Women’s March Lauds Terrorist / And So Did Marquette

Yes, these were the women with their badly knitted “pussy hats” who came out the day after the inauguration to protest Donald Trump. The organization is still in business, and tweeting. They recently tweeted this out:

Happy birthday to the revolutionary #AssataShakur! Today's #SignOfResistance, in Assata's honor, is by @Meloniousfunk. pic.twitter.com/V66au1dRnl

— Women's March (@womensmarch) July 16, 2017

Who is she? The FBI tells the story using Shakur’s real name (Chesimard):

On May 2, 1973, Chesimard, who was part of a revolutionary extremist organization known as the Black Liberation Army, and two accomplices were stopped for a motor vehicle violation on the New Jersey Turnpike by two troopers with the New Jersey State Police. At the time, Chesimard was wanted for her involvement in several felonies, including bank robbery. Chesimard and her accomplices opened fire on the troopers. One trooper was wounded and the other was shot and killed execution-style at point-blank range. Chesimard fled the scene, but was subsequently apprehended. One of her accomplices was killed in the shoot-out and the other was also apprehended and remains in jail.

Of course, Marquette honored Shakur with a mural in the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center.

And when we publicized the mural, and the Marquette administration ordered it painting over, over 60 faculty members signed a petition protesting the action, and supporting the mural.

Lauding terrorists and cop killers is becoming mainstream on the left, and among Marquette faculty (at least in a few departments).

Update

The “Women’s March” was not the only source of support for this terrorist on her birthday. Black Lives Matter in New York lauded her:

HAPPY 70TH BIRTHDAY, ASSATA! We are turning up in Brooklyn for you. We celebrate the revolutionary spirit you are. You inspired a movement. pic.twitter.com/MZRwawnmfH

— BlackLivesMatterNYC (@BLMNYC) July 16, 2017

So did CNN’s Mark Lamont Hill:

Happy 70th Birthday to Assata Shakur!!!! #HandsOffAssata #palenquequeen #bolekaja

— Marc Lamont Hill (@marclamonthill) July 17, 2017

Where are the Leftist “Diversity” Faculty at Marquette?

Whenever Marquette does something contrary to the desires or interests of the politically correct leftist faction of faculty, some petition will doubtless follow.

For example, when Marquette refused to hire aggressively lesbian Arts & Science Dean candidate Jodi O’Brien, a petition attacking Marquette for the decision appeared in the Journal-Sentinel.

More recently, “about 60” Marquette faculty and staff signed a petition protesting the removal of a mural of cop killer Assata Shakur from the wall of the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center. (The identities of the signers are apparently secret.)

And now, when a group of Marquette students blocked traffic on Wisconsin Avenue to protest a supposed “lack of diversity,” yet another faculty petition has emerged.

We won’t discuss the claims in the petition in this post. They are pretty much the usual politically correct cant. But we will discuss who signed the petition.

Politically correct attitudes (and the intolerance that comes with them) are not evenly distributed across the faculty. Rather, they are concentrated in certain departments and schools. The signers of the most recent petition are distributed as follows:

Education / 4
Counseling Center / 2
Communications / 2
Business and Management / 6
English / 16
Foreign Languages and Literatures / 4
History / 2
Information Technology / 1
Libraries / 6
Philosophy / 6
Political Science / 1
Psychology / 7
Social and Cultural Sciences / 14
Theology / 2

What is missing? All the “hard” disciplines with well-defined theoretical constructs, actual data that prevents their going too far off into wild flights of politically correct fancy, and/or some real-world application that constrains the discipline to care about what works in practice.

In other words, no natural science, math, economics, engineering. The representation from business might seem odd, but indeed the Business School has been found to be inflicting a leftist video called “The Story of Stuff” on its students.

Of course, other departments, not represented among signers, certainly have some leftist (as opposed to, say, moderately liberal) faculty, and indeed perhaps some who would be sympathetic to the petition. But they must be fairly sparse, or they would show up among the signers.

And context matters. In any department, even a few conservatives (if they have the courage to speak up) and some additional traditional liberals (you know, the kind who believed in free speech and liked to debate) can temper the intolerance of politically correct faculty and create some space for diverse opinions.

But in some departments, a hothouse atmosphere prevails, and it is possible for a graduate instructor to tell a student that any opposition to gay marriage would be homophobic and can’t be expressed since it would be offensive to gay students. This is the sort of department where a professor might try to silence a student presenting a cops’ perspective on “racial profiling” and then force him to apologize for doing so. This, of course, would be Marquette’s Philosophy Department.

Not all departments at Marquette are like that. But it’s an outrage that any are.

The Faculty?

