Anti-cop Bigotry at Loyola University New Orleans

From Heatstreet:

Josh Collins, a sheriff’s sergeant in New Orleans, attends classes at Loyola University when he is not working. This week, one of his professors called the police on Collins himself — apparently because he showed up in class wearing his uniform, which freaked out one of the other students.

His professor then called the police, but Collins says he was “not privileged to either of these conversations as they took place behind my back.” His professor then approached him and informed him that they had called the police, but the police never came because Collins was perfectly within the law.

Collins, who works in the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office, points out in his Facebook post that it is incredibly ironic that the reaction to being scared of a police officer is to call the police. He also writes that “as a police officer, I feel as though I must hide my profession in order to obtain a fair education.”

The Facebook post is below, and note how much bigotry he has to tolerate at a supposedly Catholic university. But most “Catholic universities” these days are no more tolerant that secular ones, and indeed probably less tolerant, on average.

Update

The professor who called the police when a uniformed cop entered the class is apparently Jonathan Peterson.

He is the only member of the Loyola Philosophy faculty identified as teaching “Law and Morality.”

Further, his contact information has disappeared from the list of Loyola Philosophy faculty.

We e-mailed him to ask for his account of what happened, and he did not respond.

Further Update

Loyola has reportedly apologized to the student, and come out with a statement in support of law enforcement.  According to Loyola, Collins was wearing fatigues, and not a standard police uniform, and was carrying a gun.  This might have contributed to the “misunderstanding.”  Of course, his comments about anti-white and anti-police bigotry are based on more than this incident.

More

Loyola has claimed that Collins was in “fatigues” raising the possibility that students did not know he was a police officer. But in fact, his uniform clearly identified him as a SWAT team member and employee of the Sheriff’s office. It was not just “fatigues” that anybody could wear.

Alan Dershowitz on Hypocrisy, Bigotry of Campus Protesters

Free Speech: Under Attack at Marquette as Well as Missouri

From Wisconsin Watchdog, an article by Matt Kittle based on an interview we did with WIBA in Madison.

Marquette’s attempt to fire this blogger is simply part of a larger pattern of national academic intolerance.

Universities as “Safe Spaces:” Fluffy-Bunny Totalitarianism

Yes, the politically correct campus left considers anything “unsafe” if any ideas are expressed with which they disagree. Or if it violates the sense of proper expression of the most politically correct.

How much of this is there at Marquette? It’s pretty common in the most politically correct quarters. A candidate for the current Academic Senate ran on a platform of making Marquette a “safe space” for women and minorities and LGBT people. Happily, this candidate did not win.

Bye, Bye First Amendment

More Global Warming Fascism: Australia

Academia is more and more intolerant, and one of the tenets of the new orthodoxy is the idea that there is global warming, that human activity is the main cause of it, that it has potentially catastrophic consequences, and that radical policies have to be immediately enacted to deal with it.

Dissenting from any one of these propositions can lead to demands that you be fired, silenced, shunned and banned from public discourse.

And this indeed is exactly what happened at the University of Western Australia, where a climate change “contrarian” named Bjorn Lomborg was banned and denied a job because of his views.

We frankly wonder whether something like this could happen at Marquette. While faculty of natural science departments are mostly not into race, gender and sexual orientation political correctness, there is a certain kind of science political correctness. The prevailing attitude is “we scientists have discovered the truth, and don’t you dare doubt what we say.”

A writer for Reason makes some points that people in academia used to understand, but increasingly appear not to:

Learning is a process of testing, discussion, submitting your ideas to debate and standing by them as the brickbats of disagreement and counter-argument come flying in. This is why academic freedom is so important: the liberty to think and speak and argue is the only real way of getting to the truth of a matter, and in the process boosting our understanding of the world.

In the Lomborg scandal, this process was circumvented. Lomborg’s center was pre-emptively denied the right to put its case in Australian academia, by “passionate emotional” protesters who think they already know The Truth on climate change: that it’s happening, it’s terrible, and we will only alleviate its worst impacts by putting restraints on humanity’s material aspirations.

This isn’t learning, far less academic freedom in action. Rather, it echoes the old, pre-modern view of a university as, in essence, a bookish guardian of ecclesiastical authority. Only now it’s eco-authority that is protected from intellectual poking and awkward analysis, ringfenced from ridicule just as surely as the pointy-hatted overseers of universities in the pre-Enlightenment era also ringfenced ideas that they just knew were true.

Marquette: No Attempt to Censor Marquette Warrior (Yet)

A huge brouhaha erupted when we blogged about an instructor in the Philosophy Department who told a student (in an after class conversation) that his opinions in opposition to gay marriage were “homophobic” and that discussion of the issue had to be banned since any gay students in class would be “offended.”

 It went national in outlets that were appalled at the suppression of the Catholic Church’s position at a so called “Catholic university,” and at outlets that support free expression on college campuses.

It also created a backlash among leftist and politically correct academics who apparently agreed with the actions of the instructor, one Cheryl Abbate.

One of the nastiest (and most hypocritical) attacks came from some Marquette department chairs in humanities and the social sciences.

 Marquette reacted to the uproar with the following statement from the Provost:

I am writing to address recent discussions within the campus community concerning the issues of collegiality, professionalism and academic freedom.

The university has guidelines and processes to ensure that all of our faculty, staff and students are treated fairly. These processes allow us to thoughtfully address both incidents themselves and the ways that others have reacted to them.

Shortly thereafter, Brian Dorrington (Marquette PR guy) told various media outlets that Marquette was:

. . . reviewing both a concern raised by a student and a concern raised by a faculty member. We are taking appropriate steps to make sure that everyone involved is heard and treated fairly. In compliance with state and federal privacy laws, we will not publicly share the results of the reviews.

This claim of confidentiality, of course, sounds like a nice strategy for evading issues and keeping everybody happy. They can believe they are getting what they want from the Marquette administration, but that the whole thing must be kept “confidential.”

Consequences?

We don’t know what consequences came of all this, with the exception of the fact that Arts & Sciences Dean Rick Holz wrote a letter of reprimand to Philosophy Department Chair Nancy Snow for her verbal assault on us in a university café (in the presence of a prospective job candidate).

Marquette has made no attempt to censor the Marquette Warrior, nor have we received any sort of reprimand.

It would be nice to believe that this is because Marquette values academic freedom. But the reality is probably less flattering to Marquette.

Holtz Investigates

On Wednesday, November 19, we got an e-mail from Kim Patterson in the office of Holz. It said Holz wanted to meet with us.

