What a Real Christian College Will Stand Up and Say

Fiasco: Marquette Discussion of When Life Begins Has No Abortion Opponent

At any university, a discussion on “When Does Human Life Begin” would be an excellent idea. And at any university, at least somebody on the panel should espouse the view that life begins at conception.  This should be utterly obvious at a Catholic university.

But what happens when a pro-abortion feminist office at a “Catholic” university organizes the discussion? You can guess.

The discussion was sponsored by Marquette for Life, Empowerment (a feminist student organization), the Campus Ministry, and the Marquette University Center for Gender and Sexualities Studies. That latter one is just what it sounds like.

The discussants were Theology professor Conor Kelly and Monique Liston, who is an adjunct instructor of Gender and Sexualities Studies. One might expect a Marquette Theology professor to defend the Catholic position. But he did not. According to the Marquette Wire:

Because the Catholic Church is unable to pinpoint the exact moment personhood begins, Kelly said the church has developed an assumption that human life begins at the moment of conception. He said this is to protect all potential human life.

“In theology, there’s an ongoing conversation about how to identify exactly when personhood begins as a better way of describing not just life in the biological sense, but life in the moral sense,” Kelly said. “The Catholic Church says it doesn’t know when life begins in the sense of personhood.”

Liston, of course, played the race card, and talked about women making “choices.”

Liston said individuals should consider when a soul into enters the body and when a soul leaves the body at the time of death.

She said individuals should recognize the community contexts that contribute to individuals’ views on this topic. Members of the Marquette community are privileged to be given the opportunity to attend a panel like this, she said.

“We’re not on 30th and Wisconsin having this conversation,” Liston said. “We’re on 13th and Wisconsin having this conversation.”

Kelly added that historical implications of race and class continue to impact today’s populations.

“When we kind of see that reality, it very much complicates this picture and puts a lot of the onus, I would say, on our society to rethink what we’re doing and how we can be supportive, even if we want to affirm the autonomy of people to make choices,” Kelly said.

How the “historical implications of race and class” affect when life begins is something she did not explain. Does life begin at some different point for blacks and the poor? Or is blathering about race and class simply a way that the politically correct avoid discussing issues they don’t want to discuss?

As we shall see, Marquette for Life had to distance themselves from the whole affair.

Conor Kelly’s Views

We wondered if Kelly was actually as favorable toward abortion as he seemed, so we wrote him and asked him the following:

It appears you were supposed to “represent” Marquette for Life, and they weren’t happy with your “representation.” I understand that faculty aren’t lobbyists and neither you nor I would agree to “represent” a view other than one we actually hold.

But just a couple of simple questions: do you believe that “elective abortion” (leaving aside rape, incest, etc.) should be legal or illegal?

Do you in fact believe that life begins at conception, or at some other point?

I ask two simple questions because I don’t want to impose by expecting a long explanation of your views. If you’ve written on this, feel free to point me to what you have written.

On the record, unless you tell me otherwise.

Kelly did not respond to our e-mail, nor to a follow up phone call. The reader can infer what this means.

Some light on how Kelly actually feels is found in an article he wrote titled “The Role of the Moral Theologian in the Church: A Proposal in Light of Amoris Laetitia.” From the abstract:

Pope Francis’s apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia recast pastoral decisions in terms of conscience and discernment and asked moral theology to do the same. Such a request invites reforms for moral theology, requiring a shift from the traditional role of the moral theologian as an external judge to a more personalist role as a counselor for conscience. This change entails prioritizing the process of discernment ahead of the definition of rules, specifying the place of the ideal in Catholic morality, and attending to the ethics of ordinary life.

The word “discernment” has a synonym. That synonym is “rationalization.”

Once you decide to junk the rules and “discern” what should be done, it’s almost trivially easy to “discern” that you can have an abortion, or a sex change operation, or a homosexual relationship. “Discernment” is for those people who want to cast off all those nettlesome Catholic rules, and do what they want.

Kelly, of course, can believe what he wants. Dan Maguire has been around Marquette for decades supporting abortion, gay marriage, and all the rest. But nobody would pick Maguire to present a pro-life view on abortion.

