Georgetown Now Costs $300,000

Apparently The Hoya, which is owned by the Georgetown administration and often serves as its mouthpiece, censored from its comments page the below piece which we received earlier today.

The Georgetown Academy revived last year in direct response to similar attacks against free speech on the Hilltop, both from administrators threatening conservative students and liberal Social Justice Warriors wishing to suppress or attack those who they think aren’t politically correct, so we’re glad to publish it here and invite anyone who The Hoya refuses to publish to get in contact with us as we’re always happy to consider unpublished work for our own pages so long as it relates to Georgetown. 

And if you have been or in the future are published by The Hoya but your work disappears down The Hoya’s Orwellian Memory Hole either because of the paper’s history of liberal bias or because some group with influence doesn’t like it, which is something that also happened last year, then let us know and we’ll republish it here in full, no questions asked, and regardless of whether we agree with it or not.

The piece below written by “Anonymous” is a response to this story from a few days ago in which it was announced Georgetown is increasing tuition by 4% for this year and for the next four.  The article notes that since 2012 tuition has increased 18%.  One of the few non-liberals we know on The Hoya staff wrote it and there is even a nice graphic . . .

                                                                                                             Via The Hoya

                                                                                                             Via The Hoya

Yesterday sophomore Claire Goldberg also wrote an impressive op-ed questioning, (in a way GUSA or The Hoya never does), why Georgetown’s administration keeps increasing tuition yet easily drops $62 million on things like a brand new athletics facility “that will be almost exclusively used by varsity athletes – who make up 10 percent of the student population.”  

Unfortunately she failed to mention the fact President Jack DeGioia makes over a million each year and has for some time ($1.3 million in 2014 alone) and is one of the highest paid University presidents in the nation, or that our basketball coach rakes in about $2 million each year even though last time we made it to the Regionals or Final Four was a decade ago.  Let’s not forget our tenured professors all make six figure incomes, and some administrators pull close to a quarter million in salary just for pushing paper. 

She could also have mentioned President DeGioia’s annual trip to Davos for the World Economic Forum (one of the many international locales he jet sets to because it’s obviously in the best interests of students for him to do so) or the millions upon millions of dollars we spend each year on the diversity scam via grievance industry programming and salaries in order to placate the various identity groups playing the Oppression Olympics and whose main goal in life is apparently to win cash and prizes for being crowned “The Hilltop’s Biggest Victim.”

Anyways, Goldberg went on to note that last year’s tuition increase led to a budget surplus of $20 million and that Georgetown’s “For Generations to Come” fundraising campaign which ended in June exceeded expectations, garnering an additional $170 million on top of the $1.5 billion it already raised.  And that’s without mentioning the University managed to skip out last year on $9 million in property taxes, according to The Washington Post.

In other words, Georgetown is apparently starting off this year with $200 million more than it expected.   

So, one wonders, why do we need a tuition increase of 4% every year for the next four, especially since tuition increased 18% over the last four? 

Did the quality of education increase 18% since 2012? 

Will the quality of education at Georgetown increase by 4% each year between the time a freshman arrives later this month and the time they graduate?

Probably not.

And we assume too that despite this being an important issue, one we’ve repeatedly mentioned and even quizzed GUSA candidates about earlier this year, there will be no mobilization of the studentry or rallies or sit-ins or in-depth journalistic investigations about where all that money goes. 

Furthermore, GUSA will continue, as the writer below correctly states, to “shill” for the administration, instead of representing student interests.

The reason nothing will be done is, we suspect, that those in the middle class who tuition increases will hurt the most are too busy working or studying so they can get well-paying jobs to pay off their massive student loan debts once they graduate.

Meanwhile, those with the time on their hands will be more concerned with moral posturing and showing how liberal and tolerant and open-minded they are than the rest of us. 

Instead of focusing on astronomical tuition, they’ll concentrate instead on shaming and threatening others who think differently than them while agitating for more handouts and advocating for things like changing the name of a building because apparently some students are so weak that they are mentally traumatized by a name on a building

They’ll also be figuring out ways to prevent a libertarian or conservative speaker from coming to campus lest a feminist or fragile liberal be triggered and forced to retreat to a “safe space,” though if someone does slip through, they’ll be sure to protest, get The Hoya to write a biased editorial misrepresenting what was actually said at the speech, and will attempt to get some CSE hacks in the administration to threaten them.

Anyways, here’s the piece The Hoya censored . . .

 

 

Censored Comment from The Hoya on Georgetown’s Tuition Increase

By Anonymous

Serious question: when did the GUSA Executive become shills for Healy?

Really, it would be nice to know.

I understand it's too much to ask Enushe to do her job because she's busy making money for Goldman Sachs in NYC instead of being on-campus this summer like she's supposed to be according to GUSA by-laws, but shouldn't Chris or at least one of the several hundred GUSA reps and staff members inflating their resumes with fancy titles realize that IT IS GUSA's DAMN JOB to represent student interests before the administration, and not the other way around? 

Instead of what we currently have, which is Chris putting a positive spin and selling out everyone who pays tuition and who is taking on student loans in order to promote yet another tuition increase, shouldn't GUSA be trying to STOP or at the very least SLOW the incessant tuition increases?  Or are they doing the administration's bidding because they want that letter of recommendation from DeGioia for the Harvard app?

So they raised tuition 4.3% last year, and will do it at 4% this year, and have committed to raising it 4% each year for the next four years.  Tuition for 2016-2017 is now $49,968 and with room & board total cost of attending Georgetown is $66,296, according to The Hoya, though if you look at the Office of Financial Services website the total cost inclusive of fees and expenses (i.e. books, loan fees, class fees, Yates, etc.) is $69,770. 

Link: https://finaid.georgetown.edu/cost-of-attendance/undergraduate

Let's do the math for someone graduating in 2020.  We’ll use the OFS numbers because they’re official and we'll assume room & board go up 4% as well.  It's fair to do so due to inflation, cost of living increases, and the fact that the University has no reason not to increase prices on things you’re required to pay but which don’t fall under “tuition.” 

So, here's how it works out with annual 4% increases . . . 

Freshman Year: $69,770

Sophomore Year: $72,561

Junior Year: 75,463

Senior Year: 78,482

Total cost of for years at GU for incoming freshmen: $296,275.  Throw in some unexpected expenses or travel (the OFS numbers low-ball it at $650 a year which only works if you live close and don’t plan on going home for Christmas), and you’re easily over $300K. 