We e-mailed him and made it clear to him that we would not accept any sort of reprimand or attempt to censor our blog. He wrote back with a conciliatory message:

Hi John. I think there has been a misunderstanding. I would like to meet with you tomorrow to just gather facts and listen to your side of the issue. As I have indicated before, I was asked by the Provost to gather information and do the fact finding investigation. So I have listened to the recording by the student and read your blog. I would like to hear from you directly and also hear from you about your run-in with Nancy Snow.

And then in a later e-mail:

Hi John. Your blog is your business but we will have to discuss aspects of what you blogged about as I think it is relevant to the issues. I am not planning to “reprimand, censure, or harass” you in any way. I simply want to have a conversation with you so I have a better understanding about what happened here.

Fair enough, we thought, and we even apologized to Holz for our initial testy response.

Intimidation

When we finally arrived at the meeting (on November 20) Holz was congenial enough and got some factual information from us.

But then he offered us some advice that could be interpreted as an attempt at intimidation (although he probably did not see it that way).

He noted that we had (before we went live with the story) e-mailed Cheryl Abbate from our Marquette account asking her for her version of what transpired. He suggested that we should keep our blogging separate from our Marquette business. He suggested we should consult Marquette’s guideline for computer use on that.

We told him that our blogging is a form of publication (if not a particularly exalted one), and research for publication is most certainly something for which we can use Marquette resources. We told him he would be opening a “can of worms” if he made an issue of that.

Then, worse, he told us we should consult Marquette’s guidelines on harassment – the implicit suggestion being that we were “harassing” people with our blogging. We told him we know the guidelines quite well, and that Marquette’s guidelines are absurdly broad, but that for anything to be called “harassment” it has to be directed against a “protected class.” People with politically correct leftist political opinions are not a protected class.

We asked Holz if he had completed the university “training” about harassment, and he replied that he had. We pointing out that the “training” clearly teaches that merely expressing opposition to gay marriage to a fellow employee could be considered “harassment.” He blandly replied [paraphrasing] “yes, the definition is getting broader.”

His response gave no indication that he had any reservations about defining the mere expression of a political opinion as harassment.

We explained to him that if we got anything from Marquette that even vaguely resembled a reprimand we would call our lawyer, and that “we have a lawyer who loves to sue Marquette.”

We have heard nothing further from Marquette

Evaluating Holz

Holz probably didn’t even perceive his statements as questionable. He came across as a conventional, bland, risk averse bureaucrat. Such bureaucrats find free expression problematic, since it creates complaints to the bureaucrats. Holz probably thought he was giving us good advice as to how to avoid controversy — and of course, our avoiding controversy would avoid controversy for him. He apparently didn’t understand that we don’t mind controversy.

And especially not at Marquette University, were outrageous excesses of political correctness happen quite regularly.

Evaluating Marquette

Generally, free speech can prevail on a college campus, but only if the speaker is willing to make a stink about it. The preferred mode of operation among campus bureaucrats is to quietly “handle” conflict, and to chill free expression.

Often, a stifling climate of political correctness can do the job for them, as students come to understand that they will be attacked and derided for stands unpopular among the politically correct activists, and as faculty avoid conflict.

All of this is the result of an unfortunate confluence of intolerance among the faculty (especially in the humanities and social sciences) and conformity and timidity among vision-less administrators.

In this, Marquette is probably no worse than a lot of other universities, but it’s also no better.

Academic Authoritarianism: Universities Should Ban “Fake Science”

From a science oriented website, a demand that certain ideas be banned from university campuses. How, it asks, should universities deal with “fake science?” The answer:

By banning it—and recognizing that’s very different from restricting academic freedom.

Universities are supposed to stand for the highest ideals in science and scholarship. “Our mission is to advance knowledge and transform lives,” reads Michigan State University’s mission statement, by “conducting research of the highest caliber that seeks to answer questions and create solutions in order to expand human understanding and make a positive difference.” So what is a university like Michigan State supposed to do when it unwittingly lends its name and reputation to an organization that embodies the very opposite of the highest caliber scholarship?

The organization in this case is a Christian fundamentalist group that held an anti-science “Origin Summit” on the MSU campus last Saturday. The conference organizers managed to use a student religious group to book a room on campus. They then proceeded to emphasize in their advertising that the meeting was being held at a big-name research university and “bringing world renowned scientists before the students.” These scientists have “tangible proof and viable evidence” that science and the bible are “in total agreement.” To reconcile the Bible with science, the summit program—which has since been removed from the organization’s website, but can be found here—featured speakers who discussed the role of evolution in Hitler’s thinking, why “the Big Bang is FAKE,” why evolution is impossible, and the evidence for intelligent design in nature. One talk was devoted to criticizing a famous experiment by one of MSU’s own evolutionary biologists.

 Unorthodox, certainly. So it can’t be allowed on campus.

. . . a campus is not a Marriott. Universities should recognize as British Columbia’s Simon Fraser University did after it offered space to an anti-vaccine conference—that when you rent a room, you also implicitly rent your name and credibility. The second principle is that bad scholarship can be rooted out by conventional means, while pseudoscience cannot. Hiring a creationist as a science faculty member or hosting a debate with a figure from an anti-science movement runs the risk of misleading the students and the public, by giving such people air time under the university’s seal. When universities make a commitment to open inquiry, it doesn’t mean that they have to open their doors to fake science.

So these folks need to be banned from campus.

We happen to think young earth creationism is a bit of a crackpot position, but we would rather have a lot of young earth creationists around than nasty authoritarians who want to shut up speech they disagree with.

Where public universities are concerned, attempts to shut up certain viewpoints are pretty much unconstitutional. Our colleague Paul Nolette (who teaches Constitutional Law) responded to this article as follows:

I think that plaintiffs would have a strong viewpoint discrimination case if a public university attempted to ban what it deemed to be an “anti-science” summit while allowing similar discussions to proceed. While public universities are not quite the same as public parks or sidewalks (which are “traditional” public forums), they are nevertheless still limited public forums in which bans like this would raise serious questions. There’s a fairly clear line of precedent that suggests that designating a public forum, such as a lecture hall or other meeting space, to those with one viewpoint but closing it to another would violate free speech principles.

I would also add that such a ban might also violate the Free Exercise Clause as well. There are a number of cases involving student religious groups in which the Court held that school restrictions violated the students’ religious rights. Indeed, there are enough elements for a lawsuit that I would think a university would reverse its policy or settle before such a case even reached the courts.

Another example from the article:

In 2007, astronomer Martin Gaskell had applied for the directorship [at the University of Kentucky] of a new observatory at the university. His application was turned down, and the position was given to someone with less training and experience, in part because Gaskell had given public lectures endorsing intelligent design and claiming that there was little or no evidence for evolution. Though the job was in astronomy and not biology, the hiring committee was justifiably wary of hiring someone who rejected major elements of modern science. . . . But Gaskell sued for religious discrimination. The University of Kentucky settled, agreeing to pay Gaskell $125,000.