Of course, a handful of faculty in the most politically correct departments are going to claim to be “the faculty” and they are going to claim that a handful of their leftist students are “the students” at Marquette. Thus, any failure to give them what they want will be claimed to show disrespect for  “the faculty” and “the students.”  That claim will be bogus.

But Marquette’s administration will lack the courage to say that publicly. And they will feel the need to pander to the minority of politically correct leftists.

Fundraising Support for Susannah Bartlow

For those who have not been following this blog, Susannah Bartlow is the former director of the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center at Marquette, who was summarily fired when it was found that she had approved a large mural on the wall of the Center honoring cop killer and terrorist Assata Shakur.

A fund raising effort on her behalf can be found here:

http://www.gofundme.com/susannahbartlow

The appeal starts with some silly statements:

On Monday, May 18th, Dr. Susannah Bartlow was fired as Director of the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center at Marquette University. She was fired suddenly and swiftly, without input from the GSRC Advisory Committee, after pouring her heart and soul into bringing excellent programming to Marquette over the last three years. She was fired seemingly for doing her job: providing a safe space for students to express themselves and engage in thoughtful dialogue (more information below).

No, the purpose of the Center was to promote a gay lifestyle, and push leftist political causes, as its Facebook page shows.

But then, we get some new and rather disturbing information:

When she was fired, Susannah was not offered any severance. She was paid only through her last day of work on May 18th, and was not expecting, at that moment in her professional life, to face the job market. Additionally, when she was terminated on May 18th, Susannah had already missed the 2015-2016 hiring cycle for positions in higher education. She continues to contribute to her community by accepting a temporary position at Pathfinders in Milwaukee, which pays a modest hourly income, but it is going to be hard to make ends meet and cover some of the basics, including health insurance. Her friends, colleagues and well-wishers ask that you consider donating to a fund to support Susannah as she transitions into a new (permanent) professional role. We want to give her the time to find the right placement for herself. Please consider donating; even a small amount helps. Funds will be used to cover her living expenses, health insurance, and any legal fees associated with an unemployment claim. Susannah has also pledged to donate any funds above our goal to Pathfinders and plans to blog about what’s going on in her life, especially related to job searches, work at Pathfinders, and writing projects on a weekly Wednesday blog called Work in Progress.

So how do we feel about this?

We are actually hoping that the campaign raises the target amount ($3,800) for Bartlow. Yes, she is a leftist extremist (as her blog posts about Shakur show) and should never have been hired as a director of any program at Marquette.

But we have seen no evidence that she ever concealed or misrepresented her political views when interviewing for the position. And indeed, Marquette seems to have approved (if only through inattention) of her leftist activism in the position (with Femsex being a large exception).

That being the case, Marquette owed her a reasonable severance package. We won’t contribute, although only because we would accused of some nefarious purpose if we did so. But we think certain Marquette administrators should step up and see that this campaign reaches the goal.

Dan Maguire Comments

Among those who commented and gave a relatively generous gift ($200) was Dan Maguire, who said:

Another example of heavy-handed non-collegial authoritarianism in the Lovell administration. Another example of the lack of appropriate faculty participation in university governance as recommended by the AAUP and other academic agencies.

Maguire is making a principled argument here, although it’s one to which we have never been sympathetic. It has always sounded to us a bit like wanting the inmates to run the asylum. This has been especially true given that the “faculty” who want to participate in “governance” have been a highly self-selected bunch of activists.

But then, what about the case where the people supposed to be running the asylum are corrupt?

Marquette has not had a president whom we could respect since John Raynor, who served from 1965 until 1990.

In this case, however, we don’t think Marquette had any choice but to take the mural down, and to fire Bartlow. Had the issue of the mural been opened up for “discussion” with some faculty defending it, and others (probably many fewer, since conservative professors keep their heads down) opposing it, the public relations fallout would have been monumental. Unlike in academia, in American society as a whole murdering cops is not only viewed as evil, it’s not even viewed as something that can be defended.

Marquette Leftist Faculty Continue to Protest Removal of Cop Killer Mural

To normal people in the real world, it might seem obvious that Marquette should not honor a cop killer who is on the FBI list of the Ten Most Wanted Terrorists. So a large mural of Assata Shakir on the wall of the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center seemed clearly out of place.

And indeed, when we outed Marquette for having the mural on campus, the University moved quickly to have the mural painted over, and also fired Suzanna Bartlow, the Director of the Center, who had given permission for the mural to be painted.

But academics are not normal people in the real world, so there has been some push-back by campus leftists.

First, there was a petition, signed by over 60 faculty and staff, protesting the removal of the mural.