Try to imagine, for a moment, how an environmentalist group would feel if they cosponsored a debate on global warming and all the participants hemmed and hawed and expressed all kinds of doubt, with nobody presenting a robust case that the earth faces a possible “climate change” catastrophe.

Marquette For Life Responds

Marquette for Life responded by, in effect, distancing the group from the entire affair. In a statement they noted that the event “seemed to cause more confusion than it did clarity.” They made it clear that “the faculty assigned to represent us” in fact did not. They insisted that “human life begins at conception.”

What Was Marquette for Life Thinking?

Good for Marquette for Life. But we have to ask, what were they thinking allowing people who flatly reject Catholic moral views to organize an event they co-sponsored?

Let’s begin with Empowerment. These are the students who vandalized an anti-abortion protest in the fall of 2016. Not only did they vandalize it, they were proud of the act, and demanded that Marquette refuse to allow such a display in the future. Marquette gave them a minor slap on the wrist for their vandalism.

They issued a bitter, intolerant screed, objecting to conservative Ben Shapiro speaking on campus.

The “Gender” Center

The Center for Gender and Sexualities Studies is another hotbed of political correctness. The first clue is obvious on their list of staff: each one lists her “preferred pronouns.”

The Director, one Angelique Harris, was a member of a study group of leftist feminists who supported cop-killer Assata Shakir, and planned to meet to discuss the deep thoughts of communist Angela Davis, and an essay on “The Whiteness of Police.”

Another staffer, one Chrissy Nelson, tried to undermine the talk of Ben Shapiro by advising people who disliked Shapiro to get a ticket, and not show up, depriving people who wanted to see him of an opportunity. This at the suggestion of an (unidentified) “director of diversity.”

How did Angelique Harris punish her when her plan was revealed? She was “repremanded” and remained on the staff.

And just who led the vandalizing of the anti-abortion display in the fall of 2016? Yet another Center staffer, Brianna Hawkins.

The Center is, quite simply, a center of politically correct intolerance.

A Lesson

Hopefully, Marquette for Life has learned a lesson. Don’t team up with people who despise all that you stand for, and probably hate you.

But at a genuinely Catholic university, an anti-abortion student group should not have to learn that lesson. Yes, there might be people who would disagree with them, and there might be debate and discussion. But in a genuinely Catholic university, they would have allies among the campus bureaucrats who would help see that their view was, at least, heard.

Leftist Professor Tells His Students to Wipe Out Anti-Abortion Messages

This kind of intolerant fascism reminds one of a similar incident at Marquette, where members of the feminist group Empowerment defaced an anti-abortion display, and then blatantly bragged about it on Facebook.

Will this professor (William Gregory Thatcher) be punished for his attack on speech he does not approve? We doubt the institution will do it. But perhaps the lawsuit filed against him will have some effect.

While the media are constantly talking about how intolerant “snowflake” students have infringed on speech, let’s be clear on the fundamental problem: increasingly college faculty are intolerant bigots.

Ben Shapiro on Trangenderism and Abortion

Vandalizing of Anti-Abortion Display at Marquette in the News

It hasn’t been quite the fiasco the Assata Shakur mural was, but the vandalizing of an anti-abortion display (which has been approved by the university through normal channels) by leftist students (including members of the feminist campus group Empowerment) has gotten some attention.

• The Daily Caller. Notes that the College Democrats approved the defacing of the display.
• The Daily Caller. Notes that Empowerment, a recognized student group at Marquette, has applauded the vandalism, and said there is no need to tolerate anti-abortion opinions.
• Campus Reform. Also notes that the College Democrats approved the vandalism.
• Hypeline. Recounts basic facts of the case, and notes numerous other cases of vandalism and harassment directed at pro-life students at various universities.
• LifeNews.com. Also lists cases of vandalism by intolerant feminists at various campuses, and names one student who confessed on Facebook that she participated in the vandalism at Marquette.

More relevant, probably, because they have good penetration of the local market, are two reports on local TV news.