We are glad the University of Kentucky had to pay for this egregious instance of discrimination.

It’s one thing to say that if you want a job in (say) Physical Anthropology, you need to believe in evolution to teach and publish effectively.  But demanding orthodox beliefs in a different field really is discrimination (religious, in this case).

Some Crackpot Ideas Acceptable

Interestingly, scientists would doubtless be quite tolerant of crackpot notions that didn’t contradict the scientific orthodoxy.  A job candidate in Physical Anthropology or Astronomy who believed that Dick Cheney arranged the 9/11 attacks, or that the CIA had John Kennedy killed would be tolerated.

Indeed, years ago we had a conversation with a colleague in the natural sciences (we’ll conceal his name to protect the guilty), who loudly demanded that high school students not be taught about the theory of intelligent design.  We asked him whether it is OK that they be taught Marxist economics or JFK conspiracy theories, and he said that was perfectly acceptable.

In short, unorthodox and even crackpot theories are fine so long as they don’t contradict “science.”  Science is sacred.  Science is special.  Science should not be subjected to the rough and tumble of the marketplace of ideas.

Ironically, there is good evidence for one variant of intelligent design:  the anthropic principle, which shows that our universe appears to be contrived — designed — to allow the evolution of life.

Of course, science changes its orthodoxy sometimes.  The history of science is full of fiascoes like support for eugenics and acceptance of Piltdown Man as a human ancestor.  Scientists will point out that science is “self-correcting.”  Scientists themselves will correct their own errors.

After they do, people are then free to change their beliefs and accept the new scientific orthodoxy.  In fact, they better do so, on penalty of being called “anti-science.”

Marquette Warrior: Support From an “In the Closet” Philosopher

In the wake of some nasty attacks from politically correct academics following our account of a Philosophy instructor who would not allow discussion of gay marriage because any voicing of opposition to the policy might offend gay students who might be in the class, we have also gotten messages of support.

The following is from an e-mail with the subject line “Support from the Closet.” No, the person is not a closeted gay (so far as we know) but rather someone with politically incorrect political attitudes.

John (if I may), I am a philosopher and want to express my support for your clear-headed critique and analysis of the recent incident at Marquette. This event is consistent with the recent, yet rapidly growing, infection of political correctness that is consuming academic philosophy, a place that was a hold out against this madness. That political correct tyranny could take root in philosophy, the tradition that traces back to Socrates, is a grotesque irony of the highest magnitude. I hope you understand that there are philosophers out there who agree with you and applaud you but that many of us cannot speak publicly for legitimate fear of retaliation. Those of us, like myself, who don’t have tenure, are well aware of the vicious, career-destroying tactics of the politically correct operators in our field. So, I can only express my support for you on this matter in private.

It’s good to know that there are still some reasonable people out there.

The most chilling comments here are those about “legitimate fear of retaliation” and “vicious, career-destroying tactics of the politically correct operators in our field.”

The politically correct crowd does not consist of happy warriors, eager to engage in debate and wanting to prove the superiority of their views in the free market of ideas. Before the era of political correctness (which grew out of 60s leftism, although the current practitioners are the intellectual children and grandchildren of that generation) a lot of liberals welcomed debate. While they could be as biased as anybody else, when pressed they came down on the side of tolerance.

They are a dwindling breed.

Abuse From the Politically Correct Crowd Over Instructor Who Said Gay Students Would Be Offended at Discussion of Gay Marriage

Some leftist and politically correct blogs have taken up the cause of Cheryl Abbate, the Marquette Philosophy instructor who told one of her students that gay marriage could not be discussed in class since any opposition to gay marriage might offend gay students.

Some of the abuse has been in personal e-mails to us.  For example:

Ben Mulitski [benthono@gmail.com]

You are what’s wrong with this world-- spreading hatred for the sake of spreading hatred. Free speech is unimportant when the viewpoints expressed are blatantly wrong.

http://dailynous.com/2014/11/18/philosophy-grad-student-target-of-political-smear-campaign/

This is the secret id of politically correct people revealing itself: “Free speech is unimportant when the viewpoints expressed are blatantly wrong.” Yes, politically correct people think they have a right to shut up speech that they think is “blatantly wrong.”

Then we have an another e-mail, sent to us:

Buck, Brandon [brandon.buck@tc.columbia.edu]

As usual, just a privileged old White MALE tryin’ to talk about who should feel offended and who shouldn’t. And, as usual, another privileged old white male tryin’ to do all he can to ensure that a female philosopher feels marginalized and denigrated.

You are a small human being.

Sincerely,

Brandon

Yes, another view into the id of the politically correct. Anti-white racism and anti-male sexism. And of course ageism.

Buck then upped the ante by e-mailing the entire political science faculty.

Buck, Brandon [brandon.buck@tc.columbia.edu]

Greetings all,

As an MU alum, I’m thoroughly disappointed because, at this point, your silence is deafening. And your silence renders you equally culpable. This isn’t just another case of McAdams being McAdams. This isn’t a case of intellectual liberty to express unpopular ideas.

Whatever went down in that ethics course, the fact remains that the TA is a Marquette student. As a student, she’s entrusted to the care of MU faculty (that’s you!). McAdams’s actions violated the fiduciary responsibility he has toward ALL students at Marquette. The same fiduciary responsibility you all share. By publicly attacking a student in this way, he has potentially caused her emotional and psychological trauma. He has violated a student’s privacy, and has deliberately and intentionally caused her harm with neither care nor appropriate foresight. For these reasons, McAdams is not fit to serve as a faculty member at ANY university.

To be clear, the university is not only a marketplace of ideas. It’s a place where young people can become grow to become good people.

Maybe as a novice educator with no training provided by the university, the TA felt she wasn’t yet adequately prepared to handle a conversation about gay marriage in a responsible way. Perhaps she intended to consult the advice of her advisor; or maybe she wanted to invite conversation on the topic during another class session in a more structured way. In either case, her unwillingness to engage the conversation at that particular time during that particular class could equally signal prudence and a sense of responsibility for all her students (two virtues McAdams is obviously lacking).

In any event the incident provided a valuable learning opportunity for all students involved. And instead of helping an aspiring academic grow and become a better person and a better pedagogue, McAdams chose to publicly humiliate, disparage and attack her. McAdams is flatly pathetic and there’s no place for that in your esteemed department, at Marquette--or any university.

Along with his immediate termination, he should also be subject to civil liability. And the fact remains that, as long as you all stand silently by, you’re equally morally culpable.