This is crazy, people. 

Just imagine the debt the rich kids and the affirmative action scholarship kids won't have, but which will squeeze everyone in the middle or who can't get a special grants or scholarship funding.  This is what's known as indentured servitude, folks. 

If you're taking out loans, you better be in the business school, nursing, or SFS, and you better be majoring in something that will make you money when you graduate.  Otherwise you’re going to have that debt yoked around your neck for a long, long time.

Someone explain to me again how Georgetown is a non-profit educational institution dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge and service to others but not a cash cow that enriches its own employees at the expense of students, parents, and the American taxpayers who fund all the loans? 

I’m genuinely curious here. 

Right now I’m kicking myself for voting for Crenushe. 

Honestly, we might have been better off with two Wisemiller’s sandwiches.

Our Last Post Until Our Next Post

Despite going dark today, you can still follow TGA on Facebook and Twitter where we'll be posting the occasional news and opinion article from outside media as it strikes our interests.  You can also sign up on the right to get on our mailing list.  Doing so will keep you informed of when we start publishing again and you'll have a PDF copy of any future print editions sent directly to your inbox.

Additionally, if you've ever been interested in joining us, either as a writer, editor, or general supporter, then now is the time to do so.  As we explain below, we're in the process of transitioning to an entirely new team.  Meetings have been held and work has been done to make this a reality, but due to various factors it is not 100% guaranteed and the efforts of ourselves and others may ultimately fall through.  

So if you've liked what you've read and the impact we've had on shaping conversations at Georgetown these last six months, and wish to fight back against liberal intolerance and promote and defend libertarian, conservative, and pro-Catholic interests as they relate to the Hilltop, then let's talk.  Our Submissions and Join Us pages have more information.

 

 

If you've visited TGA in the last 48 hours, you'll notice we've cleaned out our draft queue and put up a dozen new posts since Saturday.  As we said last week, we're ceasing publication starting today in order to (hopefully) transition to a new team, so with the exception of PDFs of some back issues an alum is sending us and which we'll be posting whenever they arrive, you likely won't be reading any new content here until next semester.  We already have two back issues available on our Scribd page here.

Of all the posts we've just released, we want to highlight a few in particular . . . 

First is the Cohonguroton Oration by recently departed Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.  Reading the piece, which is his valedictorian address from when he graduated from Georgetown in 1957, one can easily see how he rose to become so widely-regarded and loved as a jurist, even by those like Ruth Bader Ginsburg who disagreed with his ideas.  

Second is a post we were sent by a recent alum who is anonymous even to us.  He's one of many Hoyas who have contacted TGA since we began last semester and like others was inspired to contribute.  His open letter to his 18-year-old self provides useful advice for freshmen and is both honest and thoughtful.  We thank him for contributing it to us.  

Third, we wanted to say bravo to the GUSA Executive's press team.  They've done a great job with the website and communicating with everyone, including responding to our inquiries.  We hope the new administration takes communications as seriously as they do and will maintain the standards set by Will and Ari.

For those wondering why we're going dark, the main reason has to do with the campus climate.  Starting in December we began holding meetings with our fellow Hoyas who reached out to us about taking over TGA or who we knew personally.  Some of these individuals wrote for us last semester while others didn't because of their responsibilities with other campus publications and clubs, but wanted to show their support and discuss how they could be part of the effort. 

SJW Wolf on the hunt, looking to sate its liberal bloodlust

SJW Wolf on the hunt, looking to sate its liberal bloodlust

Some, though not all, saw difficulties moving forward with an immediate handover in which TGA continued to publish.  This was due to our publication's perception on-campus among certain vocal and hostile communities on the left side of the political and ideological spectrum who like to play the victim.  Some also felt or expected pressure from others who seek to suppress and punish the speech of those unwilling to buy into, or who actively go against, certain politically correct ideas prominent on the Hilltop.

Concern was also raised about possible long-term ramifications of being affiliated with a publication which has the intolerant left and liberal social justice warriors foaming at the mouth for a libertarian or conservative to sacrifice on their left-wing altar of hate.  This was a big concern especially since something similar already happened around this time last year and because threats have already been made to TGA about future employment opportunities, including Facebook postings about beating us up, and calls for the University to sanction TGA's members via forced diversity training seminars or punishments such as having to pick up trash around campus.

Weirdly, someone even likened us to Islamic State terrorists!

Because of these concerns we've decided to go dark in order to create some distance between our successors and us so as to allow a clear demarcation between the old and the new.  The idea is that with certain people graduating and a new crew taking over, the climate will be improved and things will have calmed down enough for publishing to begin once again.  When (and if) that happens, TGA's direction will be determined by whoever steps up and takes over.  They, and not us, will have control over tone and content.  This is another way of saying they shouldn't be blamed or attacked for past blog posts.

For those wondering, plans were in the works to publish a print edition this month.  A printer had been secured and coordinated with, money was raised to cover a couple issues, and we received a pre-existing Adobe InDesign template sent to us by a former editor in-chief from a few years ago, which just needed to be filled with new content before being printed and distributed.  

But it now seems things will have to wait until next semester.

When we started this venture we had two big goals in mind.  The first was to push back against the intolerant left and expose both the irrationality of their views and their thuggish tactics.  We also wanted to present some ideas about Georgetown and report on stories which weren't addressed in The Hoya or The Voice, or were done so in a biased manner.  

We began with our five-part series for freshmen entitled "The Year You Missed," and which covered last year's craziness and the attempts made by social justice warriors and the University administration to silence speech and politicize the curriculum, which they've been more or less successful at accomplishing because of the absence of any meaningful libertarian or conservative opposition.  

Around the same time we took a look at the problem of social justice warriors and the prominent role they play in stifling speech.

When Pope Frances came to D.C. we were ready with a post wondering why no Pope has ever visited Georgetown, America's oldest and arguably most important Catholic university, while across town the Catholic University of America has received visits from every Pope going back to the 1970s.  We also looked at certain "Catholic identity issues" which are rarely examined in either The Hoya or The Voice, such as the reason Jesuits exist, questions about what's going on with the theology department at Georgetown (here and here), what it means to have a "Catholic" mind, and some thoughts on why a gay atheist Jew who died of AIDS is probably the most important defender of Catholic universities in the last quarter century. 

