Back to Blog
On Hadley Arkes' New Article11/1/2021 Lincoln Bradley
In a recent article for Law & Liberty, Prof. Hadley Arkes argues that Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Judge William Pryor, wrongly identifies a surge in the citing of natural law in legal discourse as one of the “threats to the rule of law”. Arkes, a past speaker to the Boston College Republicans, points out how Judge Pryor both rightly asserts that natural law gives moral foundation to the U.S. Constitution and wrongly claims that natural justice is not tied to any sort of fixed standard. This contradiction throws out the “self-evident” aspect of the ideas of self-governance that the Founders aimed towards during the dawn of the nation. Arkes goes on to say how Judge Pryor’s comments are a part of a larger movement, even within conservative judicial thought, to deny the existence of inherent truths based in natural law. Gone are the days when Originalist interpretation meant not only connecting legal arguments to the actual words of the Constitution but also the very ideas in natural law that the Constitution is rooted in. The objective truths that long predated the Constitution, or any government document for that matter, are being ignored in favor of subjective, relativist notions of truth that change with the times. Arkes uses an example of the difference between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas to show the importance of natural law. Douglas thought that the American system of government was based on a method of legislation, not any particular idea of what that legislation should be based upon. If slavery was approved in a legally proper manner, Douglas argued, it should be freely allowed. Lincoln pointed out that the rule of the mob holds no moral weight, and that the democratic processes of the government are but “operational”, their purpose being to verify the consent of the governed. A few excerpts from the piece: “But now he [Pryor] says that there was no standard of truth behind those notions of natural law, no truth to establish what was deeply rightful about this form of governance.” “What is at issue right now in the war among the originalists is that some of us would recover the way in which that first generation of jurists showed the knack of tracing back to those anchoring truths that underlay any of their judgments.” https://lawliberty.org/judge-pryors-friendly-fire/
Back to Blog
Peter Auslander
During this year’s BC Week of Welcome, first year students experienced a wide variety of activities and opportunities to meet their future classmates and get acclimated to life on the Heights. Chief among them was the Class of 2025 Photo, Superfan 101!, and different socials. On Saturday, first year students also participated in a training course known as “Speak About It: Consent Education.” “Speak About It” is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization specializing in educating students of high schools and colleges in “empowering students to give and get consent, build healthy relationships, and make change in their communities.” “Speak About It” employees spoke to and performed for students in Alumni Stadium for about 60 minutes. Within this hour, the performers broached such topics as alcohol, friendships, adjusting to college life, and sex. Sex and consent was undoubtedly one of the most touched-upon subjects within the performance. Performers discussed, as well as performed skits of “healthy” and “unhealthy” sexual encounters. Performers educated students on how they should get consent from peers and use contraception, among other things. On their website, “Speak About It” advertises that one of their main focuses is to “center pleasure in their work.” They advocate that “consent is an important starting point for healthy, pleasurable, fun sexual encounters, which everyone deserves to have.” The purpose of my writing this article is not to illustrate my opinion on the notion of premarital sex or sex in general, but to bring to light university policy and the teachings of the Catholic Church on which Boston College was founded. It is no surprise to students and staff alike that the Catholic Church does not condone fornication. According to the Catholic Church: outside of marriage, sex is always contrary to its purpose. Similarly, in Boston College’s Student Code of Conduct, it is stated that: “All students have the responsibility to respect the values and traditions of Boston College as a Jesuit, Catholic institution, including adhering to the Church’s teachings with respect to sexual activity. Consequently, incidents of sexual intercourse outside the bounds of matrimony may be referred to the Student Conduct System.” There seems to be a disconnect between some of the virtues that “Speak About It” encourages and the policy of Boston College. Because of this, it may come as a surprise that Boston College likely paid upwards of $4,600, the cost of the “Speak About It” Flagship Show (60 Minutes, discussing the same topics that were covered on August 28th). Boston College’s direct sponsorship of programs that encourage sexual encounters among undergraduates (the overwhelming majority of which are not married) is in direct contrast with the principles on which it was founded. Works Cited: https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/bc1/offices/StudentAffairs/main/StudentGuide/Student-Code-of-Conduct.pdf https://wespeakaboutit.org/ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jSVU6UklyU3BWd-bylBNEZfKcvlP3UQK/view
