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.

Lesbian Activist/Administrator To “Consult” With Marquette on Gay Issues

Dr. Ronni Sanlo, a college administrator and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) activist will be coming to campus on Thursday, October 28th to meet with various members of the Marquette community.

Who is Dr. Ronni Sanlo?

Her own web page describes her thus:

Dr. Ronni Sanlo is a Senior Associate Dean of Students and Professor and Director of the UCLA Masters of Education in Student Affairs. Formerly, Ronni was the director of the UCLA Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LGBT) Center, the University of Michigan LGBT Center, and an HIV epidemiologist in Florida. She earned her bachelor’s degree from the University of Florida, and a masters and doctorate in education from the University of North Florida in Jacksonville, FL. Ronni has presented many workshops and seminars about LGBT issues in companies, campuses, and organizations.

Her biography tells how she knew she was a lesbian at age 11 when she was “in love with” Annette Funicello, but stayed in the closet and even got married, “coming out” only in 1979. According to the blurb:

Sanlo teaches a required course, ED 405, which focuses on identity and culture in education. And through her work at the LGBT center, she conducts sensitivity training sessions for faculty, staff and — indirectly — students.

Before going to UCLA, she was at the University of Michigan, where her signal “contribution” was apparently a “lavender graduation ceremony.”

She describes the event as follows:

Lavender Graduation is a cultural celebration that recognizes LGBT students of all races and ethnicities and acknowledges their achievements and contributions to the university as students who survived the college experience. Through such recognition LGBT students may leave the university with a positive last experience of the institution thereby encouraging them to become involved mentors for current students as well as financially contributing alumni.

Within the very narrow confines of student affairs offices and lesbian academia, she has been designated one of “20 Powerful Lesbian Academics.”

The following is the e-mail chain that contains various of the details of her visit.

I have secured AMU 252 for the Dr. Sanlo meeting on October 29th, 2010 from 1pm until 1:50 pm. If I have inadvertently left anyone off the list, I do apologize, but ask that you please feel free to forward this to whomever you deem appropriate. I did get more chairs than there are currently people for, so we should have plenty of room.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

Stacy Kuras
Administrative Assistant
Dr. L. Christopher Miller
Vice President for Student Affairs
Marquette University
________________________________

From: Franzoi, Stephen
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 11:13 AM
To: Kuras, Stacy; de St. Aubin, Ed; Snow, Nancy; Engel, Stephen; Hossenlopp, Jeanne; Massingale, Bryan; Hogan, Michael J.; Zurcher, Amelia; South, James; Politano, Michael; Jodi Melamed; Dempsey, Deirdre; Moon, Dawne; Foster, Susanne; Peressini, Anthony; Krueger, Christine
Cc: Miller, Chris (L. Christopher)
Subject: RE: Attending a scheduled meeting with Ronni Sanlo--please reply as soon as possible

I can make 1 PM.

Steve Franzoi
________________________________
From: Kuras, Stacy
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 11:02 AM
[distribution list identical to the above deleted]
Subject: RE: Attending a scheduled meeting with Ronni Sanlo--please reply as soon as possible

On the 29th of October, I can make it for 1 pm if this works out better for everyone.
________________________________

From: de St. Aubin, Ed
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 10:48 AM
[distribution list identical to the above deleted]

Subject: RE: Attending a scheduled meeting with Ronni Sanlo--please reply as soon as possible

The inaugural WGST Fellow reception begins at 3:30 on October 29.

MANY faculty interested in meeting with Dr. Sanlo have already committed to attend this hugely important event.

Are there other options in terms of time slots to meet with Dr. Sanlo???

Ed de St. Aubin
Psychology Department
Marquette University

The WGST Fellow program is described on the website of the Women and Gender Studies Program. That “gender studies” has been addeed to “women’s studies” signals a move toward a homosexual emphasis, as shown by one of the papers completed by a WGST fellow this summer: “Homonegativity and lesbian development: the impact of micro-networks and macro-contexts.”