We also took on the pro-abortion advocacy group H*yas for Choice and revealed what the University would like to keep hidden, which is that funds from a mandatory activities fee collected from students by the administration and housed in a Georgetown University bank account controlled by President Jack DeGioia is being funneled to support pro-abortion activities.  In the words of H*yas for Choice's former president, this financial support from the University represents “a large portion of our operating costs.”

Freedom of speech issues were big at Georgetown last year, not to mention the country at large.  We looked at how both The Hoya and The Voice disappear down the memory hole articles when they upset certain groups (in addition to a post on The Hoya's left-wing reporting bias) and also slapped down a free speech poseur who, ironically, serves as GUSA's Secretary on Free Speech (but only defends speech he agrees with), and to whom we had to educate about the meaning and importance of freedom of speech.  We were also glad to note President Obama agrees with TGA on this issue in a video we posted showing his distaste for the emotional cripples who try to silence others.

We covered the protest movement at Georgetown, beginning with a look at the Yale incident over Halloween costumes and continuing on to an examination of the protest in November to change the names of two buildings named after a couple dead Jesuits who sold some slaves about 175 years ago.  Two of our freshmen writers also commented on this issue (see here and here).

Regarding Georgetown's diversity fetish, TGA discussed how it's not about diversity of ideas or opinion, which is what a University dedicated to the pursuit of truth and dissemination of knowledge should pursue, but is entirely about diversity of skin tone and sexual orientation.  As we have noted on multiple occasions, there is a whole industry devoted to keeping diversity and grievances in the forefront of everyone's minds because there is a lot of money to be made in doing so.  And we were the only ones to publish critiques in any Georgetown publication of the "diversity" requirement, the sole purpose of which is to indoctrinate students with left-wing, politically correct ideas.  For those unaware, the new "diversity" requirement will now force all new students to take specially selected and politically correct classes costing them a cool $15,000, which is about half your average Hoyas student loan debt. 

We also discussed the lack of diversity within the faculty (here and here).

Despite claims we at TGA are anti-gay we interviewed one who happens to be The Hoya's best writer, and in our pages encouraged the University (and GUSA) to bring to campus three prominent homosexuals as speakers (Camille Paglia, Eve Tushnet, and Milo Yiannopoulos).  We suspect this will never happen because gay libertarians and conservatives aren't supposed to exist and those who do aren't supposed to be acknowledged by those on the left.  And of course, the number one book on our Bookshelf is by Allan Bloom, a gay atheist Jew who died of AIDS and of whom we're big fans, and which we recommend to every person who knows how to read.

Though we didn't comment on homosexuality per se, we did look at transgenderism since that was the focus of Georgetown's celebration of LGBTQ History Month last October, and which was sponsored by 31 different University offices, departments, and clubs, including both Campus Ministry and the Office of the President.  We noted the irony of Georgetown officially promoting and celebrating transgender lifestyles, but completely ignoring the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops call to promote Respect for Life Month which was also in October.  The post was the tipping point for TGA and vastly expanded our readership, but also led to a lot of nasty comments about us and an op-ed and editorial in The Hoya, which we responded to here, and in which we used medical science and Catholic teaching to dismantle the notion that mutilating one's body is a psychologically healthy way to cope with the problems associated with gender dysphoria.

We were fortunate to publish some reprints sent to us from alumni advisors, including this laud of Rabbi Harold White who died in September, and another from Bill Clinton's old professor, the legendary Carroll Quigley, who wrote a classic think-piece about intellectual life on the Hilltop called "Is Georgetown Committing Suicide?"  And we posted an editorial from a special 9/11 issue published fifteen years ago, and finally, a piece written around that same time entitled: "Why Would Anyone Join Up With The Academy?"

We also managed to publish some cool videos, from Hitler's reaction to the Chicken Madness ticket giving Team Crenushe a run for their money, to South Park's hilarious Safe Spaces Song and the Social Justice Warrior Chant, to another by an amazing woman who succinctly destroys feminism in all of three minutes, and this awesome parody of feminists.  There was also Christina Hoff Sommers on Feminism vs. Truth, George Will's college commencement speech "every student should hear," and Heather MacDonald's examination of the diversity scam.

Thanks to Georgetown alum, Academy Award winner, and Exorcist author William Peter Blatty, we were given in November a 30,000-word excerpt from the petition he sent to the Vatican asking for a determination to be made whether or not Georgetown was authentically Catholic.  The excerpt, which we turned into an eight-part series called "A History of TGA," showcases the very best of this publication's quarter century of writing and student-led efforts promoting libertarian, conservative, and pro-Catholic views at Georgetown, including the pivotal role TGA's founders played in defunding GU Choice, the predecessor of today's H*yas for Choice.

Speaking of history, last December was the bicentennial of John Carroll's passing.  As we all know, Carroll founded Georgetown and was appointed the United States' first Roman Catholic bishop, in addition to being a key player in the American revolution.  Neither the University nor any other other campus pubs saw fit to mention this anniversary except us.   

In January we published a five-part, data-rich series taking a serious look at the problem of affirmative action, arguably the most important examination of the subject at Georgetown in recent memory.  We looked at University attempts at keeping affirmative action data secret and hidden from outside examination and the steps they've taken to punish whistle blowers, to the problem of mismatch theory and the negative professional and financial impacts affirmative action has on its purported beneficiaries, before concluding with a critical look at the University's own affirmative action programs which ignore socioeconomic, religious, and viewpoint diversity.

More recently we've provided unique coverage of the GUSA election, from being the first out with a candidate questionnaire, to our breaking the story of the emergence of the Two Chicks, One Georgetown ticket, to our editorial in which we stood alone among the campus pubs in endorsing Hot Chick and Chicken Madness, to our election analysis which is the only statistical examination of the election results.  

This was in addition to our proposals last semester for GUSA to improve communications and transparency (something to their credit they followed and did very well), to reforming the student activities funding process, and to stop the "diversity" requirement.

As TGA's web traffic shows we've been successful in getting readership with an average of about 4,000 unique visitors each month since last September, and that's with not publishing any new content for a month between the end and start of classes over Winter Break and ending a week early in February.  All told we've had over 63,000 page views.

Both our metrics and the reaction to TGA's presence clearly show there exists a void that needs to be filled in regards to intellectual discussion at Georgetown.    

In closing, we want to invite once again those interested in joining up with TGA to go ahead and do so.  We look forward to hearing from you.  You can learn more here.