Back to Blog
EMMA FOLEY
There was an unmet need among the conservative student body on Boston College’s campus, and this weekend, from Thursday, April 15, through Saturday, April 17, the Boston College chapter of the Network of Enlightened Women, partnered with the Boston College Republicans, have an event planned that will fill that gap. “I came up with [the Freedom Convocation] because of how much fun I had in the past at CPAC and the Network of Enlightened Women’s National Conference,” explained the president of NeW at BC and mastermind behind the operation, Julia Canzano (MCAS ‘21). She added, “I really missed going to those events this year. I wanted a way to bring the BC conservative community together for an in-person experience that would allow people to meet each other face-to-face and share conservative politics and policies.” Since August, meetings held by student organizations have been hindered by restrictions placed on gatherings by state and local officials in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. Now, as the COVID-19 vaccine is administered to the public and governmental restrictions are loosened, the Boston College Office for Student Involvement, too, is gradually allowing for in-person events. Upon hearing this news and brainstorming what such an event could look like, Canzano quickly assembled a Convocation Team to plan logistics and outreach for speakers and attendees. The Freedom Convocation will feature guest keynote speaker Dr. Carol M. Swain, former professor at Vanderbilt University and author, public speaker, and political commentator. Her talk is titled “The Privilege of Opportunity” and will take place Thursday, April 15, at 7:00 on Zoom. The rest of the weekend will occur in-person. Nine student speakers will present throughout Friday and Saturday, their topics ranging from British Conservatism to Euthanasia. “I’m excited to see everyone in person for the first time this year,” noted Thomas K. Sarrouf (LSEHD ‘22), current Chief of Staff for the College Republicans and organization President-elect for the 2021-2022 year. He added, “We’re going to have some real genuine community when we meet in person. The restrictions this year have made in-person meetings basically impossible until now, and [online substitutes] are poor for fostering that type of community.” “We have some really bright speakers, and I think that speaks to a diversity of thought that’s important and worthwhile,” spoke Sarrouf. “I’m excited to see it all come together and hope people have a really great time, because I have had a lot of fun putting it together with a great team.” Despite restrictions, College Republicans organization President Luis Duran (MCAS ‘21) has fostered community and grown the campus conservative movement this year. This year saw the establishment of The Free Press and invitation for several astute virtual speakers to address the group’s members. This Friday, Duran will be presenting on the Second Amendment prior to the Convocation showing of The Daily Wire’s feature-length production, Run, Hide, Fight. “The Freedom Convocation, and events of this type, are important for two big reasons,” Duran posed. “First, we get to share ideas, spend time, and build a community with fellow conservatives on campus. Second, we finally get to add our ideas to the educational marketplace that is a university. I know that there are some people who would prefer we keep our ideas to ourselves, but we finally have a message for them: You may not agree with us; that’s fine. You may not like us; that’s unfortunate. You may wish that we kept quiet and you may wish that we didn’t exist; that doesn’t matter. We’re here to stay, and we’re here to speak. We are here, and we are not going anywhere.”
Back to Blog
THOMAS K. SARROUF JR.
Professor Hadley Arkes of Amherst College is set to speak at Boston College tomorrow, March 29, at 7pm over Zoom. Arkes is the Edward J. Ney Professor of Jurisprudence Emeritus at Amherst College, where he has taught since 1966. He is also the founder and director of the James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights and the American Founding, which is an institute that stresses natural law as the foundation of the American legal and political system. Professor Arkes is widely considered to be a leading intellectual conservative voice. A student of Leo Strauss, Arkes has spent his career defending the “natural rights position” articulated by the Founding Fathers. He has written a number of books, most recently Constitutional Illusions and Anchoring Truths: The Touchstone of the Natural Law (2010). He is also the author of many articles over the course of his distinguished career. Most recently, he has engaged with Professor Adrian Vermeule about the continued relevance of originalist jurisprudence in the 21st Century. Professor Arkes’ talk is entitled “The Natural Law Challenge.” The link for the Zoom lecture can be found here.