________________________________

From: Snow, Nancy
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 10:26 AM
[distribution list identical to the above deleted]
Subject: RE: Attending a scheduled meeting with Ronni Sanlo--please reply as soon as possible

Hi, All,

I’ve just called Stacy Kuras of Dr. Miller’s office. We are all invited to meet with Dr. Sanlo from 3-4:30 on Oct. 29th. She will be reserving a room for about 30 people.

Thanks,

Nancy

Nancy E. Snow
Professor of Philosophy
Marquette University
________________________________
From: Engel, Stephen
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 10:18 AM
[distribution list identical to the above deleted]
Subject: Attending a scheduled meeting with Ronni Sanlo--please reply as soon as possible

Dear 10/21 meeting folks,

Things are moving fast with regard to Ronni Sanlo’s visit. She will be at Marquette on October 28 and 29, and Chris Miller would like to know if any of us would like to meet with her. Time has been set aside for Sanlo to meet with faculty on October 29 from 3 to 4:30 PM.

I have already agreed to meet with Sanlo at this time. I believe that Amelia and Nancy are attending this meeting as well, though I can’t confirm that. Chris Miller’s assistant needs to know who of our group would like to meet with her in order to get a list of attendees and a proper room.

Please let me know as soon as possible if you would like to attend this meeting, and I will pass that on to Miller’s office.

All best,
Steve
________________________________

[The “From” header is missing on our copy of the following, but see below for the apparent sender]

This just came (below) requesting that we meet with a consultant re: LGTB issues. Please reply at your earliest convenience as to whether or not you can attend. We do have our scheduled Faculty Council meeting earlier that day - 11-12:30. Many thanks!

Marilyn Frenn PhD, RN, CNE, ANEF
Chair, Faculty Council

Hi Marilyn and Lisa,

I don’t know if Christopher Miller contacted you directly, but he agreed that the FC and SCE should be on the list of invitees to a meeting with Dr. Ronni Sanlo, associate dean of students at UCLA and expert on LGBT issues on college campuses, who’s been invited as a consultant at MU. If you have not been contacted, could you forward this invitation to your committees and send me a list of attendees?

Thanks (BTW) I’m sorry for the late notice. I just got this message from Miller’s factota this AM.

Chris

Christine L. Krueger, PhD
Associate Professor of English
Director, Who Counts Program
Marquette University

________________________________

From: Kuras, Stacy
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 10:05 AM
To: Hossenlopp, Jeanne; Engel, Stephen; Krueger, Christine; Snow, Nancy
Cc: Miller, Chris (L. Christopher)
Subject: Dr. Ronni Sanlo

Good morning! We are very excited to have Dr. Sanlo with us on October 28th & 29th. If it works for you and your respective groups, I can schedule you all to meet with Dr. Sanlo from 3pm to 4:30 pm on Friday, October 29th. I just need to get headcount in order to book a room for the various organizations and people. Additionally, I would like to get the individual names of the attendees so that Dr. Sanlo will have them for her contact list that I am creating for her.

Please let me know if this works for you, and we will proceed from there.

Very truly yours,

Stacy Kuras
Administrative Assistant
Dr. L. Christopher Miller
Vice President for Student Affairs
Marquette University

So . . . what precisely is the point of bringing her to Marquette? Does Marquette want to have a “lavender graduation?”

Since she specializes in leading “sensitivity training sessions,” are such sessions going to be imposed on faculty and students?

Is this a sop being thrown to the campus gay lobby, still smarting over Marquette’s failure to hire a lesbian dean?

It’s clear that Chris Miller’s Office of Student Affairs is taking the lead. What created a felt need for Sanlo’s presence?

We’ll continue to report on this as we learn more.

Orientation Indoctrination: Update

In a previous post, we discussed some of the things that go on during Freshman Orientation. We took particular exception to an exercise called “Take a Stand” which requires new Freshmen to publicly declare a position on some topic – often a topic that is highly contentious. We called the process “Stalinist thought reform.”