• WTMJ, Channel 4. Basic facts, and good interview with the vice president of Marquette for Life.
• WITI Channel 6. Says that “A group has taken responsibility for the defacement.” Not exactly true, but not exactly wrong either.

The issue now becomes: what will Marquette do in response? Will it discipline those responsible? Marquette’s incessant pandering to the campus left suggests the university will do nothing. But perhaps this case is so egregious that even the über-politically correct administration will have to come down on the side of free expression.

Petition in Support of Vandalized Anti-Abortion Display

From Catholics for Mission @ Marquette: a petition expressing support for the anti-abortion display that was vandalized by campus leftists week before last.

Astonishingly, two students who participated in the vandalism have admitted their actions on Facebook. It’s clear that the vandalizing was done by members of the Feminist group Empowerment, which issued a statement condoning the defacement. And the College Democrats (a group which traditionally has been more moderate than the hard leftists) has endorsed the vandalism.

All of which it is important for people to speak up and condemn the egregious attack on free expression.

Militant Students Defend Vandalism of Pro-Life Display at Marquette

The vandalism of a pro-life display at Marquette, lamented by the Young Americans for Freedom on their Facebook page, has attracted support from several people, who have defended the vandalism, and attacked the Young Americans for Freedom in vile terms in comments following the post.

This is a window into the virulent bigotry of the politically correct left on campus.

Members of Feminist Group “Empowerment” Vandalized Anti-Abortion Display

A Marquette female student has told a reporter that she “tagged along” with members of the feminist group “Empowerment” as they vandalized the anti-abortion display of Marquette For Life last week.

There is no indication that it was any sort of official group activity.

But it does raise the question as to whether the group, which strongly advocates for abortion, should be a recognized student group.

Empowerment, in the wake of the vandalism, issued an official statement essentially condoning the vandalism, and making it clear that they had tried, through official university channels, to shut down the display. Apparently, in frustration, they resorted to direct action.

Marquette Student Activist on the Intolerant Left, Campus Free Speech

Again, it’s Allison Kazalski, President of the Marquette Chapter of the Young Americans for Freedom, discussing intolerance in academia, and especially the vandalizing of an anti-abortion display on campus. This from the Vicki McKenna show on WIBA, Madison.

Vandalized Anti-Abortion Display at Marquette: Student Activist Speaks

On the Mitch Henck show out of Madison: Allison Kazalski, President of the Marquette Chapter of the Young Americans for Freedom, discussing the recent vandalism of an anti-abortion display on campus.

“Empowerment:” Intolerant Marquette Feminists Want to Ban Anti-Abortion Speech

As a Political Science student and the Marquette College Democrats went to Facebook to endorse the vandalizing of an anti-abortion display at the university, the feminist group Empowerment issued a statement on the incident.

At first, it seemed to reject the vandalism. It stated:

Firstly, Empowerment does not condone the defacement of property and acknowledges the need for respectful discussion wherever such polarizing opinions are expressed.

OK, fair enough. But then it goes on:

Secondly, Empowerment stands in support of women’s right to choose and access to safe and legal abortion free from violence and intimidation. . . . Empowerment works to create and uplift a community of students that support one another in their personal and academic growth. At the core of this community is a deep respect and appreciation for our differing beliefs, backgrounds, and cultures. Empowerment is devoted to listening and amplifying narratives, especially those which have been strategically marginalized by oppressive institutions. We work to understand what this system has done (and continues to do) to the structures we inhabit, how we can make a difference, and ultimately, how we can heal together.

The hypocrisy here is stunning. As we will see, a “narrative” these women do not respect is opposition to abortion. As for “those which have been strategically marginalized by oppressive institutions,” it has been those who oppose abortion that have been marginalized by powerful institutions such as government, the mass media, the educational system, and organizations like Empowerment.

It goes on:

The “Memorial of the Unborn” is a display which directly undermines this healing by further stigmatizing abortion. Rather than fostering discussion and understanding, the display is damaging to the mental health of students and a disturbing act of public shaming.

So “healing” means coming to accept that abortion is OK. In other words, for Empowerment, “healing” means that people who disagree with them need to shut up.