Sincerely,

Brandon
_________________________________________________
Brandon Buck
Doctoral Fellow, Philosophy and Education
GA/TA, Department of Education Policy & Social Analysis
Teachers College, Columbia University
(m) [redacted]

Other Arguments

Some responses were less deranged, but still misguided.

Some attackers accused us of taking Abbate’s comments out of context. We have no time to prepare an entire transcript of the exchange between Abbate and the student, but we did supply the entire audio to a reporter for Inside Higher Ed, and she confirmed both the thrust and the details of what we reported.

The reporter, Colleen Flaherty, got a response from Abbate, and Abbate admitted that she said “it seemed right to me” that a ban on gay marriage would violate Rawls’ principle of equal liberty, which was the text being discussed. This is not precisely what the student reported to us, but it’s easy to see how the student would have perceived the instructor blowing off an issue that he wanted to discuss.

Flaherty confirmed that we e-mailed Abbate, and asked for her version of what happened. Abbate did not respond.

A supporter of Abbate’s, one Justin Weinberg, an associate professor at the University of South Carolina, opined that “the instructor needed to make a decision about how to use limited class time, especially given the topic of the lesson and the subject of the course (which is ethical theory, not applied ethics).”

The problem is that’s not what Abbate said to the student. She explicitly said she did not want to discuss the issue because if arguments against gay marriage were voiced, they might offend any gay students in the class.

We teach a course in Public Policy. We don’t discuss gay marriage for the simple reason that we focus on issues that can be decided on the costs and benefits and their distribution. Gay marriage doesn’t fit that context very well.  But an instructional choice is not the same thing as wanting to protect students from arguments they might dislike.

Only Certain Groups Get Protection

Nobody would say that a biology professor should refrain from discussing evolution because some conservative Christians might object, or that atheist arguments can’t be aired because Christians and other theists might be offended.

Only certain victim groups get protection from hearing things they are presumed to get upset about.  And it doesn’t matter whether they really get upset.  To presume that gays would get upset over hearing arguments against gay marriage, or blacks would get upset hearing arguments against affirmative action is to demean both groups.  It’s true that among both groups there are hustlers who are perpetually offended.  But they should not be allowed to censor the discussion.

In reality, it’s arguments that liberal and leftist professors don’t like that are deemed “offensive.”

Another Argument of Campus Authoritarians

Weinberg made another argument, far more insidious, supporting Abbate’s refusal to discuss gay marriage. Quoting:

It also happened to be a kind of comment that Abbate noted might be offensive, and might constitute harassment according to Marquette University’s policies. So it seems she was being a good teacher as well as playing it safe regarding university policy. That was prudent, given her status as a graduate student instructor. The main take-away, though, is that it would have been perfectly permissible for Abbate to request the student not make the comment even if it weren’t offensive.

This, of course, contradicts Weinberg’s first argument, that not discussing gay marriage was merely an instructional choice. Here, he endorses the notion that allowing any opposition to gay marriage to be voiced would be “harassment” and might violate a harassment policy.

This is the first cousin to the notion that politically incorrect opinions are “offensive” and thus must be silenced.

Unfortunately, Marquette itself seemed to endorse that notion in a “training” module on “harassment” that all faculty and employees were required to take a few months ago.

But that notion would never stand up in court, and it’s unlikely Marquette would ever try to enforce that notion.  But they might not mind if it chills politically incorrect speech, since such speech creates problems for administrators.

Conclusion

So what we have is the academic version of the culture wars, with the increasingly authoritarian academic left wanting to shut up first students, and then professors who fail to toe the line.

Academic Fascism From the “Sustainability” Crowd

From the Wall Street Journal, an article written by Denielle Charette:

For a case study in the illiberalism that has taken over liberal arts colleges, look no further than Swarthmore. I suspect that the Quakers who founded the school in 1864—and prized tolerance above all—wouldn’t recognize the Swarthmore where I am currently a junior.

The latest upheaval has centered on the school’s radical environmentalist club, Mountain Justice, which has led a multiyear campaign calling on the college to divest its $1.5 billion endowment—one of the highest endowments-per-student in the nation—of fossil-fuel companies.

The divestment movement is national, but Swarthmore has been ahead of the curve: Before environmentalist Bill McKibben fired up students across the country last year, Swarthmoreans were staging protests. Numerous professors and the entire history department have endorsed the effort, and administrators and board members have met with Mountain Justice members 25 times over the past two years.

On May 4, the school scheduled an open board meeting on the divestment initiative so that the opinions of board members, faculty, administrators and students would receive a fair hearing. I went to the meeting to listen, and to support a friend who was planning on delivering a few remarks critical of the divestment idea. My friend never got his chance.

The board had invited two representatives from Mountain Justice to sit on a panel with them for the first half of the meeting. What the board didn’t realize was that those same students were positioning themselves to grab the microphone and disrupt the proceedings. The chairman of the Board Investment Committee, Chris Niemczewski, was in the middle of delivering the opening PowerPoint presentation—which, incidentally, estimated the cost of divestment at $200 million over 10 years—when more than 100 student protesters burst into the room, waving signs and shouting.

One of the student panelists grabbed the microphone out of turn and handed it to a line of protestors who delivered speeches that condemned the “liberal script” in the name of “radical, emancipatory change” and “institutional transformation.” Afterwards, my classmates defended their behavior because they were smashing “hegemonic power structures” and “flipping the power dynamic.”

About 10 minutes after the takeover, I stood up and reminded the protesters that other members of the college were there to hear various perspectives. But rather than listen to what I had to say, the students began to shout and clap in unison, drowning out what I was saying. Professors sat silent in the audience. Neither Dean of Students Liz Braun, nor the college president, Rebecca Chopp, spoke up.

I crossed the aisle to speak to the meeting’s moderator, but she refused to do anything. Then I appealed to Ms. Chopp, who conceded that what was unfolding was “outrageous” but said there was nothing she could do. I approached Ms. Braun as well, but she did nothing.

All of this is on video, which some classmates have posted online, exulting in the evidence of how they spoke truth to power. Meanwhile, my peers have derided me on blogs and Facebook. One accused me of “pernicious, destructive, far-reaching silencing.”

They give me far too much credit: I’m an English major who wants Swarthmore to be a place where ideas are freely exchanged. To me, overthrowing a meeting of board members, who are all alumni, is wrong and juvenile.

Apparently the college doesn’t see things that way. The day after disrupting the open board meeting, the protesters insisted on mandatory campus “teach-ins” for all students. Though it was the day before exams at a school that prides itself on its academic rigor, the administration acquiesced and endorsed the teach-ins to heal our “fractured community.”

