Marquette Administrators and the Campus Gay Cabal: What Are They Planning for Us?

We’ve reported on the fact that Chris Miller, Vice President for Student Affairs here at Marquette, brought to campus lesbian college administrator/activist Ronnie Sanlo to serve as a “consultant” to Marquette.

The issue was very hush-hush. No notice was sent to the general faculty mailing list. It was not listed in “News Briefs” (where virtually all campus events are announced). We only learned about it via a leaked e-mail. Apparently, only gay and lesbian students and faculty, and their liberal “allies” were told about it.

But with whom did she meet?

When we learned about her visit, we asked Student Affairs for a copy of her itinerary. The Secretary in Student Affairs (Stacy Kuras, obviously acting on direction from Chris Miller) replied:

Normally, we don’t release a consultants’ itinerary. If you do have an interest in speaking with her, we will be more than happy to provide you with times in order to do so.

So we signed up for the 1:00 p.m. Friday meeting (which we knew about via the leaked e-mail) and filed a report from there. Apparently Chris Miller had calculated that letting us in would be less embarrassing than having us make a stink about being excluded.

Then, this past Monday, a student who was a strong supporter of the campus gay lobby came by our office and showed us a copy of the Sanlo itinerary. He had gotten it simply for the asking from Kuras. Under the circumstances, we called Kuras and again asked for the itinerary, pointing out that the student had it. She said she would have to “ask,” and then Tuesday it arrived in our e-mail.

Apparently, the “less embarrassing to produce the information” principle had worked again.

The PDF of the exact document we got from Student Affairs is here, but the gist of it is as fellows.

Dr. Ronni Sanlo
October 28th & 29th, 2010
Itinerary

Thursday, October 28th

8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.

Breakfast with Dr. Christopher Miller at the Envoy in the Ambassador

9:15 a.m. to 10 a.m.

Meeting with Dr. John Pauly, Provost, Zilber Hall 448

10:00 a.m. to 10:20 a.m.

Meeting with Mr. Greg Kliebhan, Senior Vice President, Zilber Hall 435

10:20 a.m. to 10:50 a.m.

Meeting with Ms. Anne O’Brien & Dr. Toby Peters, Vice President’s Office, Zilber 435

11:00 a.m. to 11:50 a.m.

Meeting with Diversity Advocates, Todd Wehr Chemistry 002

12 a.m. to 12:50 p.m.

Lunch Meeting with Dr. Steven Engel & Dr. Amelia Zurcher, Tory Hill Café

1:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.

Meeting with Mr. Steve Frieder, Assistant to the President, Zilber Hall 441

1:30 p.m. to 1:55 p.m.

Break

2:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.

Meeting with Mr. Larry Rickard, MU Chief of Police, & DPS 1st floor Parking Structure, 16th St

2:40 p.m. to 3:10 p.m.

Meeting with Mr. Steve Blaha, Campus Ministry, AMU 236

3:15 p.m. to 4:55 p.m.

Break

5:00 p.m. to 5:55 p.m.

Meeting with Dr. Chris Miller, Vice President of Student Affairs, AMU 437

6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.

Dinner with Dr. Nancy Snow at the Knick, 1030 E Juneau Avenue*

Friday, October 29,th

8:30 a.m. to 9:25 a.m.

Meeting with the [Student Affairs] Executive Leadership Team (ELT), AMU 252

9:30 a.m. to 9:55 a.m.

Break

10 a.m. to 10:50 a.m.

Meeting with Ms. Erin Ruckoldt of GSA [Gay/Straight Alliance] & Student members, as well as the Student Organization Empowerment, AMU 230

11 a.m. to 11:50 a.m.

Meeting with Ms. Rana Altenburg, Vice President, Office of Public Affairs, 1616 W Wells

12 p.m. to 12:50 p.m.

Lunch with Marquette University Student Government (MUSG), Lunda Room

1:00 p.m. to 1:50 p.m.

Meeting I with various Faculty & Graduate Students, AMU 252

2:00 p.m. to 2:50 p.m.

Dr. Wellburn Collegiate Group and Diversity Advisory Committee, Zilber Hall, Conf 444

3:00 p.m. to 3:50 p.m.

Meeting II with various Faculty & Graduate Students, AMU 252

4:00 p.m. to 4:20 p.m.

Meeting with Dr. Chris Miller, Vice President of Student Affairs, AMU 437

4:20 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Conference call with Fr. Scott Pilarz

4:30 p.m.

Stacy to drive Dr. Sanlo to the Airport

The first obvious thing: virtually every top administrator at Marquette met with Sanlo. The exceptions: President Robert Wild (who sent Steve Frieder to talk to her), and Development (which would not be expected to much like initiatives that would alienate alumni).