Special thanks to Burr, Johnny 3 Tears, Huck, Peter Campomanes, Bob Higgins, Arthur Murgatroyd, Quinctius Cincinnatus, J.S., Hoya Blue, DJ Omni, Mickey Haller, the crew at Two Chicks, One Georgetown, Matthew Quallen and Amber Athey (these latter two for the interviews, neither wrote nor edited for us, so leave them alone SJW freaks), and all the other men and women who otherwise assisted.  We appreciate what you've done.

Thanks to our readers as well.  You're one of the reasons we started.

But most of all, thanks to the social justice warriors who freaked out over finally being challenged and called out on their b.s. and thuggish behavior.  You helped us accomplish our mission and your outrage greatly extended our reach.  Not only did we succeed in exposing the poverty of your ideas, but we also had a great time doing it.  We only wish that last semester you had put up those fliers, held that protest, and actually gotten the Washington Post and the Huffington Post to publish stories we know you were planning.  It would have taken us national and we would have found it all quite amusing.

Oh well, maybe sometime in the future.

Hoya Saxa!

On GUSA Election 2016

First, congratulations to Team Crenushe on the win.  

You were basically running unopposed and your main competition was two chicken sandwiches which only started campaigning during the latter half of the election period, but you were organized, ruthlessly eliminated your competition beforehand, and did some impressive reaching out to a wide variety of groups while maintaining a positive attitude during the race, and that's all to be commended.  

And like we said before, you're basically decent people (assuming neither of you are the individual referred to in a certain unverified Georgetown Confession post which has since been deleted by the page's administrators).

Second, great job to Hot Chick and Chicken Madness.  You took what could have just been a joke ticket and turned it into a referendum on GUSA.  You're essentially dead pieces of chicken meat grilled to perfection and smothered with mayo, spices and other condiments, ensconced within a warm hoagie roll with a pickle and a side of chips, and yet you managed to capture 30% of the initial vote.  That went up to 39% of the vote in the final round and ultimately you placed second out of four tickets.  And this was with only a week of campaigning and without being able to shake hands or the ability to offer spoils or fancy titles to anyone.  Perhaps if given a little more time and some better get out the vote and voter education efforts, you would have succeeded.  

Sadly, each year there will be a new crop of bright-eyed and optimistic freshmen who don't know any better and who GUSA candidates will go after with their sales pitch and false promises, so perhaps it's never to be, especially since future races will likely have multiple tickets vying for the prize.  But you can still be proud since you did get more votes than any Chicken Madness ticket in GUSA history.  Congratulations to your campaign team and bravo.  You fought the good fight.

Round 1 Election Results Source: GUSA election commission

Round 1 Election Results

Source: GUSA election commission

Third, only 33% of the studentry voted in this election.  GUSA should pay close attention to this because it suggests two-thirds of the studentry don't consider GUSA important enough to spend sixty seconds on, which is about the time it takes to log-in and vote.   

Even more concerning: when you ignore those who voted for the Wisemiller sandwiches and eliminate the 58 friends who voted for Moore-Lowder, and then consider the University reports 7595 undergraduates, that means only 21%, or about one-fifth of all students, actually voted for real candidates, and only 15% of Georgetown's entire undergraduate student population voted in the first round for the ultimate winner.  

Another way to put it might be that 85% of the student body, if given a choice between Crenushe and another ticket, or no ticket at all, initially chose the latter two options.

This is not a good sign and one the administration will remember in student meetings.

Fourth, we're still waiting on the full data set to be released.  In the interests of transparency and integrity, this should be available to the studentry and both The Hoya and The Voice should examine them to verify the election was above board.  Our concern here is ensuring all votes were counted and that even if there were minor spelling or formatting errors for write-ins, the intent of voters was registered.

Fifth, the best way for legitimacy to return to GUSA is for GUSA to start doing things which appeal to ALL STUDENTS and not just the professional victims constantly calling for more gimmes. The administration doesn't take GUSA seriously because students don't take GUSA seriously, and the reason why is because GUSA doesn't tackle concerns that apply to the studentry as a whole, and therefore can't mobilize everyone in battles with Healy.   

Sixth, this means calling for an immediate end to tuition increases.  Reed and Chris are clones of each other complete with the same clownish behavior and exaggerated face-making, not to mention the virtue-signaling on "diversity," but the one thing Reed got right was demanding an immediate stop to the continued increases in tuition which just keeps going up and up and up.  Such an initiative would appeal to all students, regardless of background, and make GUSA relevant again.  Not even the rich Hoyas we know enjoy wasting large sums to pay for useless administrators whose main job in life is trying to control student behavior or coddle the professional victims taking part in grievance industry activism. 

Seventh, this also means an end to the yearly hiring of new administrators and a push to reduce the existing number of administrators at Georgetown and reduce or at least halt what is likely a yearly increase in already bloated administrator salaries.  

This begins with the realization that college isn't supposed to be a four-year spa visit where your every desire and neurosis needs to be addressed.  It's about the search for truth and the attainment of knowledge, learning how to live life well (by which we mean a purposeful and joyful life), and the development of professional skills so that you can be productive and ensure your time and money on the Hilltop isn't wasted.  We have a whole essay on it in our Ratio Studiorum.  All you really need at Georgetown are professors, books, computers, and classrooms.  The special centers and institutes and ancillary programs are really just window-dressing which distracts from Georgetown's true mission and costs us all lots and lots of money with very little given in return.

Hiring yet another administrator which, let's face it, is just there to placate another subset of the identity group mafia playing the Oppression Olympics, does nothing to further the purposes of a University and only hinders education and unity because it creates division and animosity among the studentry.  Not only do more administrators unnecessarily raise the cost of tuition, but far too many fail to add commensurate value for the large amounts of money they’re paid.  Perhaps worse of all, a significant number continually foster a grievance culture by promoting an entitlement and victim mindset among each new generation of students who don't realize they're being played by hustlers who profit in various ways by keeping them feeling as if they are continually oppressed.  

Eighth, GUSA should actually defend free speech and promote diversity of ideas.  This can start with a clear statement either by the GUSA Executive, or a resolution out of the Senate, defending freedom of speech at Georgetown and stressing the importance of ensuring all views are allowed to be heard without the threat of punishment or coercive action on the part of the administration or other students.  This includes ideas which some people vehemently disagree with or which make them uncomfortable or feel offended.  The resolution should also call for an end to trigger warnings and "safe spaces" since these are for those who are either emotionally-weak or inclined to suppress speech, and such people should be invited to leave college until they are mature enough to return.