Each attendee received a list of student “demands,” which included making courses in ethnic studies and gender and sexuality required for graduation. The activists also demanded that Swarthmore revise its judicial process so that “sexual assault cases are no longer confidential.” A refresher course in basic civility might be more useful.

After I sent several emails and a link to the video to President Chopp, she agreed to meet with me a week after the incident. Ms. Chopp conceded that the meeting was handled poorly and that the administration must do a better job of defending all of its students, not merely those with the loudest voices.

Still, I have yet to hear a public defense of our college’s policies. No administrator has condemned the takeover of the board meeting. If that tantrum doesn’t qualify as disorderly conduct and outright intimidation, what does? If moderate or conservative students—no doubt also a “marginalized” group on campus—behaved similarly, would they be held accountable?

We actually can’t actually imagine Marquette students acting this badly.

Admittedly, this kind of intolerant politically correct mentality exists here. It can be found in a deranged rant from one Claire Van Fossen, who accused this blog of “oppressive, hateful content and blatant misogyny, not to mention homophobia, racism and slander of Marquette students” because we criticized the bawdy FemSex Workshop that was sponsored by Marquette’s Gender and Sexuality Resource Center.

Likewise, the ecofascists at Swarthmore accused Denielle Charette of “pernicious, destructive, far-reaching silencing.” The people who cheerfully shut up views they don’t like accuse other people of “oppression” and “silencing!”

Van Fossen, fortunately, is a bit of an outlier at Marquette, although her attitudes are typical of a small cluster of activist students, especially in humanities departments, Sociology and Psychology, and Women’s and Gender Studies.

Swarthmore, on the other hand, is one of those hot-house liberal places that lacks diversity of opinion. According to the Christian journal First Things:

Located in a suburb southwest of Philadelphia, Swarthmore has long been considered one of the top five small liberal-arts colleges in the nation. It is also one of the least religious colleges.

Swarthmore, politically, is even more liberal than it is unreligious. . . . According to one student, “There is one known Republican in my entire class (out of nearly four hundred people), and he is known as ‘the Republican.’” Says the same student, “I suspect that there are quite a few more moderate liberals who just don’t voice their dissent on whatever issue they don’t agree with.”

Marquette is hardly a conservative place, but there is a bit of diversity among students (if little among faculty). Which leads to an interesting reality about academia: the more conservative any college or university is, the more tolerant it is of dissenting and politically incorrect views.

Several leftist faculty have urged Provost Pauly to shut us up. He mostly resisted their demands, and the one time he tried to shut us up, he failed. And we can’t imagine Marquette students trying to shout down and shut up a speaker they don’t like.

But we may not be many years away from that.

Liberal Book Burners (Literally)

It seems the Heartland Institute, which is skeptical of man-made global warming, sent some of its books to the San Jose State University Meteorology Department.

Not being too keen on dissenting views, two of the faculty members (one of them the department chair) put a match to it.



Yes, the typical academic tolerance of dissenting opinions.

The current web page of the department has the image removed. But of course, the original version is archived.

Sometimes academics, regardless of their better judgment, let their inner authoritarian out.

Hat Tip: Watts Up With That? and Cold Springs Shops

[Update]

We wrote one of the scientists in the photo, Craig Clements, and he responded as follows:

Thanks for your email. No, the book was never burned. We never intended to burn the book. The Department of Meteorology and Climate Science has removed the material in question from its website, and regrets what was clearly an ill-conceived attempt at satire. Please be assured the university does not condone book burning for any reason.

It’s nice that they considered this a form of “satire,” but the symbolism was absurdly bone-headed.

It’s also the case that the whole global warming movement has been shockingly intolerant of dissent. So we have to wonder whether the San Jose State University Meteorology Department would ever hire a professor who was skeptical of the theory, or whether they would ever invite a speaker who was critical. And we also wonder what would happen to the grade of a student who failed to embrace anthropogenic global warming.

Marquette Tribune: No Right of Conscience for Pharmacists

An editorial in the April 14 Tribune addresses the issue of laws that force pharmacists to supply “emergency contraception.” A recent court ruling in Illinois found that such laws violate the rights of pharmacists. But the Tribune did not agree.

Plan B, commonly known as the morning-after pill, is an emergency contraceptive that provides women with the option to prevent unwanted pregnancy if taken within 72 hours after unprotected sex. It is readily available to women in pharmacies across the country.

According to NBC Chicago, an Illinois judge recently sided with two pharmacists claiming that prescribing Plan B violates the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, which protects health care providers from being forced to perform duties that conflict with their beliefs.

However, this freedom violates the rights of consumers who rely on pharmacies to provide them with emergency contraceptives if needed. Plan B, unlike the abortion pill, prevents ovulation or fertilization, not implantation, which would terminate a pregnancy.

The six-year-old state law requiring pharmacies to fill prescriptions without making moral judgments is now abolished, granting pharmacies the right to choose whether to stock them or not.

Regardless of religious beliefs, pharmacists have an obligation to their clients to fill their prescriptions.

Simply put, it is not the pharmacist’s choice. Imposing personal moral judgments on another individual’s life choices in the medical field is unprofessional and intrusive.

Pharmacists should not be granted so much power. The power of choice should belong to the individual making the decision. Consumers should not have the burden of worrying whether their prescription will be honored due to someone else’s beliefs.

Encouragingly, the state attorney general’s office plans to file an appeal in the near future. But, the moral argument still stands. An individual’s own beliefs cannot be imposed on others, especially concerning one’s medical choices. Personal beliefs must be kept in the background in professional settings, not interfering with decisions of others.[emphasis added]

That’s a stunning statement.

It’s typical of liberals that they preen and prance and talk about the evil of imposing one’s moral beliefs on others, all the while imposing their moral beliefs on others!

When liberals talk about “choice,” they are always talking about people making choices they think are acceptable. Like the choice to have irresponsible sex with no consequences or the choice to have an abortion. Liberals don’t believe people should have a choice to own a gun, or drive an SUV.

The Tribune doesn’t believe medical personnel should have any choice to avoid dispensing medicines they think are immoral. The editorial doesn’t address this issue, but the exact same logic would say that doctors and nurses should be forced to perform abortions, or drummed out of the medical profession.

If the morning after pill is legal, women have a right to buy it from any willing seller. They don’t have the right to coerce an unwilling seller to provide it.

Consider, for example, Supreme Court decision Lawrence v Texas. It ruled that people have a Constitutional right to have homosexual sex. That’s bad constitutional law (although we wouldn’t vote, in a state legislature, to outlaw any consensual sexual activity among consenting adults). But suppose you can’t find a willing partner? You have to do without. It would be a very odd idea that your right to have homosexual sex means that somebody has to be coerced into having sex with you.