Second, “faculty” and “students” were included, but only very carefully selected faculty and students.

Thus, when Marquette announces some new “initiative” to placate the gay lobby, it can claim that there was “extensive consultation with students and faculty.” But the “consultation” was a sham.

The Agenda

But just what do they want to do?

First, we can look at what President Fr. Robert Wild has already promised.

In a statement released in the wake of the decision not to hire lesbian Arts & Science Dean candidate Jodi O’Brien, Wild said:

I am saddened by the divisiveness this decision has caused, and, as I enter my final year as your resident, a priority focus will be continuing dialogue and reflection, among faculty, staff and students, about our Catholic, Jesuit identity and the important principles of academic freedom, shared governance and the needs of our LGBT community. I expect us to explore these topics through the research, teaching and service projects that are a part of university life, in ways that include, but certainly are not limited to, faculty summer research, faculty-student team research projects, conferences and speakers, course development, and student service‐learning projects, particularly in the areas of gender and sexuality and Catholicity in higher education. I welcome, indeed encourage, your ideas.

Some of this sounds innocuous enough. Who could object to “research projects” or “conferences and speakers” or “service-learning projects?”

In reality, however, any such initiatives are likely to have a sharp pro-homosexuality, politically correct bias. We would be astonished to, for example, see an actual campus debate on gay marriage or whether Marquette should have hired Jodi O’Brien with advocates on both sides, sharply presenting both sides of the issue.

If any such debate happens, it will probably come from a student organization, not from any Marquette bureaucrat.

Some of these things, of course, can be pursued by faculty who enjoy academic freedom to research gay issues, or to discuss such issues in courses. But it would be foolish for Marquette to fund or encourage such things.

But Wild’s list hardly exhausts the mischief that the gay agenda might involve.

A Gay & Lesbian Center.

One of the things strongly promoted by Sanlo during her meeting with faculty was a Gay and Lesbian Center. It might sound nice to “provide resources” or “meet the needs” of gay and lesbian students. But it’s unclear how those needs aren’t being met by the current Marquette bureaucracy. The Counseling Center or the Campus Ministry or Student Affairs are hardly anti-gay.

But then, maybe the “need” is simply to legitimate a homosexual lifestyle.

Domestic Partner Benefits

Marquette student government has already endorsed domestic partner benefits for the “partners” of gay and lesbian faculty and staff. Of course, since it’s illegal in Wisconsin to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, presumably the unmarried live-in partners of straight faculty would also be covered.

That would require Marquette to actually subsidize relationships that Catholic teaching holds to be illicit. But a fair number of “Catholic” colleges do this, so it’s not hard to think Marquette would.

When faculty met with Sanlo, this was one of the issues heavily promoted.

Hiring More Gay and Lesbian Faculty

We don’t expect to see any job ads from Marquette saying “candidate must be gay or lesbian” or even “gays and lesbians encouraged to apply.” But that’s not necessary. Simply advertising for a scholar doing “gender studies” is overwhelmingly likely to turn up candidates favorable to the gay lobby. Then, of course, it’s possible to skip a competitive search for an entry level position and hire a particular scholar from another institution.

Conclusion

Thus the gay lobby agenda on campus is to build an infrastructure. Not that they are lacking one already: Student Affairs, the Campus Ministry, the English and Psychology Departments (along with several others), the program in Women’s and Gender Studies and the Office of Mission and Identity are firmly on board.

The agenda is to expand the infrastructure with more courses, more hires of faculty and staff, and more symbolic concessions that (implicitly but quite clearly) renounce Catholic teaching on sexuality.

Reporting From the Belly of the Beast: Marquette Warrior at a Meeting of the Campus Gay Lobby

It was supposed to be hush-hush.

Chris Miller, Vice President for Student Affairs, invited lesbian activist and director of the UCLA Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LGBT) Campus Resource Center Ronni Sanlo to Marquette as a “consultant.”

Marquette’s website contains nothing at all about the visit. E-mailed invitations were sent to people who are apparently gay, lesbian or “allies” on campus. The thing ceased to be hush-hush when we obtained an e-mail chain and “outed” [to coin a phrase] the whole affair.

Miller seemed a bit perturbed that we had obtained the e-mails, and asked us how we got them. Of course we, following standard journalistic practice, declined to give him any information.

Why was Sanlo brought to campus? In an e-mail to us, Miller claimed to “have some data which reflect climate concerns.” Such data is not public, however.