Back to Blog
Mandatory Vaccines?3/28/2021 OPAL POLYNICE
With COVID vaccinations becoming widely available, many are touting it as an opportunity to eradicate the virus and initiate a return to normalcy. The Pope announced in January that both he, and Pope Emeritus Benedict, received the first dose of the vaccine. So far in the US, over 95 million vaccines have been administered, with a rate of about 2.17 million per day. At this rate, according to Bloomberg, it will take about 6 months for approximately 75% of the population to be vaccinated (see here for daily updates concerning vaccine statistics). These numbers, so far, are pretty impressive. However, with the rise in vaccine rates, and mounting pressures for its accessibility and distribution, some are questioning whether it will eventually be made mandatory. Before addressing the peculiarities of the covid vaccination, let us first examine the question of whether the federal or state governments have the authority to mandate vaccines. So, are either of these entities allowed to make them mandatory? States can; the federal government cannot. States have the constitutional authority to mandate vaccines. This constitutional authority originates from the 1905 US Supreme Court Case Jacobson v. Massachusetts. In Cambridge, Massachusetts in 1902, a smallpox outbreak ravaged the community, and in response Cambridge required all adults to be vaccinated or risk incurring a $5 fine. Jacobson objected to the edict on grounds that he would suffer negative health effects and questioned the scientific grounds on which its efficacy was predicated. He would eventually lose the case, and the Supreme Court would end up deciding that under a state’s constitutional police powers, they have the right to ensure the common good—which could mean mandating vaccination. Does this mean states are going to require that all adults be vaccinated? Virginia is already in the talks of doing so. According to Virginia state law, the Commissioner of Health has the authority to mandate vaccines in the event of a public health crisis and given that vaccines are already readily available. The comments were made in August 2020 during an interview with ABC News. He said he strongly opposes any bills that would allow people to opt out of receiving immunizations for religious reasons, implying that there should not be religious protection for those who question the morality of the vaccine’s origins. In December, a member of the New York State Assembly introduced a bill that would require vaccinations for all adults who are able to receive it. Again, there are no amendments made for those with religious-based reservations. The bill has yet to be voted on. Dr. Anthony Fauci in August of 2020 stated that he would not support a vaccine mandate. When questioned whether it would be appropriate to do, he responded saying, “No, definitely not. You don’t wanna mandate and try and force anyone to take a vaccine. We’ve never done that. You can mandate for certain groups of people—like health workers—but for the general population, you can’t… it would be unenforceable and inappropriate.” According to bioethics Professor Arthur Caplan at New York University, it is much more likely that private businesses will impose requirements. In comments made to USA Today, he said “It's much more likely that a private organization or company will require you to be vaccinated to get certain access to places. People worry about the president, governor, or county executive telling them what to do. I don’t think that’s going to happen." It would seem that his comments were not far from the mark. In fact, according to a study done by Glassdor, 70% of employees want mandatory vaccination in the workplace. They found that “Those aged 18-34 are less likely (58%) than those aged 35-44 (84%) to agree that employees should be required to get a COVID-19 vaccine in order to return to the office” and that “Men (74%) are more likely than women (64%) to agree that employees should be required to get a COVID-19 vaccine in order to return to the office.” This could mean that employers may see pressure from employees to implement incentives for employees to vaccinate. Ultimately, this is up to individual employers, though essential and high-contact workers are expected to face more pressure than other industries. It is still too early to make any calls, but many are expecting some sort of mandate, whether via the state, schools, or employers. While some will be complicit with a mandatory vaccine, others are concerned about its invasion of privacy and erasure of personal responsibility. As one Virginia resident put it, “This is not a Republican or Democrat issue, it’s not a pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine issue, for me it’s an issue of being able to assess each vaccine for myself and my family one at a time. He [State Health Commissioner Dr. Norman Oliver] shouldn’t actually be the one person to make a decision for all of Virginians.”