One of our supporters is friends with British provocateur and free speech advocate Milo Yiannopoulous who has been touring American university campuses this semester to great acclaim and has really brought the crazies out of the woodwork.  Our contact tells us Milo is willing to come to Georgetown and speak for free to the studentry in late April or early May.  We are offering to GUSA and Team Crenushe the opportunity to bring him to campus and recommend they officially sponsor his visit as a demonstration of their commitment to free speech and as a sign of leadership.  Let us know if you're interested.

Additionally, GUSA should find someone unbiased and fair-minded to take over the position of Secretary of Free Speech.  The current occupant has utterly failed to defend free speech except when it has been speech he's agreed with.  When a bunch of social justice warriors went after Dylan or when feminist crybabies went after the College Republicans, he remained silent, and as is evident by his recent editorial in The Hoya, he is clearly ignorant about the issue and unsuited for the responsibilities of the position.

We believe a good choice would be Hunter Estes.  Not only does Hunter have extensive experience in media affairs, and hence free speech issues, but he's also well-liked among the freshmen (who let's face it, Crenushe owes the election to, since the majority of juniors and seniors who understand GUSA sure as hell didn't vote to elect anyone other than chicken sandwiches).  The fact is left-wing ideas and their proponents are not under attack at Georgetown, so there's no point in having yet another left-wing social justice warrior in the position.  What you should have instead is someone in the middle or who leans right, since those are the people and ideas under assault.

Ninth, it's past time to eliminate University involvement in adjudicating sexual assault complaints.  The fact is administrators have no business overseeing what is essentially a criminal and legal matter.  While it makes sense to have counseling and other resources available to alleged victims and preventive training for both potential victims and potential perpetrators, the fact is that if someone claims to have experienced a sexual assault, then they must do their best to preserve the evidence and immediately go to the police and let the legal system handle the matter.  

This should be official Georgetown policy.  

Difficult as it may be, the most effective way to stop rapists (most of whom are repeat offenders) is for alleged victims to identify their alleged assailants to the police and get the criminal justice system involved so actual perpetrators are prosecuted and locked away.  

Posting rumors on Georgetown Confessions or writing op-eds in The Hoya about alleged rapes more than a year after the fact and only when you're about to be dismissed from the University because you failed to maintain basic academic standards just makes it harder to end the problem of sexual assault and hold people accountable, or for victims to be taken seriously when they do come forward. 

Sadly, it appears is the University administration is aligned feminists on this issue because both groups have incentives in having the University handle sexual assault accusations.

The University prefers to adjudicate cases because then it can quietly deal with an alleged sexual assault without the negative press attention that comes with a student being arrested and prosecuted, and it can then also report a lower tally in regards to the number of sexual assaults occurring either on campus or being perpetuated by students.  Feminists also support having the administration adjudicate cases because the University eliminates due process rights of alleged perpetrators and because the Georgetown uses a lower evidentiary standard than the legal system does, meaning it's easier to find a student guilty and have him removed from campus or punished in another manner.  

What this ultimately means is those who actually commit sexual assaults avoid the punishment they deserve and are free to rape again, and that if you're falsely accused of sexual assault, not only are you prevented from mounting a legal defense, but the burden of proof your accuser has to meet is lower than that found in the justice system and you may be kicked out of the University after a secret hearing in which a few professors and students vote on your future despite lacking appropriate qualifications to do so.

GUSA must press for meaningful change on this issue.  More stickers in bathrooms, yet another administrator, and still more training will not properly address the problem.   

Tenth, and finally, GUSA representatives should continually keep in the back of their minds that GUSA is only as powerful as the studentry allows it to be.  When you can't get two-thirds of students to even vote, then you can't legitimately say the organization represents the voice of the studentry.  And when you run a ticket with 23 policy areas and hundreds of promises and initiatives, it's hard to be taken seriously and believe you're doing anything other than just casting a wide net for votes, especially when the reality is GUSA is only able to, at best, accomplish a few meaningful things each year.  

In addition to the above listed recommendations, perhaps the most pressing task of GUSA is to rebuild its image so it may be taken seriously again.  The fact a satirical ticket won last year and two chicken sandwiches placed second this year despite only one week of campaigning suggests GUSA's reputation is broken and in need of serious repair.  

Based on the reported election data, the ultimate vote breakdown in the last round of the election was 1383 votes for Enushe & Chris with 878 votes for Hot Chick & Chicken Madness.  As we noted earlier, the University reports 7595 undergraduate students at Georgetown.  

 
 

When you do the math, the candidates taking office ultimately received only 18% of votes from the studentry as whole once instant runoff voting was completed.  To put it another way, Team Crenushe will be taking office with 82% of students having not voted for them. 

One could plausibly argue they're not the voice of the entire student body so much as they are the voice of a club with some serious image problems and which has only one-third of the studentry as members.  

Perhaps the greatest legacy Enushe and Chris can leave is making sure next year the winners' final tally gets as close as possible to 50% plus 1 of the total student population.  

When this happens, it can truly be said that GUSA represents the students of Georgetown.

Two New Movies About Jesuits

The first is a joint production from the Philippines and Spain.  It is on the founder of the Society of Jesus.  The dialogue is in English and it looks pretty cool . . .

The second is a Scorsese flick based on the book "Silence."  Here's the description . . . 

Martin Scorsese’s new film does not have a release date yet but it is expected at the end of 2016. This new film from the filmmaking legend sounds just as unconventional as it does intriguing. It stars Adam Driver and Andrew Garfield as two Jesuit Priests who travel to 17th century Japan to spread the teachings of christianity and seek out their mentor played by Liam Neeson.