We did not have the script of the monologues that students were exposed to before the “Take a Stand” exercise, nor did we have the instructions to Orientation staff people who lead the exercise. The Division of Student Affairs, which we asked to provide them, failed to do so. Our sources were students who had been through the exercise.

This past Tuesday (September 21) we finally met with Jeff Janz, Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs, and L. Christopher Miller, Vice President for Student Affairs. They defended the program, and gave us access to the script and several sheets of guidelines and instructions given to both discussion leaders and new Freshmen.

The information gives a more rounded picture of the program, but doesn’t change our bottom-line interpretation: students (especially socially conservative students) are being pressured to take certain positions on pain of being singled out for having bad attitudes.

First: the monologues. Courtesy of Jeff Janz, here is a list of the subjects addressed the in monologues:

1. Homelessness/urban issues

2. Alcohol use/abuse

3. Sexual assault/date rape

4. Racial/ethnic diversity

5. Sexual orientation

6. Decision making re: sexual behaviors

7. Depression

8. Body image

Some of the monologues are innocuous enough. Briefing students on problems of “body image” and “depression” is just fine.

The one on “sexual assault/date rape” isn’t quite as politically correct as it might sound. The narrator is a woman with a friend whom she accompanies to a party. Her friend hooks up with a guy, has copious amounts of alcohol, “makes out” with the fellow for quite long time, and then the next morning thinks she might have been raped. She “thinks” she said “no,” but given her drunken stupor can’t be sure.

When the monologue ends, students are informed in an “Interim” [sic] that a woman can’t legally consent to sex when she is drunk. This doctrine does no woman much good, since only a tiny proportion of women who acted so irresponsibly will report the “rape” (or rape, if she really did say “no”). But as a warning about what can happen if you are plastered and fooling around with a guy, this is a worthwhile exercise.

Likewise, another monologue features a male actor talking about the difficulty of resisting pressure to consume alcohol.

Discouraging Illicit Sex – Among Heterosexuals

There is a monologue that discourages illicit sex. The narrator, a woman, has been going out with a guy for a few weeks, likes him a lot, and wonders whether she should “take the relationship to the next level.” Her friends, several of whom have had casual sexual “hook ups” with guys, tell her “go for it.”

At that point a statement is read saying that Marquette, as a Catholic institution, believes in sex only within marriage. There have to have been at least a few smirks at this.

But more compellingly, the voice of the girl’s mother is heard, telling her “your dad and I raised you with really strong values” and “remember where you came from.”

Getting More Controversial

One monologue has the moderator, a white male, talking about “James,” his black roommate. He is at first worried that he might “say or do the wrong thing,” but thinks “people are people,” and the two get along great.

But then his black roommate opens up about some things that bother him. Two women moved their purses when he got on an elevator, apparently apprehensive that the fellow might snatch one of them. In a class discussing Jim Crow laws, students all turn to the student and ask questions, assuming that since he’s black, he’s an expert on all things racial.

The white narrator concludes that “after living with James and watching him get hurt, I could see that race does matter.”

Gay Guy in Chemistry Class

The next narrator, a male, talks about “Jason,” a fellow he met in Chemistry class, who is helping him with his homework. He finds out that “Jason” is gay, and has that confirmed when Jason answers his cell phone and (rather gratuitously) tells him that it’s his “boyfriend” who called.

“Jason” explains to the narrator that he’s unhappy with people saying “queer” or “faggot” to denote homosexuals, or saying something is “gay” when they mean it looks odd.

The narrator talked to his residence hall minister, who “said that the church embraced everyone, that Jesus loved people without passing judgments, and that he should do the same.”

The problem with this, of course, is that the Church does embrace everyone (including, for example, adulterers and racists), but it doesn’t “embrace” them by saying that sin is not sin.

Marquette certainly has an interest in seeing that gay and lesbian students don’t face a hostile environment, but it should never condone homosexual sex.