Back to Blog
LifeSite Censorship2/28/2021 OPAL POLYNICE
Conservatives have been vocal for years about the supposed “Big Tech bias” which they claim unfairly targets them. A whistleblower from Pinterest admitted that the company engages in discriminatory practices, censoring pro-life sites and other well known spokespersons such as Ben Shapiro. According to the Daily Caller, Spotify recently banned PragerU’s advertisements from its platform, claiming “Our policy team has re-reviewed the ads that you have submitted through Ad Studio and determined that the content of the ads do not comply with our editorial policies,” The censoring of conservative media is on a vicious rampage across many platforms. However, a rather surprising one was the removal of a pro-life news site from YouTube. LifeSite News, founded in 1997, is a Catholic media organization that disseminates relevant Catholic news to its over 300,000 followers - until YouTube banned them. This move to deplatform LifeSite comes at a time when Big Tech is on a blocking spree, deleting thousands of YouTube channels and videos based on updated criteria by YouTube to censor ‘disinformation’. The claim was that LifeSite published inaccurate information about the Covid-19 vaccine. LifeSite released various videos (I would link them but they've been removed) questioning the derivation of the vaccine -- expressing concern that it could incorporate the use of cell-lines from fetal tissue, thus being immoral for Catholics to receive. In June 2005, The Pontifical Academy for Life, then headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, released a statement saying that it was impermissible for Catholics to receive vaccinations that contained cell-lines from aborted fetuses. In the statement, Cardinal Ratzinger says, “there is a grave responsibility to use alternative vaccines and to make a conscientious objection with regard to those [vaccines] which have moral problems”. He further implies that it would be contrary to our foundational principles as Catholics to be pro-life and be complicit in procedures that exploit abortion, saying, “If someone rejects every form of voluntary abortion of human fetuses, would such a person not contradict himself/herself by allowing the use of these vaccines of live attenuated viruses on their children? Would it not be a matter of true (and illicit) cooperation in evil, even though this evil was carried out forty years ago?” The statement does concede, however, that if there is no alternative to an abortion tainted vaccine, and one does decide to take a vaccine originating from aborted fetuses to ensure the well-being of one’s children or a population, then this act should “be understood as being a passive material cooperation and, in its mildest and remotest sense, also active, morally justified as an extrema ratio due to the necessity to provide for the good of one's children and of the people who come in contact with the children (pregnant women)”. Though this provides some leniency, concerns that this could be an excuse to avoid developing vaccinations independent from fetal tissue and forcing Catholics and other Christians to compromise religious values could arise. Furthermore, LifeSite published videos that discussed the origination of the vaccine and whether it was compromised. The news source admitted that, so far, there seemed to be no indication that there was a moral objection to the vaccine, paving the road for Catholics to take it. They quoted the National Catholic Bioethics Center upon releasing a statement that most Covid-19 vaccinations are not tainted by cell-lines from aborted fetuses -- such as Pfizer and Moderna-- , but that some are, such as vaccines produced by AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson. See here for a color-coded chart of which vaccines include or disclude human cell-lines. LifeSite simply reporting this news was enough to get them banned. They made clear to their audience that, in the event that a vaccine is morally compromised, they have an obligation to refrain from taking it. They released a video with Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas, in which he says he would “never take the unethical COVID vaccine.” And according to a Catholic World Report article, in January, “YouTube flagged LifeSite News for a video with the headline ‘The unborn babies used for vaccine development were alive at tissue extraction.’” This prompted backlash from YouTube, who saw this as potentially dangerous ‘misinformation’. All of this raises concerns for viewers who rely on sources like LifeSite News to receive information. The organization is the primary news source for millions of Catholics worldwide, providing a Catholic perspective on many secular and religious issues alike. Their reports include ongoing persecution of Christians in various locations around the globe, Vatican news and covering hierarchical scandals, charity events, and Catholic social issues. By blocking this stream of information, YouTube is directly disenfranchising scores of Catholics. Many other conservative platforms, such as BlazeTV and the Daily Wire, are already urging their audiences to subscribe on their personal websites out of fear that YouTube may someday remove them entirely.
Back to Blog
THOMAS K. SARROUF JR.