At about the same time, leftist faculty were meeting with Arts & Science Dean Richard Holz to complain. We have the minutes of that meeting:

Gender Resource Center Faculty Meeting with Dr. Richard Holz
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
1:00-2:30 p.m.
Attendees: Drs. E. Afinoguenova, A. Blair, C. Burrows, K. Coffey-Guenther, M. Cover, A. Crampton, E. de St. Aubin, A. Efford, K. Foster, S. Foster, S. Gendron, O. Goldin, N. Gordon, J. Grych, H. Hathaway, S. Hartman-Keiser, C. Hay, J. Holstein, R. Holz, G. Krenz, S. Luft, C. Maranto, R. Masson, M. Mattox, D. McDaniel, S. Mulla, D. Nowacek, R. Nowacek, A. Pasero, J. Peterson, A. Sheikh, M. Siderits, A. Sorby, J. South, J. Su, R. Stuart, M. Williams, A. Zurcher. Ms. Kim Patterson

Dr. Holz welcomed and thanked everyone present for meeting with him. He will share concerns with President Lovell, Interim Provost Callahan, and incoming Provost Myers. Dr. Holz was contacted by OMC and notified of the mural on Sunday, May 17 (graduation).

Concerns/Discussion:

• The Gender Resource Center Chair was told of the decision by the Interim Provost. The Chair was not consulted nor made part of the conversation regarding the outcome of this situation. In addition, members of the Diversity Advisory Committee, the President’s Task Force on Equity and Inclusion and the University Academic Senate-Committee on Diversity and Equity were also not consulted or involved in a discussion or the process.
• The director position should be held by a tenured faculty member.
• The Gender Resource Center should be located in a more prominent spot on campus. The media statement issued indicated the mural was located in a “remote” area of campus. What message does this portray about the Center and to those who are actively involved with it?
• The incoming WGST faculty director resigned as a result of this issue.
• Alpha Kappa Alpha (AKA) sorority students completed the necessary university paperwork required for this project with no indication that their project would be problematic.
• This is an issue about black women, a specific voice on campus, who wanted to be heard and were shutdown.
• No outreach effort on the part of university leadership to the students involved with the project.
• Students who are not part of the “mainstream” feel that the university sides with a certain population on campus who is/was hurt by this display. These students don’t see a tolerance or respect for inclusion and diversity on campus but rather a tenor that continues to favor the traditional/white student. They are on campus and in class with their peers and are seeing repercussions.
• A university is a place of discussion and ideas, even a Catholic university. It is not a place where the conversation is shutdown no matter how uncomfortable. It is problematic that we are not able to discuss/talk about ideas/issues that we are uncomfortable with. This could have been a teaching/learning opportunity for the entire university community. A dialogue to learn why students chose this person, why some members of campus feel it is/it is not a good selection and a discussion to determine how to best collectively move forward, would have been prudent.
• Marquette is a Catholic-Jesuit University; part of a 100 year tradition. A tradition that encourages discussion. We must articulate the difference between a parish and a university.
• The Marquette Parents social media outlets are in need of a university leader/facilitator who is well-versed in Jesuit traditions and pedagogy. This issue was a recent topic of discussion on one of the parent social media formats and clearly there was no one providing a perspective/interpretation on behalf of the university. It was clear that no one was tasked with responding on behalf of the university and/or that as a university we are a place for discussion of all types of issues and concerns.
• Discussions about sex-race-gender continue to be taboo on campus.
• A number of junior faculty members are asking themselves if Marquette is the right place for them. We need to be concerned both with the retention and recruitment of junior faculty.
• Dr. McAdams influence and reach appears to be in full force even though he has been suspended. This has a chilling effect on the campus community. Some faculty members are now more than ever concerned with what they are saying/doing in the classroom because it seems that legitimate discussions of controversial topics can be used against them.
• The university finds itself in the media spotlight and is immediately reactive. Rather than talking about the concern/issue in an intellectual manner, the university satisfies the Catholic, conservative base of alumni and donors.
• How do faculty members respond to peers and collaborators at other institutions who are asking and wondering what is happening at Marquette? Recommendations:
• A tenured faculty member serve as Director of the Gender Resource Center.
• The Gender Resource Center be placed in a more prominent space on campus.
• The Center falls under the umbrella of the College of Arts and Sciences.
• A request of President Lovell to hold a forum/discussion with faculty, students and staff about this issue.
• Academic Senate to make a statement about the lack of inclusion in the decision to erase the mural and remove the director.

Dr. Holz thanked everyone for sharing their thoughts and feedback.

Let’s deconstruct some of this blather.

In addition, members of the Diversity Advisory Committee, the President’s Task Force on Equity and Inclusion and the University Academic Senate-Committee on Diversity and Equity were also not consulted or involved in a discussion or the process.

Translation: all of these bodies were approved and established by the University as sops to the politically correct “diversity” faction on campus, but when an issue arose of actual vital importance to the University, the institution saw no need to consult the race-gender-sexual orientation hustlers. Good call on Marquette’s part.