One expects young journalists to be liberals. Conservatives tend to self-select out of the profession, knowing that it will be hostile territory.

But a supposed Catholic university should have at least some fledgling journalists with a bit of respect for Catholic moral teaching, and tolerance for people whose consciences are formed by that Catholic teaching.

But Marquette isn’t really a Catholic university. Given the choice of siding with pharmacists whose consciences are formed by Catholic teaching, or young women who have engaged in slutty sexual behavior, the Tribune has sided with the latter.

Liberal Students Deface, Tear Down Posters for Michelle Malkin Speech

Michelle Malkin gave a good talk tonight, and hopefully the MacIver Institute (which was taping it) will post the video.

We didn’t expect any disruption, thinking that Marquette students are too polite to try to shout down a speaker, and indeed the two Public Safety officers on duty said that the only possibility of disruption would be from “outside” groups.

In fact the crowd was very pro-Malkin, with no hint of disruption.

But one student got up during the question and answer session to report a rather explosive fact: a friend of his had bragged about going around campus and tearing down flyers that advertised the Malkin talk.

The person was Law School student Steven Manders, who insisted his friend (whom he prefered not to name) was not just blowing smoke, and indeed Manders confirmed that Malkin posters had been torn down in the Wells Street parking garage, where his friend had been.

Officers of the College Republicans confirmed that numerous posters had been torn down, and many other defaced. We got this from a College Republicans official:

As a follow up to our discussion this evening about Malkin posters being torn down and defaced, just wanted to tell you what I observed. No more than two days after the College Republicans spent several hours hanging posters for our event around campus, I began noticing several I had hung myself were no longer in the places I had put them. In O’Donnell Hall and Schroeder Hall specifically, I saw several folded up and on the ground. Others were ether flipped upside down or moved to an entirely different place on the info boards. At O’Donnell Hall, one of the posters had the words “F**K FOX NEWS” in big, scratchy, bold letters and the “Fox News Contributor” part in Ms. Malkin’s bio was scratched out. This poster was also on the ground. I put it back in the same place I had two short days ago, only to find it removed once again the following day, no doubt a result of the “offensive” language that had been written on it. I also observed that the poster at the O’Donnell hall front desk did not make it to the day of the event, but the “Sara Bareilles” concert poster sure did.

This was just me, in two of the buildings I frequent on campus. I am sure this happened in other places as well.

Regards,
Alec Paget
[** inserted by blogger]

Of course, not all liberals, and not even the majority of liberals and indeed not more than a small minority of liberals would do something like this. But two things much be pointed out. First, liberals have created a climate in academia where things like this can happen, even if most liberals would not personally tear down a poster.

Second, even a single student who attacks a black person or a gay person can create a massive uproad on a college campus. But attacks on outspoken conservative females aren’t seen as particularly bad.

Campus Fascism at the University of California, Irvine

Muslim students, taking their cues from 60s campus leftists, shout down a speaker whose views they disagree with.

(Sorry, but you’ll have to put up with a short commercial going in.)

Gay Fascism in a High School Economics Class

From the Livingston Daily:

Howell Public Schools Superintendent Ron Wilson on Thursday said high school teacher Jay McDowell was disciplined after it was determined McDowell violated a student’s First Amendment rights and significantly violated a district policy.

“The student was speaking out on being offended by the gay and lesbian lifestyle because it’s against his religion. The teacher said that wasn’t appropriate,” Wilson said.

The student, 16-year-old junior Daniel Glowacki, was then ejected from McDowell’s economics class, Wilson said, along with another student after Glowacki and McDowell argued about another student wearing a belt buckle featuring the Confederate Flag.

Glowacki was asking the teacher why, if the Confederate Flag was considered offensive, he didn’t have an equal right to feel offended at the rainbow shirts gay, lesbian and liberal students were wearing, since his Catholic beliefs hold that homosexuality is sinful.

Glowacki was given a referral for his role in the ordeal. A referral is given to a student for breaking a school rule. The referral, given for minor offenses, goes on the student’s permanent record. Glowacki was given a referral, written up by McDowell, but not suspended from school.

Daniel Glowacki’s mother, Sandy Glowacki, told the Daily Press & Argus on Thursday that Howell High School Principal Aaron Moran delivered a letter to her home saying the referral had been taken off his record because Daniel Glowacki committed no wrongdoing.

The Daily Press & Argus on Tuesday filed a Freedom Of Information Act request seeking documentation from the district investigation. Assistant Superintendent Lynn Parrish on Thursday said the district served notice of the request to McDowell, alerting him the information may be released. McDowell has the option to request the information be held for an extended period of time.

“(McDowell) has options and he has the right to exercise each and every remedy he may have,” Parrish said.

McDowell did not return calls Thursday from the Daily Press & Argus seeking comment. He has declined comment when asked about the issue throughout the week.

The district Oct. 20 was taking part in a national “Spirit Day” — a Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation event aimed to raise awareness of anti-gay bullying after the recent suicides of six gay teens across the United States who had been harassed. Students in support of the day wore purple T-shirts that read “Tyler’s Army,” for one of the six who died. Others wore shirts featuring a rainbow, which signifies gay pride.

Daniel Glowacki, who has since been removed from the class and placed in another class at the request of his mother, questioned why it was allowed for students to show their support for the gay community and not allowed for a student to wear her Confederate flag belt buckle.

“I don’t really care what people think, but I don’t want people to think I’m against gays. That’s just not true,” Daniel Glowacki said.

A complaint was filed against McDowell, head of the Howell Education Association teachers’ union, by a parent. Sandy Glowacki said she did not file the complaint. That complaint led to an investigation, which led to McDowell being suspended one day without pay. District officials considered the issue over until it was found out McDowell posted information about his suspension on Facebook. He has since returned to work.

“The day the incident took place, I received several e-mails from parents saying they believe students were being harassed for not wearing the T-shirts,” Wilson said Thursday. “We have a clear, established anti-bullying policy. [emphasis added]

Translation: students who declined to show support for the gay and lesbian cause were victims of bullying.

“All the student was doing was voicing an opinion. The same thing would have been done had the student been on the other side. As superintendent, it’s my responsibility to foster fair, respectful treatment of all staff and students, and the teacher didn’t do that.”

Sandy Glowacki said she wanted her son and McDowell to apologize to each other, but because of comments being made about her son, she may seek legal action, although she acknowledged no one has mentioned her son by name.

Wilson said he is hopeful no legal action comes from the occurrence.

“My son is not a bigot,” Sandy Glowacki said. “He has a very diverse group of friends that includes some gays. If a gay student was being picked on in class, he’d stick up for them.