Last night, the UGBC Student Assembly voted to acquit UGBC President Christian J. Guma after his impeachment trial. Guma was impeached for allegedly posting to the UGBC Instagram without confirming the post with the Community Relations Committee, which is a violation of the UGBC 2021 Constitution. The prosecution, led by AHANA+ Leadership Council representative Mitzy Monterosso-Bautista, MCAS 2022, failed to prove that Guma violated the Constitution by making the post. Guma’s counsel, Julia Canzano, MCAS 2021, successfully defended against the impeachment charge, arguing that the Constitution gave the president the power to act in the absence of action by the SA. The trial began at 8pm with SA Parliamentarian Dennis Wieboldt, MCAS 2022, calling a quorum and reading the impeachment charge. The prosecution and defense then made opening statements. Monterroso-Bautista’s opening remarks stressed that Guma was informed by Wieboldt beforehand that his statement was unconstitutional. She then shifted gears and talked about the “unrepresentative” nature of the “tone deaf” statement by Guma. In her opening remark for the defense, Canzano reminded the jury of SA representatives that the impeachment charge was narrowly tailored to the constitutionality of Guma’s post, not the content therein. The prosecution then called their witnesses: Hollie Watts, MCAS 2021, Sasha Severino, MCAS 2021, and Chinenye Ugocha, MCAS 2021. Watts described her work on the official SA statement as a member of the Community Relations Committee, and testified that Guma’s statement “undermined the work” of the Committee. Severino and Ugocha, both representatives of the ALC, were asked about whether they thought Guma’s post was “representative of AHANA+ voices'' and about Guma’s alleged history of making a “racially insensitive” atmosphere in UGBC. Canzano objected to this line of questioning on the grounds that it was irrelevant, holding to the principle of her opening remark that the trial should only focus on the constitutionality of the post itself. Canzano then called Jessica Paszko, MCAS 2022, and Christian himself to testify. Paszko, the Director of Communications, testified to the characteristics that constitute an official statement of UGBC, and how Guma’s post lacked those characteristics. She also testified that Guma and Vice President Kevork Atinizian, CSOM 2022, had made individual posts to the UGBC Instagram that were not representative of the entire student body. According to Paszko’s testimony, only official statements were required to be passed through the Community Relations Committee, pursuant to the legislative process stipulated in the UGBC Constitution and standing rules. Guma then took the stand and stated that his intention with the post was to respond to frustration being voiced by the student body, and alert them that UGBC had plans to address the issue underway. When cross-examined by Monterroso-Bautista, Christian explained that he mistakenly captioned the post “Our statement regarding the acts of vandalism that occurred in Xavier Hall,” and quickly directed Paszko to remove the post and issue a correction, “to clarify” that the statement was only coming from him and not the Student Assembly as a whole. After the defense rested, both sides gave their closing arguments. Monterroso-Bautista was brief, and reaffirmed her argument that Christian’s statement harmed trust between UGBC and the student body, and particularly with people of color on campus. Canzano reminded the jury that Guma had the power to act in the absence of legislation by the SA, and that his post, being an individual statement, was not subject to the provisions of the Constitution that gave “explicit jurisdiction” to the Community Relations Committee regarding statements to the UGBC social media pages. Wieboldt then adjourned the trial, and the SA went into private deliberations. At 11:26pm, Wieboldt announced the vote tally that acquitted Guma. 15 members voted that he was responsible for violating the Constitution, but that fell three votes short of the 18-vote supermajority requirement to convict and remove Guma. 11 representatives voted that he was not responsible. How each representative voted is as-of-now unclear; The Free Press will report on that as information becomes available. When asked for comment, Guma said, “It’s great to have this behind us. I am thankful that we do not have to deal with this again, and we can continue putting our time, and effort, towards helping the student body of Boston College.” When asked what his next steps were for his administration, he quipped: We’re going to continue using our funds in the direct interest of students. I think we’ll have a lot of very fun giveaways throughout the rest of the year, and we are working very closely with administrators on finding ways for students to safely gather—particularly upperclassmen—so long as COVID stays under control, maybe we will have some very good opportunities as we get to the end of the semester. Guma’s administration has been quite busy this year working with the University administration to accomplish their campaign promises. A full list of President Guma’s accomplishments can be found here.
Back to Blog
College Republicans' Letter of Unity1/28/2021 CROSS CONRAD
The e-board of College Republicans released a Letter of Unity this morning to start off the new semester. The letter details how College Republicans recognizes the country is divided and calls on the members of the Boston College community to take the first step in fighting this division. “We recognize the country is divided, but this division is not new. Some of the burden falls on the Boston College community because we ourselves are divided. This makes it harder to have civil discussions on campus, which has a negative effect on us as students and we wanted to do something about it.” Said Luis Duran, president of College Republicans. Last year the College Republicans was planning a “civic engagement” week that would have encouraged civil dialogue and promoted unity on Boston College’s campus. Unfortunately, those plans fell through because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Duran says, “This letter is in the same spirit of the civic engagement week. We want unity in which everyone is willing to listen to one another and agree to disagree.” While this letter is being released by College Republicans, Duran made it clear that “the goal was not a political message—not pushing for any policy or partisan ideals. All we are really doing is saying that we need to come together as a country otherwise the fabric of the union can disintegrate.” College Republicans hopes “to get more organizations to sign onto it,” but Duran doesn’t want it to stop there. He recognizes “this is not enough because organizations don’t represent the entirety of the student body.” College Republicans plans to be tabling outside of O’Neill for about ten weeks. In which they will be sharing the Letter of Unity in hopes of getting students to sign on and start sharing it themselves. The letter is being released at the start of the semester because College Republicans wants this “push for unity to become a thread throughout the semester.”