The director position should be held by a tenured faculty member.

Tenure would protect the faculty position of a Director who wanted to honor a cop killer, but not the administrative position. A lot of administrators have tenure in an academic department. If they screw up and are fired from their administrative position, they have the option to go to their academic department and be just like any other faculty member.

But they virtually never want to do that.

The media statement issued indicated the mural was located in a “remote” area of campus. What message does this portray about the Center and to those who are actively involved with it?

It says, folks, that it was just a sop to the campus gay lobby in the wake of Marquette’s failure to hire aggressively lesbian Dean candidate Jodi O’Brien.

Alpha Kappa Alpha (AKA) sorority students completed the necessary university paperwork required for this project with no indication that their project would be problematic.

Which was a major dereliction of duty by the person (presumably, Suzanna Bartlow) who approved the project.

This is an issue about black women, a specific voice on campus, who wanted to be heard and were shutdown.

The national Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority claimed “Unfortunately Ms. Shakur’s entire history and background was not fully researched. If that process had occurred, she would not have been featured in the mural.” Is this a lie? Did the women of the sorority mean to honor a cop killer and terrorist? If so, they deserve to be condemned, “specific voice” or not. The faculty who are complaining about this would quickly want to silence a “specific voice” with which they disagreed. Indeed, later in the letter they complain about not being able to silence this blogger!

Students who are not part of the “mainstream” feel that the university sides with a certain population on campus who is/was hurt by this display. These students don’t see a tolerance or respect for inclusion and diversity on campus but rather a tenor that continues to favor the traditional/white student.

So tolerance and respect require honoring a cop killer? Is the implication that there are lots of minority students on campus who support killing cops? If it is, this is a terrible slur against minority students.

A university is a place of discussion and ideas, even a Catholic university. It is not a place where the conversation is shutdown no matter how uncomfortable.

But discussion has not been shut down. These folks can “discuss” all they want. All that has happened is that a mural honoring a cop killer and terrorist has been painted over. The mural involved no discussion. Just the glorification of Shakur.

It is problematic that we are not able to discuss/talk about ideas/issues that we are uncomfortable with.

Irony alert!

These are the kind of faculty who believe that discussion of gay marriage should be forbidden because any arguments against it would be “offensive” to gay students and “homophobic.” These are people like Nancy Snow, who tried to shut up a student in one of her classes who wanted to present a cops’ perspective on “racial profiling.” It seems these folks are very selective about when they want to “discuss/talk about ideas/issues.”

Discussions about sex-race-gender continue to be taboo on campus.

No, people blather about those issues endlessly. But then when somebody disagrees with them, they start whining about how an issue is “taboo.” What they would really like is to make it taboo to voice opinions which they dislike.

A number of junior faculty members are asking themselves if Marquette is the right place for them.

What kind of junior faculty? Yahoos who think honoring a cop killer is acceptable? If there is any substantial number of such people, that speaks very badly of Marquette, and if such people should leave, that would be good.

Dr. McAdams influence and reach appears to be in full force even though he has been suspended.

It’s amazing how much “influence and reach” one can have by simply reporting things that certain people would like to be secret.

Did they think they had silenced us when they got Marquette to suspend us? If so, they now know better.

Rather than talking about the concern/issue in an intellectual manner, the university satisfies the Catholic, conservative base of alumni and donors.

It seems that these people are “stakeholders” when Marquette wants to hit them up for money, but they should not count if they object to bizarre things happening at the institution.

A request of President Lovell to hold a forum/discussion with faculty, students and staff about this issue.

Of course, as Marquette has pointed out, the time for such a discussion was before the mural was put up. A discussion would be a good idea, but these folks would not want a balanced discussion with a representative group of faculty, students and alumni. They want a discussion stacked to favor people such as themselves.

This whole document is a window into the insular, politically correct bubble that is the political climate in substantial parts of academia. Yes, in that bubble, it’s not only arguable that killing cops is justified, it is thought reasonable that Marquette might honor a cop killer.

Update

An e-mail correspondent sends the following comment:

I read your Tuesday blog post. Just because some faculty showed up to the meeting doesn’t mean that they are politically motivated in attending, though your blog suggests that this is a special meeting with outraged leftist faculty. A number of us were silent, listening. The invitation to the meeting went out to all Arts and Sciences faculty interested in hearing what the dean had to say about the matter. Turns out that he had no information, only offering himself as a conduit to the higher administration, but we didn’t know that when we showed up.

This is a fair point to raise. Our readers should not assume that just because a particular faculty member is on the list of people who attended he or she approved of the mural or was protesting its removal.