No trailer has been released but here's a screen shot:

Scorsese also wrote an essay on it:

Ahead of the film’s release, earlier this year Approaching Silence was published (pick it up here), a novel which features a collection of essays looking back at the real-life background of Endô’s work. Perhaps most intriguing to our audience, it also features an afterword from Scorsese in which he describes bringing to life what “can’t be seen or described or named.” He references the “astonishing sensorial experience” of 2001: A Space Odyssey and in the “monumental” documentary Shoah, “we can’t know the horrors of the death camps, we can only conjure them.” Relating this feeling to Silence, he had this to say:
Endô’s novel confronts the mystery of Christian faith, and by extension the mystery of faith itself. Rodrigues learns, one painful step at a time, that God’s love is more mysterious than he knows, that He leaves much more to the ways of men than we realize, and that He is always present … even in His silence. What role am I playing, wonders Rodrigues? Why am I being kept alive? When will my martyrdom arrive? Of course, it doesn’t. Which means that he will be playing a role that is very different from the one he expected to play. He will not be following in the footsteps of Jesus. He will be taking a less revered path, and therefore playing a very different role. This is the most painful realization of all.
How do I translate the last pages of the novel, as abstract as Moby-Dick or The Idiot, into images and actions? So how do I film these interior sensations and realizations and emotions? How do I make the mystery of faith, and the ways of God, cinematically present? The answer is in making the movie — going to Taiwan, working with the actors and the cameraman and the production designer, shooting, and then putting it together in the editing room, adding a frame here and taking one out there, mixing the sound, timing the color, and deciding that it’s finished. But on another level, that answer lies within the cinema itself, and its way of pointing us toward what we cannot see.

The story of the Jesuits in Japan is fascinating.  They made converts whose descendants apparently still practice a localized form of Catholicism today, though its kept hidden.  The Guardian has a fantastic article on the Jesuit the film is about and the work he did in Japan.

At low tide, Shigetsugu Kawakami can just about make out the “forbidden” rock from his home overlooking the beach in Neshiko, a tiny village on Hirado island in southern Japan.
According to verbal testimony, at least 70 villagers were taken there and beheaded in the early 17th century. Their crime had been to convert to Christianity. “When we were children, the adults told us that if we climbed on to the rock the village would be cursed,” said Kawakami.
Today, “ascension rock” is a permanent reminder of the atrocities of almost four centuries ago. But the martyrdom of Japan’s “hidden” Christians is in danger of being forgotten.
Tens of thousands of Japanese Christians were executed, tortured and persecuted after the Tokugawa shogunate banned the religion in the early 1600s. With a wary eye on Spanish rule in the Philippines, the authorities feared Japan could be the next country targeted by European powers that used Christian teachings as a catalyst for colonial rule.
The ban left Japan’s 750,000 converts with a choice: renounce their religion or continue to practise their faith in secret, in the knowledge that discovery would almost certainly mean death.
Discussion of Japan’s Christian heritage has largely been absent from public life since the mid-1960s, when Shusaku Endo explored the martyrdom of early converts in his critically acclaimed novel Silence.
Now, Martin Scorsese hopes to ensure their story will not be forgotten with a film based on Endo’s novel that is due for release next year.
. . . 
While no official records are kept of the number of modern-day kakure kirishitan (hidden Christians), local experts say perhaps only a few dozen people still consider themselves believers.
Once its saviour, clandestine worship has contributed to a sharp decline in the number of believers. Combined with dwindling, ageing populations on the islands where it once flourished, believers fear their crypto-Christian tradition is at risk of dying out.
Kawakami, 64, is one of the few hidden Christians who is happy to talk publicly about his faith. “We don’t practise our faith in public because we are effectively still in hiding,” he said. “We usually remain quiet and never ‘out’ ourselves as Christians by appearing on TV or giving interviews. We don’t hold special ceremonies or pray in public. In fact, we don’t do anything that would risk giving ourselves away.”
Remote southern islands such as Hirado proved fertile ground for Catholicism after St Francis Xavier and other missionaries introduced it to Japan in 1549. After a nationwide ban was enforced in the early 1600s, converts devised ingenious ways to keep their faith alive.
They gathered in private homes to conduct religious ceremonies, and figurines of the Virgin Mary were altered to resemble the Buddha or Japanese dolls. To the uneducated ear, their prayers sounded like Buddhist sutras, even though they contained a mixture of Latin, Portuguese and obscure Japanese dialects. Scripture was passed on orally, since keeping bibles was considered too great a risk. None wore crosses or other religious accoutrements.
The need for secrecy during the 250 years that Christianity was banned meant the version of the religion observed by Kawakami’s ancestors bore little resemblance to its mainstream Catholic origins. Instead, early Japanese Christians incorporated elements of Buddhism and Shinto into their faith until it became a polytheistic creed of its own.
“In many ways it was a very Japanese version of Christianity,” said Shigeo Nakazono, curator of the Shima no Yakata museum on Ikitsuki, an island near Hirado.
But even this localised form of Christianity met with fierce opposition from the Shogunate authorities, who devised a singularly cruel test of loyalty to expose converts. Suspects were ordered to prove they were not Christians by trampling on fumie – images of Christ or the Virgin Mary carved from stone or wood – or face being hanged upside down over a pit and slowly bled to death.
When the Meiji government lifted the ban in 1873, an estimated 30,000 secret Christians came out of hiding. Now, Christians of all denominations make up less than 1% of Japan’s population of 128 million.
“Japan was coming under the influence of European industry and technology, and that meant that old objections to Christianity weakened,” Nakazono said.
Nakazono wondered whether Scorsese’s film would stay true to Endo’s novel, which some have criticised for being preoccupied with martyrdom. “If all hidden Christians had been martyrs, there would have been none left,” he said. “But there were enough people willing to stamp on the fumie, denounce Christianity and then beg God for forgiveness.”
At Neshiko beach, ascension rock – physical proof that there were those who refused to abandon their faith – is half submerged by the incoming tide. Even today, centuries after the last execution, locals remove their shoes before setting foot on the beach’s fine white sand as a sign of respect.
Like the rituals of the kakure kirishitan, the memories of the executed converts have been preserved by word of mouth – a tradition that gives Kawakami hope that their courage, and beliefs, will not be forgotten.
“We feel we have a duty to pass it on to future generations,” he said. “This is something our ancestors risked their lives to tell us.”

Scorsese grew up a Catholic in New York City's "Little Italy" and at one time considered the priesthood himself.  In case you were wondering, he still goes to Church.

For more on how his Catholic conscious inspires his movie, see this interview here and this essay in the the Society of Jesus' magazine America here.

An Open Letter to My 18-Year-Old Self

The following was sent to us from a recent graduate . . . 

Listen up, 18-year-old-me, I’m about to save you a lot of time and confusion, so pay attention. Georgetown is a great university, but you should know what you’re getting yourself into for the next four years.  