In fact, Marquette implicitly (but clearly) does condone homosexual sex. Homosexuals are treated as a politically correct victim group to be pandered to, and not a group of people who face temptations they need support in resisting. Interestingly, Freshman Orientation is willing to discourage (if rather tepidly) illicit straight sex (see above), but won’t do the same with homosexual sex!

The narrator in this monologue reports that “Jason” says that it was acceptable to make fun of blacks a generation ago, and that a century ago women were considered “lower class.” The narrator concludes “I am going to have to learn about people who are different from me.”

Translation: if you hold to the Catholic view of homosexuality you just don’t “know enough,” and are like racists or evil patriarchal males who kept women down.

Discussion and “Taking a Stand”

Students are then herded into small groups, and led in a discussion of what they have seen. Then they are required to “take a stand” by responding to a series of questions. They must move around the room, moving toward one side or the other, depending on which side of the issue they take, and how strongly they feel.

Janz has supplied us with the list of questions. The ones actually used will vary, and will never include all of the following. There is neither time nor patience for that.

1. The monologues made me think about issues that I haven’t dealt with before.

2. I feel comfortable living in the city.

3. I would feel comfortable choosing not to drink when my friends are.

4. I feel like race is not an issue in 2010.

5. I would feel comfortable going to the counseling center for help.

6. I would feel uncomfortable if a homeless person approached me.

7. Only women are victims of sexual assault.

8. I know how to react when asked for money.

9. I would be comfortable if I (or one of my friends) dated someone of a different race.

10. Being gay is a choice that people make.

11. People who have body image issues only care what other people think.

12. Because of past oppression, people of color should have more scholarship opportunities.

13. There is no such thing as bisexuality.

14. I feel people who are sexually assaulted bring it upon themselves

15. People do things that they don’t really mean when they are intoxicated.

16. I would not mind having a gay roommate.

17. I can always tell when a person is depressed.

18. People who ask for money are lazy and unwilling to find work for themselves.

19. Being intoxicated is an excuse for me to not take responsibility for my actions.

20. I would feel comfortable living with someone of a different race.

21. People should not use medication to fight depression or other behavioral mental disorders.

22. Only women are concerned with body image.

23. Men who cannot handle stress are weak.

24. College is a time to let loose and party.

To hear Student Affairs bureaucrats tell it, this is all a warm and fuzzy exercise in sharing feelings and perspectives. Janz claims that “students are encouraged not to take a ‘politically correct’ position, but rather an honest reflection of their feelings.” Julie Murphy, who runs the program, claims the purpose of the exercise is to “show students that students come from multiple perspectives and multiple backgrounds.”

People in Student Affairs may actually believe this, but the pervasive political correctness of that bureaucracy comes through both in the instructions given group leaders, and the instructions given students.

Group Leaders

On the one hand, group leaders are told to “be respectful” and levy “no criticisms.” But they are also told to “realize that some people know more than others and that everyone is in a different place concerning diversity issues.” Note the condescending premise here: students who give the “wrong” response are just “less advanced” and “know less” than their more politically correct cohorts and group leaders.

Then there is this stunningly condescending observation: “It’s okay that you come from a small town.”

Suppose a group leader disagrees with a student? The leader is instructed: “confront ideas, not people.” The presumption seems to be that a green freshman who has his or her “ideas” confronted is not going to feel put down.

Suppose a student doesn’t want to face such “confrontation?” He or she is told “please don’t withdraw from the conversation.”

Stay Off the Line

Then when students are told to take a position, they face an environment that is equally threatening – at least, it is if they harbor unapproved attitudes. It might seen safe to stay in the exact (moderate) middle of the room, but students are instructed that “you may not step on the line of neutrality.” Group leaders are told “with each statement have a person from each side share why they feel the way that they do.”

Translation: you may be called upon to defend your position, and if you are on the side of the minority, you are especially likely to be called upon. Thus, no matter how much warm fuzzy rhetoric group leaders use (they are instructed to tell students that “this is a safe place”) it’s a very challenging place for students with politically incorrect attitudes.