“But I feel his freedom of expression and freedom of speech have been violated along with his character.”

There is more coverage here and here.

Apparently the teacher verbally assaulted the dissenting students, calling them “racists.”

Daniel Glowacki learned some lessons about political correctness. Politically correct people are allowed to shut down any views they dislike by claiming to be offended, but politically incorrect people are required to tolerate anything thrown at them.

McDowell should not have merely received the one-day suspension, he should have been fired. One qualification to be a teacher is to deal tolerantly with disagreement from students, even when the student is expressing an idea you dislike. Not being a bigot, in other words, should be a qualification to be a teacher. And “bigotry” here is not defined as leftists define it — holding politically incorrect opinions. Bigotry is getting bent out of shape in the face of politically incorrect opinions.

We were about to ask rhetorically “how long before something like this happens at Marquette?” But almost certainly things like this have happened here. We have learned about some, but been unable to blog about them because we could not source them properly.

In one case a student of ours told us about hair-raising things that happened to his roommate. We urged him to urge his roommate to talk to us, but the roommate never did. A lot of students, feeling intimidated and emotionally bruised, want to let the issue drop.

Glowacki is a hero for, at least briefly, sticking to his guns and challenging what the teacher said. That’s a dangerous thing to do in high schools, and in colleges, when the teacher is a politically correct liberal or leftist.

Professor Berates, Attacks Students Who Question Global Warming Policies

From CampusReform.org:

A video about Prof. Bradley Schaefer, an astronomy professor at Louisiana State University who made students seat themselves according to their views on policy toward “global warming.”

Here is the seating chart.

He then began to attack and berate students who failed to endorse liberal policies on the issue.

“You will not want your children, if they live, why you’re sitting on that corner, that you’re part of the the trouble, right?” he says. Then he tells another student, “Too little, too late. Blood will be on your hands.”

Schaefer’s department chair conceded “I will confess that while this film was heavily edited, it looks pretty embarrassing. I think it’s probably fair to say he was not sufficiently sensitive.”

We’ve written Prof. Schaefer asking for comment, and will report his reply.



[Update]

A commenter on the web page we linked to claimed that Schaefer is the victim of selective editing. Specifically:

The truth of the matter is that this was an intellectual exercise. The professor did seperate [sic] the class by their self reported political beliefs, but then he attacked the views of both sides. The folks who run this site left that part out though because it doesn’t fit the story they are trying to spin.

And further, quoting Schaefer:

“You want to get rid of the internal combustion engine,” he said mockingly to self-identified liberals. “How many people are going to die with that? How are you going to feed the people in the cities?”

The problem with this argument is that all the “middle” positions he did not attack were in fact liberal positions.

See the seating chart below (and you can click on the graphic and see it full size).


So the exercise was a bit like putting Communists on one side of the room, and Republicans on the other, and “even-handedly” attacking both, leaving the liberals unmolested.

CampusReform.org has posted the full, unedited video. If anything, it’s worse that the edited version they originally posted.

[Further Update]

Another version of the video shows Schaefer suggesting that India and Pakistan, both of which have nuclear weapons, might use them to attack the U.S. because of our failure to adopt the policies he favors.

More Gay Fascism in Academia: Professor Fired for Teaching Catholic Doctrine in Class on Catholic Doctrine

File under “this isn’t surprising anymore” and “of course the left is intolerant of free expression.”

(CNSNews.com) – The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group, has given the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign until the end of Friday to re-instate a professor who was relieved of his teaching duties following complaints he engaged in “hate speech” by teaching Catholic dogma about homosexuality in a course about Catholicism.

In a letter to University officials, ADF attorneys say that Dr. Kenneth Howell lost his position simply for teaching an unpopular Catholic doctrine, and that University officials have until July 16 to respond to demands that the university immediately reinstate Howell to his teaching position, or face court action.

While teaching the course “Introduction to Catholicism” at the University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign, they say, Howell expressed Catholic Church teaching on homosexuality in an e-mail to his students, prompting a student complaint to the University that read in part, “allowing this hate speech at a public university is entirely unacceptable.”

“We are gravely disappointed that the University would succumb to such a ‘heckler’s veto,’ jettison principles of academic freedom, and violate Dr. Howell’s First Amendment freedoms. And we insist that he be reinstated to his teaching position immediately,” the letter said.

“We are seriously going to consider a lawsuit if they do not back down from this. It was clear cut censorship of a professor simply for expressing a politically incorrect view in the classroom on the subject that the class was about,” Jordan Lawrence, the Alliance Defense Fund attorney representing Howell, told CNSNews.com.

Howell’s May 4 e-mail, obtained and published by the Champaign News-Gazette, discussed the differences between utilitarianism and Natural Moral Law in judging the morality of homosexuality.

Howell explained to his students that Natural Moral Law, “says that Morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same. How do we know this? By looking at REALITY. Men and women are complementary in their anatomy, physiology, and psychology. Men and women are not interchangeable. So, a moral sexual act has to be between persons that are fitted for that act.”

Howell further states in the e-mail: “Natural Moral Theory says that if we are to have healthy sexual lives, we must return to a connection between procreation and sex. Why? Because that is what is REAL. It is based on human sexual anatomy and physiology. Human sexuality is inherently unitive and procreative. If we encourage sexual relations that violate this basic meaning, we will end up denying something essential about our humanity, about our feminine and masculine nature.”

Howell’s dismissal came after an e-mail from an unnamed student was sent to the head of the Department of Religion at the university, complaining that Howell “allowed little room for any opposition to Catholic dogma.”

“Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing. Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another,” the student e-mail said. “The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one’s worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation.”

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the official Roman Catholic teachings, homosexual acts “are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

In a 1986 letter, “On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons,” then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, wrote: “Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living.”

Ironically, the U of I Department of Religion had congratulated Howell in the previous school semester for his “excellent teaching” in the Introduction to Catholicism course, as ranked by students in the Fall of 2009.

But Howell was informed in late May of this year by Dr. Robert McKim, head of the religion department, that he would no longer be able to teach classes at the University.

“This kind of heavy handed authoritarian response to an opinion that some anonymous person found objectionable is simply not the way classrooms should function at universities in the United States,” Lorence told CNSNews.com

According to Lorence, the university officials who dismissed Howell have been vague as to the exact cause of his dismissal. He said no mention of work performance or inaccuracies in presenting material to students were when Dr. Howell was dismissed. Lorence told CNSNews.com that the complaints about “hate speech” seem to be the direct cause of the dismissal.