Petition Protesting Removal of Marquette Cop Killer Mural

We now have the text of the petition signed by over 60 Marquette faculty and staff, protesting the removal of a mural of cop killer and terrorist Assata Shakur from a wall in the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center.

First, the text of the e-mail cover send out with the letter:

Dear Faculty and Staff Colleagues,

Please read and consider signing the attached statement regarding the removal of the Assata Shakur mural from the GSRC office and the firing of GSRC Director Susannah Bartlow. This statement will be sent to members of the University Leadership Council. After reading this statement, email me if you’d like to sign and I will add your name and university department/position to the list of signees. You may sign anonymously, if you prefer. In that case, you will be listed as “Assistant Professor, Name Withheld” or “Staff Member, Name Withheld” (or perhaps “Staff Member, Libraries, Name Withheld”).

Take care,
Stephen Franzoi
Professor Emeritus, Psychology Department

Now the text of the letter itself:

The recent events on campus in response to the mural of Assata Shakur and the subsequent firing of the GSRC director, Susannah Bartlow, demand a response. As faculty, we would hope that a university administration would respond with a critical and careful concern for our students, our faculty, and our staff. In short, the administration should act with discernment following a process of examen and reflection. The university’s response has been the exact opposite. As a faculty, we submit that the following were not weighed in considering the process for engaging the mural, erasing the mural, and terminating Dr. Bartlow. The incident has raised critical questions that the university ought to have considered before any decisions were made.

First and foremost, there was no consideration of the intellectual or scholarly traditions in which Shakur is invoked and engaged. While she is certainly a controversial figure, by adopting the narrative of pure vilification, the university has applied a problematic standard. The opportunity to sponsor a discussion about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the mural’s subject was completely lost. Any context about race, policing, and the present moment and historical legacy surrounding these issues were ignored, including any reflection on Marquette’s own place within the social justice landscape. Did the administration consider the chilling impact of the erasure of the image within the context of present conversations about police brutality and black life? To disappear the mural with no engagement or conversation was to deny the role of such symbols in the social critique of police and to selectively erase some difficult histories while leaving others untouched. For a university to adopt a position informed solely by police is problematic in that they are but one stakeholder in our community. Students, staff and faculty are the other stakeholders on this campus, and their perspective and knowledge ought to have been weighed.

Second, the racial politics of the erasure of the mural were not considered with care. A group of black women students asks for a space to self-educate and explore. They paint a mural of a controversial black female figure. The figure is erased. Were the students consulted? Were they offered an opportunity to engage? To defend their choice? Were they offered opportunities for education and coursework? Was any of the care for their whole persons extended on the part of the university? Or was their initial request, that for space to invest in the representations of black women on campus, simply denied and stripped away? Where is the care for our students, their desire to engage in serious and difficult conversations? Does the university note that the involvement of Professor McAdams in drawing attention to the mural after its painting on March 24, 2015, means that a white male professor’s voice has taken prominence over the voices of many black female students, and the staff who took their project seriously and sought to give them space for conversation? What is the university planning to do to make those students whole? There is also the issue of whether similar standards are applied to other figures with problematic legacies, and how the term “terrorist” is itself not a neutral moniker, but one that is deeply racialized and politicized. For example, while Nelson Mandela is honored as a freedom fighter, he and the ANC were literally branded terrorists by the apartheid state in South Africa. Mandela remained on the U.S.’s lists of terrorist until 2008. Conversely, Thomas Jefferson is largely celebrated at the University of Virginia and at many universities across the country as a founding father and celebrated figure in our democratic history. Simultaneously, a robust and well-documented understanding of his legacy of slave ownership and sexual exploitation is well known in scholarly and popular discourse. As universities, which problematic legacies do we quietly accept, and which do we hold accountable? Is their [sic] racial and gender parity in how these standards are applied? Are we condoning some forms of violence while rejecting others?

Finally, was the process by which Dr. Bartlow was terminated appropriate and proportional? Was the board of the GSRC asked to weigh in? As the GSRC’s charter dictates that all decisions impacting the operations and future of the center must be vetted through the board, how was the board included in the decision-making process? Is immediate termination an appropriate course of action given the sequence of events, and was Dr. Bartlow’s contribution to enriching the research and teaching practices on campus outweighed by the perception of transgression in this case? Was her expertise in bringing best practices around LGBTQ advocacy, sexual assault prevention and advocacy, allyship, and student support outweighed by this event? Does the administration consider how difficult it will be to replace Dr. Bartlow and that this hasty decision undermines the momentum of the GSRC, and compromises the students, staff and faculty who depend on the center’s resources and role at the university to enrich our work? Has the university considered the impact on future enrollments of our student body, or future faculty hires? How will this decision impact the quality of student, staff and faculty life in the future?