One source (a social conservative) who participated in the process told us “because they are freshmen, and because they are a little bit intimidated, I feel a lot of students aren’t standing on the side they would stand on if they were by themselves or were with friends.” And further: “I know when I was a freshman it was very difficult for me to stand on the side that I thought was morally appropriate. . . .”

At the very end, students are instructed to “establish an action plan” detailing “what is your obligation.” Apparently, “my attitudes are just fine and I don’t need no stinkin’ plan” is not an approved response.

Student Affairs Responds

When we raised these concerns with Janz and Miller, Janz reacted like a defensive bureaucrat committed to the program. We pointed out to him that if the distribution of opinions in the “Take a Stand” exercise is lopsided, it pressures and singles-out students on the minority side. He responded that sometimes the distribution ought to be lopsided. He mentioned racism as an example.

(Our response what that we don’t want to pressure racists either, although hopefully we could educate such people.)

But the notion that racism (or homophobia) is behind all politically incorrect attitudes lurks in the background of these exercises.

Ironically, some of the monologues might cause students to take a superficially “racist” position. Consider, for example, the white student who had “James” as a roommate. Starting out as a naïve kid who just thought that “people are people,” he had to deal with the fact that “James” had been hurt, and was sensitive to all kinds of racial slights. He might decide that a black roommate is a challenge he’s not up to, or even that “James” deserves a black roommate who would “understand.”

Chris Miller seemed much more open to criticism of the program, insisting that he would like to hear from students who have felt pressured or coerced. He insisted that “the conservative voice needs to be heard on campus.” He quite readily agreed that students who hold Catholic views on sexuality should not be derided or demeaned.

Miller seems to be much more open and flexible than the former Vice President for Student Affairs, Fr. Andy Thon. Of course, we have toyed with the idea that Miller is neither, but merely much smarter and shrewder. For most purposes, it doesn’t much matter. He’s a much better person to hold the position.

The Ultimate Protection

One thing protects a lot of students from all this: they blow it off. In spite of the fact that this stuff is labeled “mandatory” in the Freshman Orientation program, a fair number of students just skip it.

Until and unless Student Affairs revises the program, stressing useful information and removing coercive charades, that’s exactly what we would recommend.

“Take a Stand” During Freshman Orientation: Stalinist Thought Reform at Marquette

Four years ago we blogged about the tactics used by the Freshman Orientation staff in the Office of Student Development to “train” students who were charged with “orienting” new Freshmen during Freshman Orientation. We described the entire process as a “Politically Correct Boot Camp.”

We have yet to blog about Freshman Orientation itself, but the time has come.

Over the years we have gotten chronic complaints from students who feel that they have been subjected to indoctrination at Orientation. When Adam Ryback, editor of The Warrior, asked us to write a piece on that, we did, and what follows is a somewhat adapted version of that article.

First, we have to note that most of the activities at Freshman Orientation are pretty innocuous. As the schedule shows, most of a student’s time is taken up with worthwhile advising, much of it on academic matters. But then many students skip those events. It’s typically much more fun to hang around, get to know people, spend some time with parents and siblings, and just soak up the atmosphere.

But some of the events are “mandatory.” And one set of mandatory events is quite problematic. It’s called “Marquette: On Stage,” which consists of a series of monologues the stated purpose of which is to heighten the “awareness” of students about certain “social issues” they will face.

We don’t have detailed information on this year’s monologues (something we’ll explain below), but we know lots about previous years, and the program changes only incrementally.

What Is The Nature of the Monologues?

Some of the monologues are innocuous enough: one from an actor playing a student who is pressured to drink when out with friends, another from a woman with “body image” problems, and one featuring a student who has problems with depression.

But some of the monologues are from politically correct “victim” groups. A gay guy complaining that people look at him in a funny way, or a black guy who believes a woman is uneasy when he gets on an elevator with her. Indeed, there are likely to be two or three ethnic minority monologues, each with a grievance.