Dr. Michael Hogan, who started his tenure as president of the University of Illinois in May of this year, has responded to individuals concerned about Dr. Howell’s dismissal via an open e-mail letter:

“Let me begin by thanking you for expressing your concerns,” the letter states. “Academic freedom is at the core of our teaching and research missions. It’s vital to our ability to explore new ideas, educate our students, and promote the civil and free exchange of alternative viewpoints in a democracy.

“I learned of this action on the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) campus late last week and immediately asked Chancellor Robert Easter, who oversees the campus, to provide me with a briefing on the matter. I want to assure you that the University administration shares my commitment to the principles of academic freedom. At the same time, we do believe it’s important to fully investigate all of the details related to this situation. As I’m sure you’re aware, it is sometimes the case that public reports may convey only part of the story. I think it important to reserve judgment until I have all of the facts and I hope you’ll agree.

“We have asked the UIUC Senate’s standing Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure to immediately review this action. This is the mechanism on the campus through which these matters should be vetted. We expect this review to be completed very soon. By using our channels of shared governance and review, we are in the best position to make informed decisions that afford a fair process for all.”

The Alliance Defense Fund letter, meanwhile, says the First Amendment protects faculty speech in the classroom, and lists several federal court precedents protecting faculty speech. The letter also points out that “decades of Supreme Court precedent” prohibit the University from firing Dr. Howell simply because his speech was controversial.

The ADF letter reiterates several times that Howell was fired for teaching Catholic doctrine in a class about Catholic doctrine, and says that, “the University’s only reason for removing Dr. Howell is that other students, faculty, and staff disliked his speech.”

According to the University of Illinois Academic Staff Handbook: “Academic freedom is essential to the functioning of a university. It applies to its teaching, research, and public service and involves both faculty and students.”

The handbook goes on to say, “Faculty members are expected to instruct their assigned courses in a manner consistent with the scheduled time, course content, and course credit as approved by the faculty. Within these constraints, they are entitled to freedom in the classroom in developing and discussing according to their areas of competence the subjects that they are assigned.”

A decision by the university Senate’s Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure may be forthcoming.

The treatment of the issue in the leftist Huffington Post makes it clear that the CNS dispatch is accurate as regard the facts.

Howell’s real sin, of course, was giving the Catholic view of homosexuality a sympathetic and favorable treatment. Had he denounced Church teaching as “homophobic” the speech nazis at the University of Illinois would have been fine with that.

Of course, doing that would have been hate speech directed against Catholics. But that’s always acceptable on a college campus, even at Marquette.

The truth is that every student, even at a state-run university, needs to be taught Church teaching about sexuality (including homosexuality) with the arguments presented in a sympathetic way. Of course they should be taught the gay critique of Catholic doctrine too. That’s what education is all about.

Why “even at a state-run university?” Because of the historical and philosophical importance of Catholic doctrine. What about atheists who won’t like anything Catholic? They are free to dislike it. In the same way, Christian students should be taught about Islam, and they are likewise free to disagree with what they hear.

Of course Catholic doctrine is “controversial,” but that’s the point. The more controversial the issue, the greater the need for students to hear both sides, and to hear both sides from a sympathetic perspective, rather than having either caricatured by people who hate it.

Marxism is controversial too, as are deconstructionist approaches to literature and (say) critical race theory. But in the politically correct hothouse atmosphere of the modern American university only controversial views that leftist faculty happen to like are allowed to be presented.

Jodi O’Brien Affair: Undergraduates Loyal to Catholic Teaching Silenced

We found the comments responding to an essay by Matt Wion more cogent than the essay itself. Wion is far short of being a knee-jerk liberal, although he shows flashes of intolerance (calling an essay of our former colleague Chris Wolfe “vile”).

But the most poignant comment came from an undergraduate, and it shows the true nature of intolerance at Marquette.

Hi Matt,

As a senior at Marquette who is admittedly a part of that “traditional Catholic” block, I can’t tell you how much I appreciate your post as a breath of fresh air! It’s nice to know that there are people who disagree with my view point who do not throw my intellect in the garbage and call me a bigot. If people are curious why this issue hasn’t been discussed in such a way on campus before now, perhaps de facto silencing of the opposing view point would be a good place to start. What student in their right mind would counter protest these fellow students? Who would post what they actually think as their facebook status? The answer is sadly very few, because to do so is to be labeled as an anti-gay bigot, a student in lock-step with McAdams, and a blind follower of an “intolerant” religion, even if that religion speaks to the very core of who they are. So sometimes it’s better to just fade into the background than to stick up for what you think. And to think, this kind of fear of, are we allowed to call it discrimination?, is prevalent and unchecked at an institution of higher learning. How sad.

But the problem with all of this is, and in my mind the saddest part about this, is these conversations will never take place in the current campus atmosphere. It can’t, when fear of labels silences the traditional Catholic voice and when groups of students who suggest they are speaking on behalf of all students, declare that the time for listening is over. Nothing could be more destructive towards building a campus that embraces Catholicism, the LGBT community, and the value of all the various beliefs of all members of our community.

This, of course, underlines the utter hypocrisy of those who invoke “tolerance” in wanting to hire a lesbian dean.

They are not, in fact, tolerant at all. They are utter bigots when faced with opinions at odds with their politically correct orthodoxy.

And this, indeed, is the real threat to academic freedom at Marquette.

The issue is not whether it’s possible to espouse views at odds with Catholic teaching.

The issue is whether it’s possible to espouse views in support of Catholic teaching.

Hate America Sociology Exam

Happily, this was not at Marquette, but it probably could have been.

An example from “an introductory sociology class found lying in a room at a public college in the east.” Obviously, the identification has to be vague, due to the likelihood of retaliation. The provenance is clear, however.

Question: How does the United States “steal” the resources of other (third world) countries?

Answer: We steal through exploitation. Our multinationals are aware that indigenous people in developing nations have been coaxed off their plots and forced into slums. Because it is lucrative, our multinationals offer them extremely low wage labor that cannot be turned down.

Question: Why is the U.S. on shaky moral ground when it comes to preventing illegal immigration?

Answer: Some say that it is wrong of the United States to prevent illegal immigration because the same people we are denying entry to, we have exploited for the purpose of keeping the American wheel spinning.

Question: Why is it necessary to examine the theory of cumulative advantage when it comes to affirmative action?

Answer: Because it is unfair to discredit the many members of minority groups that have been offered more life chances through the program.

Question: What is the interactionist approach to gender?

Answer: The majority of multi-gender encounters are male-dominated. for example, while involved in conversation, the male is much more likely to interrupt. Most likely because the male believes the female’s expressed thoughts are inferior to his own.

Question: Please briefly explain the matrix of domination.

Answer: the belief that domination has more than one dimension. For example, Males are dominant over females, whites over blacks, and affluent over impoverished.

The exam received a grade of 100%.