Given the failures of the administration to act in a manner befitting a scholarly Jesuit institution, we ask the university respond to these queries, put in place processes to secure the future of the GSRC, to support students of color, and to embrace difficult conversations. Chiefly, it is clear that as the original recommendations for chartering the GSRC indicated, the GSRC must be directed by a tenured faculty member. In addition, programs such as Africana Studies and Women and Gender Studies must be adequately resourced, and care for our students, particularly students of color, must be exercised in the university’s practices, and not simply its words.

Sincerely,

Stephen L. Franzoi, Psychology

Analysis

This is a virtual thesaurus of politically correct ways of trying to defend the indefensible. Just how muddle-headed (and downright evil) is it? Let’s take it piece at a time.

As faculty, we would hope that a university administration would respond with a critical and careful concern for our students, our faculty, and our staff. In short, the administration should act with discernment following a process of examen and reflection. The university’s response has been the exact opposite.

And just how much “discernment” is needed to figure out that Marquette should not honor a cop-killing terrorist? If somebody painted a large racist mural on a wall on campus, the politically correct crowd wouldn’t be asking for “discernment” or “examen.” They would be demanding that it immediately be taken down. But they believe racism is really bad. Black militants killing white cops they think is debatable, and perhaps defensible.

First and foremost, there was no consideration of the intellectual or scholarly traditions in which Shakur is invoked and engaged. While she is certainly a controversial figure, by adopting the narrative of pure vilification, the university has applied a problematic standard.

What “intellectual or scholarly traditions?” The notion that it’s OK for blacks to rob and murder and that this somehow redresses racism?

Being a violent thug is not a “intellectual or scholarly tradition.” And even if it were, it would not be one Marquette should honor and commend.

Any context about race, policing, and the present moment and historical legacy surrounding these issues were ignored, including any reflection on Marquette’s own place within the social justice landscape.

So there is some “context” that makes killing cops (or honoring cop killers) acceptable? If one thinks there are problems surrounding race and policing an appropriate response is for black militants to kill cops?

Or perhaps Franzoi thinks that if black people are upset about police behavior (and it doesn’t seem to matter if, as in Ferguson or Madison, the cops were blameless) a good way to placate them is to honor a cop killer.

People who condone killing cops should not be placated. They should be roundly condemned. But leftist academics can’t bring themselves to do that.

As for “Marquette’s own place within the social justice landscape:” just how do you strike a blow for social justice by honoring a cop killer? Not only is this an injustice to the cop who is killed, it poisons the racial atmosphere, mostly to the detriment of black people.

Did the administration consider the chilling impact of the erasure of the image within the context of present conversations about police brutality and black life?

If painting over the mural sends a clear “chilling” message to those who think killing cops is defensible, that’s good. Marquette ought to condemn such ideas.

Students, staff and faculty are the other stakeholders on this campus, and their perspective and knowledge ought to have been weighed.

Does Franzoi believe that more than a tiny clique of politically correct yahoos among the “stakeholders” approve of a mural honoring a cop killer? Actually, he probably does. In certain departments at Marquette a narrow insular political correctness is dominant. But not among all faculty, and certainly not among all students, who on net are politically moderate. But perhaps when Franzoi says “students” he’s talking about a small group of leftist political activists. But they don’t represent all students.

Second, the racial politics of the erasure of the mural were not considered with care. A group of black women students asks for a space to self-educate and explore. They paint a mural of a controversial black female figure. The figure is erased. Were the students consulted? Were they offered an opportunity to engage? To defend their choice?

Here Franzoi most explicitly plays the race card. If a group of black women asked for something, they should not be denied, since they are members of a victim group, and any of their requests must be acceded to, under penalty of being charged with racism.

But it gets worse:

Does the university note that the involvement of Professor McAdams in drawing attention to the mural after its painting on March 24, 2015, means that a white male professor’s voice has taken prominence over the voices of many black female students. . . .

So here we have the anti-white racism and anti-male sexism so prevalent in academia. McAdams’ views must be rejected, since he’s a white male.

But of course, Marquette doesn’t care what we think. They reacted to the undeniable empirical reality: a large mural of a terrorist and cop killer was painted on a wall on campus.

Further, according to a national spokesperson for the black sorority in question (Alpha Kappa Alpha):

Unfortunately Ms. Shakur’s entire history and background was not fully researched. If that process had occurred, she would not have been featured in the mural.

In short, it was not “the voices of many black female students,” it was a screw up by sorority members who didn’t do their homework.

What is the university planning to do to make those students whole?

The members of Alpha Kappa Alpha do not need to be “made whole,” they need to be sternly lectured about expecting Marquette to honor a cop killer and terrorist. They need to be told to do their homework. And if they did intentionally want to honor a terrorist, they should be condemned.