Back to Blog
What is The Free Press?1/28/2021 THE FREE PRESS EDITORIAL STAFF
The Free Press is the voice of conservative students at Boston College. Our fine institution prides itself on possessing and advocating for the primordial value of education: a love of Truth. For decades, the University instilled this love in its students and created men and women for others. Nonetheless, due to some societal shifts, a lack of care, or some other factor, the contemporary intellectual environment of Boston College’s campus stands at odds with the necessary pursuit of Truth. This unfortunate turn of events has affected the University and the student body in a number of ways. One of these is the deliberate silencing and intimidation of conservative students and ideas. A conservative student in a freshman English course is typically bombarded with innumerable non sequitur arguments that intimidate her into silence. A conservative freshman is forced into silence by the history teacher who ignores the greatness and good deeds of America, and teaches him to be ashamed of every aspect of America’s past and Western culture. A conservative student stays silent for four years so that he can keep friends. A conservative student finds that she has no voice at Boston College. Today The Free Press is born as the voice of conservative students at Boston College. The University states that “As a Jesuit, Catholic University, Boston College is rooted in a world view that calls us to learn, to search for truth, and to live in service to others.” For conservative students, this has come to mean something akin to indoctrination. This is a wrong that affects the entire Boston College community. The absence of a conservative voice is detrimental to the quality of the education found in our classrooms. Without a differing opinion, education becomes stale and loses the intensity that is so attractive to a student body. This has happened at Boston College, and The Free Press hopes to help correct this wrong. The Free Press is not inspired by spite for Boston College, but by love for it. As proud Eagles who believe that the institution is virtuous, The Free Press aims to aid the University in returning to a genuine pursuit of Truth. To do this, our newspaper will function as a platform for conservative students to voice their opinions and engage in the free exchange of ideas that is necessary in a university. This is not to say that conservative students hold absolute Truth, but to completely ignore us is to say that those that ignore us do hold absolute Truth, which is equally dangerous. The two most fatal assumptions for education are that there is no Truth, and that one knows the absolute Truth. Both of these assumptions trump the pursuit of Truth, because one cannot pursue what does not exist or what one owns in its entirety. Yet by ignoring conservative opinions, the Boston College community is making the arrogant assumption that they either know the absolute Truth or that there is none, and in this way, they are acting against their own interest and the stated purpose of the university. To honestly pursue Truth is not to accept all the ideas we are given, but to consider them with an open mind and wrestle with them until a reasonable and logical conclusion is reached. However, this cannot be done in the absence of competing opinions. Our newspaper does not intend to provide a platform for radical or dangerous ideas, but rather to give an equal footing for conservative students to voice their opinions. We aim to defend the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. We aim to defend the rights of our students to speak their minds and we hope that the entire Boston College community will do the same. At this point, you the reader may be rejoicing that we exist, or you may be very upset. If you are rejoicing, we are grateful. If you are upset, then our point is proven: we do not have a voice on campus and any conservative that attempts to speak is met with disgust. If you are in fact upset, we invite you to read the contents of our newspaper with an open mind and to hear what we have to say. If and when you disagree, we welcome your “letters to the editor” so that we may engage in a respectful conversation about any given topic. Nevertheless, a third alternative exists: you may believe that there is no need for a newspaper of this type. If this is the case, then we are necessarily mistaken about the rejection and condemnation of conservative ideas on campus. We pray you are correct, but our experiences tell us otherwise. Regardless, time will tell. If The Free Press gains notoriety for providing conservative students with a voice, then our cause will be vindicated. However, if our presence on campus goes unnoticed and the platform erodes with time, then all the better. This would mean that conservative voices and opinions are heard and respected in the free marketplace of ideas that is Boston College. The Free Press is the voice of conservative students at Boston College. We hope you read our newspaper, and we look forward to a campus environment that welcomes conservative ideas on an equal footing. |