The rhetoric about “shaming” is equally hypocritical. The leftists will happily shame people for any expression they think is racist, shame males for being part of a “rape culture” (regardless of whether a particular male would even think of raping any woman) and shame whites for their “white privilege.”

But don’t dare shame women who might have an abortion.

And of course, facing different opinions about abortion damages women’s “mental health!” Obviously, college needs to protect students from different opinions, in order to protect their mental health.

But it then gets downright bizarre:

In the past, students at Marquette have complained to university administration regarding the harmful nature of the display, which, until this year, employed crosses to emulate a “fetus graveyard.” The shift to pink and blue-gendered flags offers no recompense to those interested in human rights and, rather, demonstrates the harmful and misguided conflation of sex and gender and promotion of the gender binary.

That’s right. Marquette For Life is not on board with the transgender agenda! But then, neither is the Catholic Church. Heaven help us if students at a Catholic university should agree with the Church on gender theory.

Complaining About Speech

But note the “complained to the university” statement. Students at Marquette have complained that a student group is allowed to promote a political position with which they disagree.

But it goes further:

This year, several students submitted official complaints through university avenues. Student activists also demonstrated briefly in front of the display on Thursday, mounting their own signs on top of Marquette for Life’s. To these activists and all those dissenters of policies and institutional stances that privilege oppressive narratives over your very existence, Empowerment says:

Your pain and anger is valid. We are here for you. We support you.

Do not listen when people tell you to be more tolerant of other’s intolerance.

Thus they are condoning the vandalism, by supporting the covering over of the anti-abortion message of Marquette for Life. It seems “defacement of property” is something they really don’t mind.

The notion that one should be “intolerant of intolerance” is a staple on the politically correct left. Of course, the entire formulation is oxymoronic, since the people who say it are themselves admittedly intolerant, and thus have no right to expect tolerance from others.

Just as bad is their notion that they are the only ones authorized to decide who is “intolerant,” and shut up those they believe to be so.

Likewise, the notion that one’s “existence” is threatened if somebody disapproves of your opinions or actions is also part of the repertoire of politically correct leftists. Do they actually think they will disappear in a cloud of smoke if they hear opinions they disagree with?

Gross Intolerance

Submitting “official complains through university avenues” means, quite simply, they were asking Marquette to shut up the pro-life demonstration. Empowerment, in fact, is every bit as intolerant as the students who vandalized the display (or perhaps, some of their members were the people who vandalized the display).

A substantial number of students (and faculty) at this “Catholic university” are not only hostile to the Catholic position on abortion, they are actively trying to shut up its expression.

Vandalized Pro-Life Display: Student Group Speaks Out

Reacting to the defacing of an anti-abortion display on campus, a campus student group (Young Americans for Freedom) has issued this statement:

---

Self-proclaimed Feminist Students Deface Pro-Life Memorial at Marquette

College Democrats of Marquette condone act, Conservative students respond

Milwaukee, WI - Self-proclaimed feminist students sabotaged a display on Marquette University’s campus memorializing the millions of babies killed through abortion. The culprits placed several signs covering the information about the memorial. The signs stated things such as: “My Body, My Freedom”, “Stop the hypocrisy, care for women’s reproductive rights”, “68,000 women die from unsafe abortions every year”, and other variations of pro-choice arguments. Coat hangers were also scattered around the memorial.

The Young Americans for Freedom chapter at Marquette responded with the following statement: Young Americans for Freedom at Marquette University is extremely saddened that the Students for Life memorial was defaced by certain students intolerant of an opinion that they do not agree with. It is extremely hypocritical to claim that you are exercising your free speech rights through defacement while simultaneously trying to shut down the free speech of a student organization.

The act was so egregious, Vice President of Student Affairs, Dr. Xavier Cole, sent an email to the Marquette community condemning the defacement. He wrote, “Let me be extremely clear. Defacement is not dialogue.” He then goes on to say that Marquette values all opinions on specific matters, but that there needs to be dialogue and productive discussion on such differences.