So how is this biased? Mainly because only politically correct victim groups are presented as facing problems with intolerance and lack of acceptance. There is no monologue from a white student who is derided as the bearer of “white privilege” (something that happens with some frequency at Marquette). There is no monologue from a future cop who has to listen to leftie professors talk about how police are “racist.”

There is no monologue from a student who is demeaned for conservative religious values – perhaps derided for believing that sex outside marriage is wrong or opposing gay marriage. But intolerance of students who support Catholic teaching is indeed a problem on campus.

This past spring, there was a huge uproar about Marquette’s refusal to hire an outspoken lesbian as Arts & Sciences Dean. Just looking at protesting students, one might think that all undergraduates wanted the lesbian dean. But a fair number were silenced by the intolerance of pro-gay students. One Marquette senior complained on an online discussion forum: “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 . . . and a blind follower of an ‘intolerant’ religion,” and further, “fear of labels silences the traditional Catholic voice.”

But there wasn’t a monologue reflecting this student’s plight.

But just having to sit and listen to some student actors representing politically correct groups mouth some standard grievances isn’t that terrible. And one indeed should try to avoid giving offense thoughtlessly.

But it gets much worse.

Take a Stand

Unfortunately, the monologues are just the beginning. Students are then herded into small groups and required to “take a stand.” Students are asked a question about how they feel on some issue, and then required to move to one side of the room or the other, depending on their opinion. Julie Murphy claims the purpose of the exercise is to “show students that students come from multiple perspectives and multiple backgrounds.”

But that’s just not so. The real purpose is to single out and pressure students who have dissenting (non-politically correct) opinions.

Some of the questions are innocuous. Students are asked to agree or disagree with the proposition “I feel comfortable living in a city” or “I would feel uncomfortable if a homeless person approached me.”

But other questions are more politically loaded, such as “because of past oppression people of color should have more scholarship opportunities.” Or “there is no such thing as bisexuality.” Or “I feel race is not an issue in 2009” (obviously, asked last year).

Or “Being gay is a choice people make.”

Think for a moment how biased that last question is. While lusting after one’s same sex rather than the opposite sex may be pretty much fixed at any point in a person’s life, having homosexual sex most certainly is a choice. Yet for the gay lobby, saying that homosexuality is “not a choice” translates as “gay sex is just fine.”

Most of these issues have been addressed in “Marquette: On Stage,” so students know the politically correct answer and disproportionally take the politically correct side. One source told us that “because they are freshmen, and because they are a little bit intimidated, I feel a lot of students aren’t standing on the side they would stand on if they were by themselves or were with friends.” And further: “I know when I was a freshman it was very difficult for me to stand on the side that I thought was morally appropriate. . . .”

So if you are a Freshman and your social attitudes don’t conform to those preferred by the University bureaucrats that run the program, you will likely get put on the spot.

This, of course, has nothing to do with education, which would present both sides of contentious issues and not pressure people. It’s more like Stalinist thought reform.

Marquette Bureaucrats Conceal the Details

Although we have ample sources from previous years, we wanted to actually look at the script of this year’s “Marquette: On Stage,” and see the list of questions put to students during the “Take a Stand” exercise.

But the bureaucrat who runs Freshman Orientation, Julie Murphy, flatly refused – when we contacted her on August 19th – to share the script. Two days after that (and the day after our deadline for the Warrior piece) Vice President for Student Affairs Chris Miller wrote us, explaining that he had been out of town, and saying “I did check into this and I absolutely believe you should have access to this information.” He went on to explain that:

They (Student Development) have a practice wherein they do not distribute detailed programming information prior to the event because it is always subject to change. I believe they did in fact release information prior to an event once and at the last minute cancelled or changed the program. This did not sit well with those who really wanted the event and planned accordingly.

OK, we thought, we’ll get the script and list of questions when Freshman Orientation starts next week.

But they didn’t send it.

Then on August 26th we got an e-mail from Jeff Janz, Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs. He asked “Did you receive the information you were looking for?” We responded that we had not.