Thomas Jefferson is largely celebrated at the University of Virginia and at many universities across the country as a founding father and celebrated figure in our democratic history. Simultaneously, a robust and well-documented understanding of his legacy of slave ownership and sexual exploitation is well known in scholarly and popular discourse. As universities, which problematic legacies do we quietly accept, and which do we hold accountable? Is their [sic] racial and gender parity in how these standards are applied? Are we condoning some forms of violence while rejecting others?

To compare Thomas Jefferson to Assata Shakur is absurd. Jefferson was one of the Founders of the greatest democracy on earth. Shakur’s legacy is a dead cop, numerous other crimes for which she was not convicted, and asylum in Fidel Castro’s Communist dictatorship.

Jefferson’s sexual behavior was immoral, but so was the sexual behavior of Martin Luther King, who frequently and blatantly committed adultery. But both King and Jefferson have a positive legacy. Shakur is just a thug and a criminal.

Has the university considered the impact on future enrollments of our student body, or future faculty hires? How will this decision impact the quality of student, staff and faculty life in the future?

Just what kind of people would blame Marquette, and refuse to come to Marquette, because Marquette would not allow a cop killer mural on campus? Apparently the sort of people that Franzoi would want to have at Marquette.

But not everybody thinks what Marquette needs more of the sort of leftists who think killing cops is acceptable. That is if a black kills a white cop. A white killing a black cop is something the leftists would really dislike.

Conclusion

That sixty-plus people signed this shows how corrupt Marquette has become. It’s true that this is only a small proportion of all Marquette faculty and staff. But this mentality permeates certain departments at Marquette, including two departments integral to a liberal arts education: English and Philosophy. And it’s dominant among the activists who are constantly pushing Marquette to be less and less a Catholic university, or more a citadel of secular political correctness.

Who Were the Faculty and Staff Who Supported the Cop Killer Mural?

When Marquette painted over a mural, in the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center, that honored cop killer and terrorist Assata Shakur, it seems like the obviously sensible thing to do. Why in the world would Marquette want to honor a cop killer?

But some Marquette faculty and staff disagree. From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

Marquette University failed to consider the racial politics of erasing a mural of a controversial black female figure, and missed an opportunity to sponsor a discussion about the appropriateness of the mural’s subject, more than 60 Marquette University faculty and staff allege in a statement sent Tuesday to the university’s leadership.

The mural depicted Assata Shakur, an African-American activist convicted of killing a New Jersey state trooper in 1973. She escaped prison, fled to Cuba, and became the first woman on the FBI’s Most Wanted list under her birth name, Joanne Chesimard. She is considered a domestic terrorist by some, and a wrongly accused folk hero by others who say she was targeted by authorities for her involvement in the Black Liberation Army and for being a Black Panther.

The statement from faculty and staff questions whether the university’s actions were “appropriate and proportional” and characterizes the move as a “hasty decision” that undermines the momentum of the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center.

“Any contexts about race, policing, and the present moment and historical legacy surrounding these issues were ignored, including any reflection on Marquette’s own place within the social justice landscape,” the statement by faculty and staff said. “Did the administration consider the chilling impact of the erasure of the image within the context of present conversations about police brutality and black life?”

What kind of yahoos signed this statement?

What, for example, is the meaning of “the chilling impact of the erasure of the image within the context of present conversations about police brutality and black life?” Is this a way of saying black people are rioting in Ferguson and Baltimore, and we don’t want to rile them up?

What in the world about the “contexts about race, policing, and the present moment and historical legacy surrounding these issues” justifies killing cops, or glorifying people who do?

But to answer the question: we know what kind of yahoos signed this statement. Politically correct yahoos, who are pretty numerous on the Marquette faculty, especially in humanities departments, Sociology and Psychology and the colleges of Education and Communications.

But exactly who did?

We don’t know, since the list of signers is secret. So is the unedited text of the statement.

We asked Journal-Sentinel reporter Karen Herzog for these two things, and she declined to provide them, citing the confidentiality of her source.

That raises the question of why the original manifesto and the list of signers was confidential. Are the people who signed it ashamed of the position they took? Why aren’t they willing to publicly stand up for their beliefs?

Class of 2015: Some Frank Talk

Of course, only a minority of the Class of 2015 are politically correct yahoos. But they have disproportionate power, because they are the pets of university administrations, and of the faculty.

Politically Correct Marquette Faculty Rally Behind FemSex

From the Marquette Tribune, an open letter from faculty who support the FemSex workshop, from which Marquette recently pulled support.

The letter engages in the standard blather about how great the workshop was. It further makes a few absurd claims, such as:

By affirming the worth and importance of female desire and fostering people’s understanding and appreciation of their bodies and sexuality, the curriculum also cultivates a campus climate in which the sexual assaults that brought Marquette under public scrutiny two years ago can become less likely.