For its part, the Catholic university refused to defend the pro-life students and the dignity of the unborn. As Dr. Cole wrote, Marquette’s mission requires the respect and dignity of all individuals. The Young Americans for Freedom – Marquette call on President Michael Lovell and the University to stand up to both the vandalism and the unborn. With this act, liberals made clear: conservatives and the unborn are not safe in the space of a university.

While many students are upset over the defacement of the memorial and infringement of Marquette for Life’s freedom of speech, a student organization took to social media to praise the vandalism committed by the students. Marquette University College Democrats tweeted and posted on their Facebook page that they were proud of the feminists. “We love and support you!” they wrote.

# # #
About the pro-life memorial:

Every year, Marquette for Life celebrates “pro-life week” by creating a memorial for the millions of the unborn killed in America each year. Flags are planted in the ground to represent the lives lost through abortion every year (1 flag = 1,000 babies aborted). The memorial was approved by the school. On Thursday, students defaced the memorial by vandalizing the sign which explains what the flags represent.

Contact:

Young Americans for Freedom at Marquette University
Youngamericans4freedom@gmail.com

Anti-Abortion Display Defaced at Marquette

It’s the sort of thing we have seen on a lot of campuses, and now it has come to Marquette. An anti-abortion display, approved by Marquette Student Affairs officials, has been defaced. From Facebook:



The Marquette Wire (official student online paper) covered the story here.

Notice a blatant example of journalistic bias: a defacing of a display is described as a “counter demonstration.”

Marquette issued a statement condemning the defacing of the display. It says (in part):

Let me be extremely clear. Defacement is not dialogue.

Respectful discussion and even dissent is best done face to face. Our issue does not lie in the expression of varying viewpoints, but rather in the way that this was handled. Our mission is grounded in respecting the dignity of all individuals and being inclusive of multiple perspectives. Inclusivity by its very nature begins with respect.

The Marquette For Life group’s display was submitted and approved in advance, as is standard procedure for any display that appears on university property. We are working with our students to make sure their promotions on campus continue.

Brazen Intolerance

What is stunning about this is not merely that it was done (which is bad enough), but that campus leftists are bragging about having done it, and voicing their approval on Facebook.

One student (in Political Science) posted an apparent confession, calling it “our response” to the display, and lauding her “feminist peers.” At the moment, her post has 88 “likes.”

Worse, the College Democrats approved of the vandalism, saying “Keep fighting the good fight, Marquette feminists.”

But the issue is: will Marquette discipline the students who did this?

Given the craven way that Marquette has reacted to the Social Justice Warriors in the past, we have our doubts. The people who did this have probably calculated, correctly, that they will receive a slap on the wrist, at most. But this is a direct attack on free expression on campus.

Social Conservatives Call Out Trump

From Wisconsin Family Action (and multiple other organizations) a challenge to Donald Trump on his socially liberal record:

Mr. Trump:

We, the undersigned, represent millions of pro-family Americans who are dedicated to a nation where God is honored, religious freedom flourishes, families thrive and life is cherished. As a national alliance with nearly 40 state-based organizations, we have invited you to participate in our Presidential Teleconference Series to share your views on the issues important to values voters. We have interviewed most of the leading candidates, but after several attempts, we have not yet been able to schedule such a call with you. Therefore, we direct the following questions to you on policy issues important to our constituents:

1. After years of describing yourself as “pro-choice in every respect”—even supporting partial-birth abortion—you now say that you are pro-life. Your explanation for this change of position – that a baby who was nearly aborted ended up being a “superstar” – is confusing, particularly since you acknowledged that if the child had been “a loser,” your pro-abortion position probably wouldn’thave changed. Please explain this utilitarian view of the sanctity of human life. Do you consider life only worth protecting if it meets certain criteria, and, if so, what are those criteria?
2. How do you square your new position on life with your statements in 2015 supporting continued taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion seller?
3. The next president is expected to nominate two to four U.S. Supreme Court justices, beginning immediately with the vacancy caused by the passing of Justice Scalia. These nominations will likely decide critical issues such as abortion. You’ve recommended your sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, for the High Court. Yet, as a federal judge, she overturned the New Jersey Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, writing that it “burdened a woman's constitutional right to obtain an abortion.” How can we trust you to nominate judges who will respect the constitutional limits on judicial power and uphold the sanctity of human life?
4. You claim to support religious freedom, yet a leading gay-activist organization calls you “one of the best, if not the best, pro-gay Republican candidates to ever run for the presidency” – particularly because of your “standout position” when it comes to legislation that forces Christian business owners – and others of faith – to either betray their conscience or lose their business. How do you reconcile these contradictory positions?
5. You have built your campaign on lifting the economic outlook of lower-income Americans, yet you built your fortune in part on gambling, which preys on those very people. How will you make America great when you’ve run businesses associated with increased crime, bankruptcies, brokenmarriages and suicides?
6. The first casino in the nation to add a strip club was Trump Taj Mahal Casino in Atlantic City, which boasts of “36,000 square feet of adult entertainment.” What would you say to young girls and women who are concerned about a president who is directly connected with the exploitation of women?
7. As someone who claims to be a fiscal conservative, how do you justify your statements in support of a huge tax increase and government bailouts. Regarding the bank bailouts, you even stated: “I do agree with what they're doing with the banks. Whether they fund them or nationalize them, it doesn't matter, but you have to keep the banks going.” Perhaps most concerning of all is your continued admiration for single-payer, government-run healthcare systems. Please explain how this is consistent with the party of limited government?
8. One of your favorite campaign themes is that you are going to “run America” if elected. Considering our system of checks and balances, and especially in light of the last seven years of government by fiat, how will you demonstrate your respect for the U.S. Constitution and the limited power the Founding Fathers intended for the federal government in general, and the executive branch in particular?

Mr. Trump, we look forward to your response to these, and many other questions, affecting the lives of American families nationwide.

Liberals may look at this list and say “good for Trump.” But, of course, his record does not suggest that he is so much a liberal as an opportunist with no abiding convictions — except for the promotion of Donald Trump.

More Feminist Fascism in Academia: Ban Debate on Abortion

From the (liberal) Daily Beast: a story about how feminists at Oxford University got a debate on abortion shut down claiming that the two debaters (men) had no right to debate the issue.

Two male journalists, one conservative and one contrarian, were to debate abortion at Oxford University earlier this week. The event was sponsored by a student pro-life group and had all the ingredients to provoke an impassioned campus protest: two men, both right-leaning, debating an issue not often debated in England. And what do they know about terminating a pregnancy anyway?

It’s a fair question, one that could have been put to either journalist in a spirited debate (the very thing we expect to happen within the walls of a university). Or better yet, instead of wasting an evening listening to two men do battle over who controls a woman’s uterus, the aggrieved, pro-choice student could have simply skipped the event altogether.

But for those who were offended that someone with a penis might discuss abortion at all, opting to skip the event wasn’t enough. After the student union Women’s Campaign (WomCam) urged the Oxford Students of Life to cancel the event and demanded an apology for attempting to stage the debate, the university called it off entirely, a move critics slammed as a grave restriction of free speech.

After the event was canceled, in a spasm of alarming anti-intellectualism and illiberalism, Niamh McIntyre, a female student at Oxford, wrote in The Independent, “The idea that in a free society absolutely everything should be open to debate has a detrimental effect on marginalized groups.”

She insisted that she “did not stifle free speech” in calling for the event’s cancellation. (Only school administrators have the power to enact censorship, after all.) “As a student, I asserted that [the debate] would make me feel threatened in my own university; as a woman, I objected to men telling me what I should be allowed to do with my own body.”

Of course, a segregationist apartment owner who does not want to rent to blacks could ask “who are you folks to tell me what I can do with my property?” And a gun owner could ask “who are you liberals to tell me that I can’t own a gun?”

It’s safe to say that, in the United Kingdom especially (where only seven percent want a total ban on abortion), most women object to men telling them how the law should govern their bodies, particularly when it comes to reproductive rights. But that doesn’t mean men, whether or not their ideas are “offensive” or ill-informed, should be denied the right to argue their case.