Sanlo’s time on campus included a meeting with graduate students, a “Town Hall” meeting on Thursday night (one that was, like all her events, publicized to only a narrow circle of people), a luncheon with the Executive Board of Marquette University Student Government at noon yesterday (Friday), and two meetings with faculty – one at 1:00 p.m. yesterday, and another at 3:00 p.m.

We were in the 1:00 p.m. meeting, feeling at bit like a lion in a den of Daniels. There were 21 individuals present (plus us and Sanlo).

Her Mission

Sanlo explained that she was invited to campus by Miller, and her job was to “see what the issues might be and find some solutions.” She will produce a report for Miller, with whom she worked at “another institution.” She was vague on who else might see the report, and especially whether anybody higher in the Administration would see it or was in any way invested in the project. “I can’t say how high it will go,” she said, adding that she would like it to be made public.

(If somebody will leak a copy to a certain blogger, it will indeed be public.)

Her visit was set up in early September, “probably” (she said) in response to the brouhaha over Jodi O’Brien.

Although Student Affairs invited her, she alluded to “issues around faculty and staff,” that are “beyond the student area.”

Sanlo referred to what she was told was a “repressive climate on campus,” and further that “Student Affairs has been an agent in stopping” discussions of sexuality.

Her Life Story

Sanlo started by telling her life story, including the fact that as a barely pubescent girl she had the hots for Annette Funicello (one of the few things she has in common with us), and how after leaving college she married her college “default date” when her grandfather asked her “what are you, funny or something?”

She “came out” in 1979, and after some tough times (she was homeless for a spell), got things together and “became a raging activist.”

Faculty Comment & Question

Most of the time consisted of faculty comments and questions. The first comment, from Stephen Franzoi (a member of the Search Committee that selected Jodi O’Brien) questioned whether the people in the room would have any effect. He suggested that they are viewed as “non-credible” by the Administration. Another faculty member claimed that “we are viewed as comical problems.”

On a similar note, one faculty member said she had been told that “most students are over this.” (In reality, most students had nothing to “get over” since they didn’t care one way or the other. The students who talk to the most politically correct faculty are a rather self-selected group.)

Secular vs. Nominally Catholic

Some faculty members wanted Marquette’s response to be nominally Catholic, one saying that Sanlo’s report “has to have a congruence with the language of [Catholic] mission.”

But other faculty made no bones about not caring about the “mission” business. One expressed a desire that Marquette be “like other schools around the country,” and Franzoi pointed out that “many faculty are secular.” He explained that when he came to Marquette he had three job offers (ironically, all from Catholic schools) and he came to do research.

Why Not Set Up a Center?

Anytime academics want recognition for their pet project, the first thing that comes to mind is “let’s set up a center.” And indeed Sanlo talked at length about the issue, pointing out that there are about 200 lesbian and gay centers in universities around the country.

(One of the odd characteristics of people who want Marquette to be much more secular is their using the standard plaint of teenagers, “everybody is doing it.” Having degrees, they ought to know this is the argumentum ad populum fallacy.)

Most of these centers are run by Student Affairs, and Sanlo said they are “all very similar.” She gave a description of the center at UCLA, saying it tries to draw in all kinds of students, with one key inducement being free printing!

A considerable discussion ensued regarding whether any such center at Marquette should be run by Student Affairs or on the academic side of the University. Opinions leaned toward an academic center, one person saying that faculty won’t go to events hosted by Student Affairs. In particular, the Center at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee has a director who does not have a Ph.D. – something that compromises its academic credibility.

A related issue was whether any such Center would deal with broader “gender” issues, like sexual violence. Here opinions were split. Often, across the nation, centers have to deal with multiple issues due to budget constraints.

Domestic Partner Benefits

A final discussion dealt “domestic partner benefits:” the notion that gay or lesbian “partners” of faculty should get the same benefits as spouses. Sanlo, of course, was all for it. She claimed that while at Marquette she had “talked to a number of people about that.”

She further said that she “would not apply to any institution that did not have domestic partner benefits.” This in spite of the fact that she has not had a “partner’ in 10 years. Other faculty chimed in, saying that hiring at Marquette is harmed by the lack of such benefits.

Nobody, of course, suggested that it’s a good thing if people so opposed to Marquette’s Catholic mission and identity self-select out of the pool of job applicants. The demand for “domestic partner benefits” is, after all, a demand that Marquette recognize as legitimate and subsidize illicit sexual behavior.

Sanlo added an inspirational note, telling those assembled “you’ve been called here to create change in the institution.” She was right about that. But the “change” the people at the meeting wanted was for Marquette to become like every conformist politically correct secular institution.

In other words, they want to remake Marquette in their own image. To a substantial degree, they already have.