How this would supposedly happen is a mystery. How writing pornographic stories, or coloring pictures of female genitalia (both part of FemSex at Marquette) might prevent rape is something only a feminist could imagine.

But what is interesting is the list of faculty who signed the letter:

Eugenia Afinoguenova, Lauren Applegate, Tara Baillargeon, Danielle Beverly, Amy Blair, Omega Burckhardt, Gerry Canavan, Roberta Coles, Ed de St. Aubin, Eric Dunnum, Ellen Eckman, Jenn Fishman, Leah Flack, Kristen Foster, Stephen Franzoi, Melissa Ganz, Barbara Glore, Beth Godbee, John Grych, Angelique Harris, Steven Hartman-Keiser, Heather Hathaway, Heather Hlavka, Jim Holstein, CJ Hribal, Andrew Kahrl, Astrida Kaugars, Laurieann Klockow, Lezlie Knox, Christine Krueger, Robert Lowe, Timothy McMahon, Jodi Melamed, Dawne Moon, Sameena Mulla, Kristy Nielson, Rebecca Nowacek, Debra Oswald, Tony Peressini, Anthony Porcelli, Sareene Proodian, Krista Ratcliffe, Heidi Schweizer, Mary Anne Siderits, Angela Sorby, James South, Peter Staudenmaier, Meghan Stroshine, Theresa Tobin, Robert Topp, Sarah Wadsworth, Elizabeth Wawrzyniak, Amelia Zurcher

This is pretty much a Who’s Who of the politically correct secular caucus on campus, full of the names of the people who wanted to hire aggressively lesbian dean candidate Jodi O’Brien. Among the signers is a psychology professor who demeaned the Bible as “sexist” by ripping a passage out of context.

Then there is a philosophy professor whose class was approvingly described by a student acolyte:

I just finished up an entire class on how patriarchy controls every structure in our society and how women are systematically prevented from being equal to men (Capitalism and Catholicism are among the most guilty parties).

Then there is James South who, as chair of the Philosophy Department tore down from the door of a graduate student a quote from humorist Dave Barry of which he disapproved!

This, in other words, is part of the “we don’t really like Catholicism, and want to undermine it when we can” lobby at Marquette.

Marquette Campus Leftists Attack Paul Ryan Budget

Not news: a bunch of mostly leftist faculty recently signed a letter attacking Paul Ryan’s budget plan. The Journal-Sentinel puffed the story as though college faculty being liberal and opposed to Republicans really was news.

Now what is news: a majority of those faculty who signed the letter also signed petitions to recall Scott Walker, according to Entitlement Mentality Monitor.

In spite of the use of the language of Catholic social justice teaching, the impetus behind the letter was merely your standard liberal-left politics.

Although there were some exceptions (one person whose name was on the letter opposed the hiring of lesbian dean candidate Jodi O’Brien, and was attacked for it) the list of signers is laced with people who oppose Catholic teaching on abortion, oppose Catholic teaching on homosexuality, favor gay marriage, and only use the phrase “social justice” to promote a liberal political agenda.

One piece of evidence of this can be seen by comparing the list of people who signed the letter attacking Ryan with a letter signed by dozens of Marquette faculty in the wake of the refusal of Marquette to hire an outspoken lesbian (and opponent of Church teaching) as Dean of Arts and Sciences. Signing this letter were twenty of the same people who signed the anti-Ryan letter.

Indeed, the anti-Ryan letter was signed by faculty who are at the forefront of the gay lobby on campus, including Nancy Snow and Ed de St. Aubin. Indeed, if one omits eleven faculty in Theology who signed the anti-Ryan letter but not the pro-lesbian dean letter, almost half (20 of 41) of the faculty who signed the anti-Ryan letter also signed the pro-lesbian dean letter.

Add to this the fact that some Theology faculty who did not sign the lesbian dean letter are quite leftist and politically correct. Brian Massingale, for example, is a promoter of the notion of “white privilege,” a concept designed to guilt or intimidate whites into accepting a whole array of leftist policies — on pain of being labeled a defender of “white privilege.” Robert L. Masson likewise uses the same strategy in his classes to promote a narrow leftist policy agenda. In fact, Masson uses Massingale’s book in his class.

Which puts into perspective the claim of the anti-Ryan letter to be reflecting Catholic social teaching. At a place like Marquette, Catholic teaching is virtually always invoked to support a liberal agenda — more government programs, more social spending, more income redistribution — and virtually never to support a ban on abortion, or upholding heterosexual marriage.

The people who sign such letters, in other words, are (with a few exceptions) merely liberals or leftists. The “Catholic” stuff is just window dressing.