According to McIntyre, “Debating abortion as if it’s a topic to be mulled over and hypothesized on ignores the fact that this is not an abstract, academic issue.” But her real argument is that only those directly affected by abortion (women) can participate in an ethical debate on the subject. (While we’re at it, are there topics that only men can debate?) And McIntyre’s argument could be made by both sides—or anyone so sure of their position that they no longer believe it a subject to be “mulled over or hypothesized on.”

The Oxford abortion controversy is the latest example of an increasingly common instinct among certain feminists to argue that certain subjects and certain arguments are either off limits or simply not up for debate.

Take feminist writer Jessica Valenti. Responding to a Sunday New York Times column arguing that new affirmative consent laws are too broad and difficult to enforce, Valenti denounced its author, Yale Law School professor Jed Rubenfeld, as a “rape apologist.”

The core of Rubenfeld’s piece—that universities should not be responsible for adjudicating rape charges and that “yes mean yes” policies are deficient—has been cogently argued by legal experts and social scientists, and in turn provoked many cogent counter-arguments.

Sure, Rubenfeld makes some controversial points, like his claim that the “redefinition of consent… encourages people to think of themselves as sexual assault victims when there was no assault.” But controversial or not, nowhere in his piece does he “apologize” for rapists or excuse the crime of sexual assault. To accuse him of doing so is certainly an effective way to end a conversation. After all, what reasonable person would engage in argument with someone who is apologizing for rapists?

Like McIntyre, Valenti argues that “the worst offense is Rubenfeld’s apparent belief that there is a ‘debate’ to be had as if there are two equal sides, both with reasonable and legitimate points.” But worse is Valenti’s suggestion that her views—and those who agree with her—are the only reasonable and legitimate ones.

Predictably, Rubenfeld’s op-ed provoked backlash at Yale too. Some 75 students signed a lengthy letter condemning his “overly narrow view of the purpose of processes that allow survivors to report sexual misconduct and seek support on college campuses.”

The letter gave the impression that Rubenfeld had no support at Yale, but some students have quietly taken his side. “There actually are a large number of students who agree with him but are not at all comfortable coming forward in his defense,” a female law student at Yale who wished to remain anonymous told the Daily Beast. “I think that speaks to a lack of intellectual diversity in the conversation.”

This is a terribly revealing statement. Feminists have managed to exploit the “spiral of silence” to cow dissenting views. Of course, when dissenting views are voiced, it is necessary to move quickly to attack and vilify those who voice them, else the process breaks down, and people begin to feel free to dissent. This, in fact, is what we experienced when we called out a Philosophy instructor who said that gay marriage could not be discussed in her class since any gay students would be offended by any opposition to the policy.

“There is a baseline agreement when it comes to campus rape: the current system is failing these students,” she added. “People who don’t agree on a particular policy to address the campus rape crisis are not rape apologists.”

But lately many feminists seem more focused on setting “acceptable” conditions and standards of debate than on taking political action to combat sexism and sexual assault.

Nobody who has spent any time in academia will find this unusual.  The campus left simply does not accept that people who disagree with them have a right to speak.

This should sound familiar at Marquette. Not only did the aforementioned instructor in the Philosophy Department explain that gay marriage could not be discussed in class, another Philosophy graduate student asserted that opposition to gay marriage would constitute “violence” against gays.

The claim that somehow men are not allowed to debate abortion is essentially dishonest.  Feminists would never admit that women should be excluded from any policy debate.  What the feminists who shut down the Oxford debate objected to was merely the expression of ideas they disliked.

When women with whom the feminists disagree speak up, they are routinely demeaned and derided.

The simple fact is that feminism is not a women’s movement at all.  It’s a leftist movement exploiting the (sometimes real, sometimes imagined) victimization of women to achieve leftist goals.  The phrase “women’s movement” is in fact simply a lie.  The feminist banshees are useful as shock troops for the left, but they represent leftists, not women.

Pro-Abortion in Texas: Images of the Left

From The Blaze, a series of photos of pro-abortion activists, demonstrating against Taxas’ attempt to pass new restrictive anti-abortion legislation.