But then instead of sending it, he finally wrote us on September 2, saying “in follow up to our correspondences last week related to orientation activities, Dr. Miller asked that I check in to see if you might be interested in meeting with us to discuss the matter.” He suggested a meeting this coming Thursday or Friday.

Translation: stonewall.

We may or may not meet with Janz and Miller. We have participated in a couple of such meetings before when the Office of Student Development shut up the College Republicans, and they are never productive.

If OSD has a good reason for withholding the details of “Marquette: On Stage” and “Take a Stand,” we would like to know it.

Until they produce some compelling argument, the conclusion has to be that they want to conceal an exercise in indoctrination.

Andy Thon’s Replacement Announced

From a University e-mail:

A college administrator who is also a lawyer is the new vice president for student affairs at Marquette University. The appointment of Dr. L. Christopher Miller, vice chancellor for student affairs and administrative services at the University of Illinois at Springfield, is effective July 15.

Miller, a graduate of the University of North Carolina, earned his law degree at Campbell University and his Ph.D. in justice studies from Arizona State University. He has also studied at the Institute for Educational Management in Harvard’s Graduate School of Education.

“In Dr. Miller we have found a creative and energetic leader with broad-based experience in many aspects of student life,” Marquette President Robert A. Wild, S.J., said. “He has a reputation for collaboration and team building in the development of plans and programs to enhance the student experience.”

Miller will succeed Rev. Andrew Thon, S.J., who is stepping down as vice president for student affairs to take a year’s sabbatical. In addition to doing some writing and research during his sabbatical, Father Andy is also serving as president of the Jesuit Association of Student Personnel Administrators.

“The values set forth in Marquette’s mission statement — excellence, faith, leadership and service — are core values I hold personally and professionally,” Miller said. “The university’s focus on the development of the whole student, mind, body and spirit, is particularly important to me.”

At UIS, Miller has direct oversight over 16 departments, many of them areas he will also supervise at Marquette, including the Counseling Center, health services, student development, student discipline, residence life and recreational sports. His UIS responsibilities also include service learning, athletics, admissions, registration and records, financial services, international student affairs, dining/food services, building services and administration.

In his role as vice chancellor, Miller said he had the opportunity to “affect student development opportunities in many more ways, such as promoting diversity, providing more student leadership opportunities, developing our athletics program and cementing more student affairs connections with our academic mission.”

Prior to coming to UIS, Miller served as associate dean of student affairs at South Dakota State University and assistant dean of administration at Arizona State University. He is a member of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, the American College Personnel Association and Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity.

Miller is committed to community service, serving on a number of City of Springfield committees. He has also been active in local chapters of the American Heart Association, the Boys and Girls Club, the Urban League and the Hugh O’Brien Youth Foundation and served as school board president of the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Springfield.

Here is a blurb on Miller on the UIS web site.

Brian Collar has already blogged on this, and his reaction is positive, since this is an outside appointment.

Our first reaction is less favorable, although this would be the case whoever was appointed, since the bureaucrats who might want this position are, as a whole, not an inspiring lot.

Thon certainly failed to provide much in the way of positive leadership when he had the position. Not only was the bureaucracy he headed inclined to shut up student free expression, especially from the College Republicans and Students for Academic Freedom (which was simply denied the right to organize at Marquette), the programming from the Office of Student Development had a rigorous leftist bias.

Looking at Miller’s background, he seems to be just another bureaucrat in the standard mold. Before he joined UIS, he was Associate Dean of Student Affairs at South Dakota State University and before that Assistant Dean of Administration at Arizona State University. The only oddball thing is that he’s a lawyer. That doesn’t sound like a plus.

One possibility is that he will simply be more pragmatic and flexible than Thon, who rigidly supported his subordinates in shutting down free speech from the College Republicans and ran into a public relations buzz saw for doing so.

He may come to surprise us, but the burden is on him to prove that he isn’t just the standard, group think prone and politically correct student affairs bureaucrat who considers a Catholic mission to be a marketing gimmick or (on a select few issues) a justification for leftist political activism.

We will most definitely see.