1.  You will hear endless statistics during your years on the Hilltop. Some of them are true, and some are manipulated to serve pre-existing agendas (learn to tell the difference). The only stat you really need to know, though, can be found in a book called Excellent Sheep by Yale professor William Deresiewicz. 

He writes . . . 

In 1971, 73 percent of incoming freshmen said that it is essential or very important to develop a ‘meaningful philosophy of life’ [and] 37 percent to be ‘very well-off financially.’ By 2011, the numbers were almost reversed, 47 percent and 80 percent, respectively. For well over thirty years we’ve been loudly announcing that happiness is money, with a side order of fame. [1]

This development is hugely important and has fundamentally changed the American university experience. More on the shift to vocational campuses later…

2.  At first you will be receptive to feminism. Get away from that victim-worshipping ideology as fast as possible. Keep in mind that women make up 55% of Georgetown’s student body. These people claim to be an oppressed majority while walking around an elite school in the capital of the richest nation on earth. 

Ironically, feminists are often openly racist and sexist. Just like the bigots they claim to abhor, social justice warriors project their insecurities onto others and make hateful blanket statements about how all “straight-white-males” act. Behind the smoke screen of progressivism and ‘equality’ is a nasty and close-minded ideology that craves control over campus culture and dialogue. Hang out with people who are actually happy and don’t use sexual hang-ups as an excuse to grab power and stifle legitimate debate.

3.  Clubs. You are in for a surprise here. Remember that convenience store you bought a Cliff bar at before your campus tour? The girl who rung you up is quite literally one of the most elite cashiers in the world. That girl was one of the 16.4% of applicants who got into Georgetown, and THEN was one of the (less than 10%) who made it into the Corp. [2]

She must be truly excellent at bagging groceries. 

Look, clubs are great for people who legitimately are passionate about certain extracurricular activities, and you will find some very fulfilling activities outside of the classroom at Georgetown. HOWEVER, the role that clubs play in the Georgetown social scene is over the top. Clubs are co-ed fraternities that carry all the same drama, exclusivity, and nonsense that Georgetown sought to avoid when it banned frats in the first place. 

4.  Back to Excellent Sheep. Deresiewicz decries the death of the ‘passionate weirdo’ on American campuses. Students bow to their parents and the institution’s demands to obsess over resumes and careers.

He writes, “Students simply don’t have time for headlong immersion [into individual enrichment.] The frenzy of extracurricular activities has expanded to fill the available space, displacing intellectual pursuits as the focus of student energy.” [3]

You will have a highly regarded professor tell you Senior year that clubs are a waste of time and are ruining the University. This woman went to Princeton in the 1970s and spent her time there studying physics at a very high level. If you’re curious, Georgetown alumni Carroll Quigley also has a lot to say about the decline of true intellectualism on campus. 

5.  Imposing rat-race values on kids before they are finished with puberty is producing a shallow and materialistic generation that has anxiety problems. I am not Holden Caulfield calling everyone “phony” by the way. I had good friends in college and got a great job, but the numbers speak for themselves. The American Freshman Survey polled 153,000 (!) students in 2014. It found that emotional health on campus is at “the lowest rate since the survey began measuring self-ratings of emotional health in 1985.” [4] 

Indeed, “more than half of college students said they have experienced ‘overwhelming anxiety’ in the last year . . . and 32 percent say they have felt so depressed ‘that it was difficult to function.’” [5]

People often told me that CAPS was overwhelmed, and I now understand why. The mental health crisis, by the way, is a national embarrassment. It means the system is totally failing at its job to educate kids and give them a solid foundation for the future. I say to DeGoia: less building and hobnobbing with Washington’s elite, and more time making sure you are turning out good human beings. 

6.  We live at a time of increased income disparity (the 1% vs 99%, etc.). People predicted this would happen as far back as the 1960s. Technology and outsourcing jobs overseas has wiped out millions of middle-class jobs. The division in this country is not men versus women, white versus black, or cis-gendered versus trans. It is between the 1% (really, .01%) ownership class and everyone else. 

Study history: there is friction between elites and the masses in every society. Georgetown, by the way, is the 1%. Half of its graduates go straight into finance (especially investment banking and consulting.) Many others go into government or the intelligence services. The irony of seeing kids go to an elite school and then straight to working for big banks/the government, all the while claiming to stand up for the oppressed is endlessly amusing. 

7.  This doesn’t specifically concern Georgetown, but the idea of college as the "best and freest time of your life" is misleading. Nationally, you have a 70% chance of graduating in debt.

At Georgetown, you are told where to live for the first three years while they have minions patrol the dorm hallways. Your movement around the city is also severely limited – you aren’t allowed to have a car and access to the metro is limited.

Face it: you’re under strict control until you get your own place. 

Sure 18-year olds should have some restrictions on their freedom in exchange for a safe environment where they can make mistakes and grow. However, just understand that having time to party and socialize (to pursue the mythic "classic college experience" we grew up watching in the movies) does not a free man make.

Freedom actually comes from taking on responsibility and working hard. It comes from owning your own stuff, supporting yourself, and making your own schedule. Then you develop a solid sense of self-esteem and the knowledge that you are a person who contributes to society and can make things happen. 

8.  Macklemore’s music will significantly decline by the end of your college experience. He is preachy and not actually very good. 

 

 

[1] Excellent Sheep, 79
[2] http://www.thehoya.com/making-the-cut-for-the-corp-and-guasfcu/
[3] Excellent Sheep, 14
[4] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/02/05/incoming-students-emotional-health-all-time-low-survey-says
[5] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/02/05/incoming-students-emotional-health-all-time-low-survey-says

 

The One Trigger Warning Georgetown Needs: Knowledge Starts as Offendedness

Should free societies ban "hate speech"? Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Jonathan Rauch, author of the books 'Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought' and 'Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America,' says no.

Tl;dr: 

Warning: Although this university values and encourages civil expression and respectful personal behavior, you may at any moment, and without further notice, encounter ideas, expressions and images that are mistaken, upsetting, dangerous, prejudiced, insulting or deeply offensive. We call this education.

Full article here.

Scalia's Cohonguroton

Each year the senior class valedictorian of the College gives what is known as the "Cohonguroton Oration," during Tropia Exercises, the College's awards ceremony.