The most offensive images, of course, are those of children holding sexually explicit signs.

The Wonderful World of Abortion

Academic Gadfly Mike Adams to Speak at Marquette Thursday Night

In the best academic tradition, the Marquette College Republicans tried to set up a debate on the abortion issue, asking one of the most famous abortion supporters in the nation, Marquette’s own Dan Maguire, and gadfly columnist and conservative academic Mike Adams to represent the opposing sides.

But when Maguire found out that he was going to debate Adams, he backed out.

Maguire claimed he refused to debate because Adams is not a theologian, although Maguire has debated non-theologians before.

So Adams will be speaking about abortion this Thursday night (March 1).

The program is titled “A Matter of Life and Death,” and will be held in the AMU Ballrooms at 7:00 p.m.

Adams is a very gifted polemicist, and a gutsy fellow who seems to very much enjoy being a conservative immersed in the liberal slough that is academia. We expect it to be a very interesting talk.

Daniel Maguire Backs Out of Campus Abortion Debate

When the College Republicans contemplated having a debate on abortion, they asked us for the name of “any faculty that is very strongly pro-choice who would be willing to participant in our event” we obviously thought of Dan Maguire, who is not merely pro-abortion, but incessantly and outspokenly so.

It speaks extremely well of the College Republicans that their first impulse was to have a debate, such that students could listen to both sides.

Margaret Gervase, of the College Republicans, lined up Maguire, and then sent him an e-mail to confirm the arrangements.

From: Gervase, Margaret
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 1:20 PM
To: Maguire, Daniel
Subject: Debate

Hi Dr Maguire,

I just want to touch bases and make sure we’re on the same page for the debate on March 1st. It’s coming up fast and we are very excited to be hosting the event! Your opponent will be Dr. Mike Adams from the University of North Carolina-Wilmington. The debate will be a 20-20-10-10 format; each opponent will get twenty minutes to present their argument and ten minutes for a rebuttal followed by a question/answer wrap-up. Please let me know if you will need a room for preparation beforehand and I will see what I can do to get one adjacent to the ballrooms. Also let me know if you will be needing anything else! Thank you again for offering to do this, we really appreciate it and look forward to it!

Maggie Gervase

But Gervase got back the following response from Maguire:

From: Maguire, Daniel
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 1:43 PM
To: Gervase, Margaret
Subject: RE: Debate

Maggie,

I just looked up Dr. Mike Adams and found he is a psychology-criminology professor. I am a theologian presenting theological arguments. I would not try to debate Dr. Adams in psychology/criminology since it is not my field. Similarly he would not want to debate me in theology since he is not a theologians and could not argue a theological position with professional competence. We would be skew lines.

So when you find a theologian who wants to debate me, as was done at Notre Dame, get back in touch.

Dan Maguire

Maguire, in other words, has finked out.

His demand that he will only debate a theologian is a bit odd, since the audience would consist mostly of Marquette students, few of whom would be theology majors. Rather, the debaters would have to make cogent arguments (theological or otherwise) that undergraduates would find compelling.

Is Maguire admitting that he’s not up to that?

His insistence that he will debate only theologians is odd, given that we, over the last couple of decades, have been on two panels with Maguire. One, in the 1990s, was on the death penalty. Two people (us included) debated on the pro-death penalty side, and Maguire (along with another faculty member) were on the anti-death penalty side.

Just a few years ago, we and Maguire were (with several other people) on a panel on health care. It was not explicitly a debate, but panelists were chosen based on opposing perspectives on government run-health care.

Maguire has no special expertise in criminal justice nor in health care, but he was willing to appear.

Adams is a gifted polemicist, and extremely popular with the students he teaches.

Are none of the pro-abortion liberals at Marquette willing to take him on? It seems we will find out.

Could it be that people who have lived too long in a left / liberal / politically correct cocoon (as most college faculty have) simply lack the self-confidence to mix it up with somebody who doesn’t buy the assumptions of their culture?

Planned Parenthood: Party to Sexual Abuse of Minors