands democracy. In fact, his terrorism worked against the foundations of free dialogue and our system of government. His visit would add absolutely nothing to the college environment or dialogue.

It is shocking that the administration was unaware of this event considering several factors. First, any event held in a dining hall requires a Project Authorization Worksheet, which must be approved by a university dean. Somehow the dean that gave permission for this event failed to notify his superiors that such a controversial speaker was making an appearance. Second, hundreds of alumni and students had been writing university officials, including president Father Leahy S.J., in order to protest the event. Third, the College Republicans filed a protest permit for the event, which also requires a dean’s approval and notification of the Boston College Police Department. The lack of communication upward represents a stunning embarrassment for the school.

The censorship label is inappropriate in this instance because The Observer never called for events to be canceled or remodeled. Rather, the editorial simply calls for lectures that preach or misconstrue Catholicism to be augmented by a companion lecture that allows both sides a measure of legitimacy. In many ways, this action extends, rather than suffocates the debate. If professors arguing against the Church are truly concerned about a simple counterargument, then perhaps their lecture stands on shaky philosophical or theological grounds.

In the eyes of many Catholics, it is unacceptable for confusion to result on the non-negotiable teachings of the Church at a Catholic university. Examples of this at Boston College include the theology department’s co-sponsoring of the Vagina Monologues, a theology professor who preaches that the Church’s position on pre-marital sex is archaic and bound to change, and a lecture co-sponsored by the theology department entitled Jesus Christ as Grand Marshall of Queer America.

The argument for this editorial comes down to whether or not one believes that a Catholic university has an obligation to defend Catholicism in open debate. The Observer certainly thinks so.

How is this possible? Credit definitely goes to Father Leahy for recognizing that the endowment will ebb and flow with the market and should therefore be relied upon for only a small portion of the university’s expenses (in the area of ten percent). Granted, BC’s endowment is noticeably smaller than some of its peers, such as Notre Dame and Harvard, but years of remaining committed to a diversified source of income is now paying off.

Just as important, BC has reiterated its commitment to need-blind admission, a policy that some universities are questioning as alumni donations become more scarce. Knowing that you and your peers are present at an institution through sheer hard work and effort and not because of the size of your parents’ wallets makes college a much more pleasant experience. Additionally, Father has held firm to the belief that the budget must be balanced each and every year in order to avoid excessive debt in the case of a long, non-cyclical economic downturn. Never before has the university been so grateful to have Father Leahy at the helm, leading BC through these challenging times.

The idea that all students should willingly take a tuition hike so that the university can offer subsidized STD testing is abhorrent and truly furthers a type of “socialized” health care. Those who do not engage in risky behavior should not be forced to subsidize the actions of others. Additionally, the provision of the petition that deals with condoms appears to be mean-spirited and lazy. Condoms are readily accessible at convenience stores within 100 feet of campus. Rather than ask students to take some personal initiative, this petition asks Jesuits to provide free condoms, an action that goes against Humane Vitae (1968). We the students at Boston College, are so lazy and short-sighted that we ask others to violate non-negotiatable religious beliefs rather than walk 100 feet off campus. This says much about Boston College.

My hope is that the administration not only completely ignores this petition, but also publically explains why the movement should and will fail. The debate should center not over whether or not sexual health is important, but what the implications of this policy would be for chaste students and Jesuits.