In 1957 this person was Supreme Court Justice Antonin Gregory Scalia, who passed away earlier this month and was one of the few justices on the Court who believed words mean things.  To put it another way, Scalia believed the rule of law and the Court's continued legitimacy require interpreting our nation's Constitution based on what the words in it actually say and the original intent of the Founders.  He believed that if someone didn't like what was or wasn't in the Constitution, the proper response was to amend it, and not engage in attempts at twisting it to fit whatever current political fashions demanded.  The reason, of course, is because if the words in the Constitution can mean anything a majority of justices at the time say they mean, then they ultimately mean nothing at all.

Cohonguroton is the word local Indians used to refer to the Potomac River.

For your pleasure, here's a young Scalia's address to his fellow Hoyas.

 

 

THE FLAMING SUN has set beneath the green hill to the West, and returned to the bosom of the fertile earth which gave him birth. Above, the yellow moon has won domination of the skies, and shares her silent realm with twinkling stars. Below, up from the waters of the river that our fathers called Cohonguroton, up from her secret depths the damp mists of night steal towards us. It is the time when men are wont to sit about a glowing fire, and talk of past and future things. So let us sit and talk tonight.

When a traveler has reached the summit of a lofty hill, he does not descend at once, but pauses a moment, to look back across the land he has traversed and ahead into the valley where he will descend. From such a height he can see clearly the general features of the land which he saw only vaguely, piece by piece, disconnectedly, while he was crossing it. And he can look ahead, to survey the paths that lie before him and avoid the swamps and rapids, chasms and insurmountable cliffs. We stand on such a mountain peak tonight. Many years have we spent climbing up the rugged slope of training. Tomorrow we begin the descent into the valley men call life.

 

 

The hour is late now, and it is time for us to rise and go our separate ways. The fires around which we have sat these past four years will no more warm us. But they will not go out. Others come to take our places here, to learn as we have done, to hear the ancient wisdom of our tribe, to join its hunt. We go out into life, and leave all this behind. The camp stays ever fixed, like the river Cohonguroton, while we, like his waters, pass through to the sea. 

 

 

First of all, then, let us turn our gaze back, back while the season came and went four times, and we camped here above Cohonguroton’s shore. Our days were spent in hunting; but our prey was more elusive and more valuable than any forest dear or mountain bear or prairie buffalo. For we were seekers of the truth. Truth has no bones, no flesh, no solid earthly form. You cannot hear her creeping through the forest glades by night; you cannot see her running through the forest paths by day; you cannot watch you arrow speeding straight to thud into her heart. For those who seek her, she is everywhere; for those who do not love her, she is nowhere.

But we have not been alone in our hunt. We have been aided by the stories of the hunts that others made, the great pathfinders in the forest of the mind, long long ago and far away from us. From their successes we have learned, and from their failures profited. These tales were told us by the Blackrobes, who have made themselves the link between our ancestors and us, the ancient and the now, the Old World and the New. They have handed down a treasure to our care, the precious heritage of a tribe not limited by tongue, or color, or continent, the sacred wisdom of the tribe called man. But neither they nor we have fully caught the truth. She is too quick, too brave for us. No man can say that he knows all the truth. He can love and pursue her. Then we call him wise.

We have not succeeded, then, in capturing our prey. In any other hunt this would mean failure; but the hunt for truth is unique. The seeking is its own success, for only man is able to hunt the truth. The fishes, birds, and other beasts of earth do not hunger for it; the spirits and all-knowing God already eat their fill. Man alone can hunt the truth; to seek truth is to be most a man. We should measure the success of these past four years, not by the particles of truth that we have captured, for they are only grains of sand along an ocean shore, and soon even these may trickle from our memories. But if, by means of them, we have learned to love the truth, learned the art of hunting her, learned how to think, how to take an idea that lies dead between the pages of a book and make it live within our minds, then we leave here wise, we leave here ardent, skillful seekers of the truth, we leave here men.

So much lies behind us and is past. Now from this mountain where we stand tonight, let us turn around and look ahead, down across the broad green valley into which the trail of our existence winds. What we will do separately in the future is not completely different from what we have done together here in the past. New duties will be added; we shall have to earn our own livelihood, raise a family, nourish and support a new generation of our race. But besides all this, what we must do as men, the essential and distinctive duty of our tribe, is to continue searching for the truth. This goal can never change.

What is the difference, then, between these past four years and the days that lie ahead? It is symbolized by these feathers which I wear tonight. They are the feathers of a chief. We must be leaders where once we followed. We are to head the quest for truth.

Perhaps you think that I exaggerate our mission. But look about, and you will see the truth of what I say. If we will not lead, who will? Eliminate the great number of men who have never heard the voices of the past, who know nothing of the heritage of human wisdom, who begin their hunt alone and totally unaided. These may follow, but they will never lead. Eliminate again the men who have not heard the Word of Christ whispered to the soul. They search, but they do not know what they are searching for. They are not chasing truth, but merely clutching at her shadow. Their eyes can see only the ground, and watch this shadow, while truth wings high above them. They lack the eyes of faith, which alone can pierce into eternity, and so are doomed to lose the way, and miss the truth, and overlook the light.

Who, then, remains? Only ourselves, trained in reason and in faith. If we will not be leaders of a real, a true, a Catholic intellectual life, no one will! We cannot shift responsibility to some vague “chosen few.” We are the chosen few. The responsibility rests upon all of us, whatever our future professions. For the intellectual life, which is essentially the never-ending search for truth of which we spoke, does not belong only to the college and the university. Men are specially trained for it there, as we have been. But it should stretch far beyond, to wherever there is a man to think. It is our task to carry and advance into all sections of our society this distinctively human life, of reason learned and faith believed. If we fail to do this, if we allow the cares of wealth or fame or specialized career, to stifle our spirit of wonder, to turn us from the hunt, to kill in us what was most human, then we shall have betrayed ourselves, our society, our race. If we really love the truth, we will believe that we have been shown a marvelous pathway, that we must brace ourselves at once to follow it, that life will not be worth living if we do not otherwise! The prize is great. The risk is glorious.

The hour is late now, and it is time for us to rise and go our separate ways. The fires around which we have sat these past four years will no more warm us. But they will not go out. Others come to take our places here, to learn as we have done, to hear the ancient wisdom of our tribe, to join its hunt. We go out into life, and leave all this behind. The camp stays ever fixed, like the river Cohonguroton, while we, like his waters, pass through to the sea.

Published in: The Georgetown College Journal, Autumn 1957 edition, Vol. 86, pp. 12-14