Public School Indoctrination

From a Minnesota think tank, a harrowing account of bullying, indoctrination and intimidation in an affluent public school in that state.

Is it really that bad? Anecdotal accounts from the battle over Act 10 in Wisconsin suggest it may be.

It is clear that schools of education explicitly teach students that leftist indoctrination is the proper role of teachers, something we have blogged about here and here and here and here.

While a lot of attention has been paid to the intolerant attitudes of college students, relatively little attention has been paid to the possibility that the come to college already indoctrinated into intolerant political correctness.

Indoctrination on Wage Gap: Feminist Instructor Tells Student to Use Only Feminist Sources

The full story about this can be found on the Toronto Sun website. This might seem to be merely one example of intolerant feminist indoctrination. Unfortunately, it’s utterly typical.

Taking Provost Myers to Task: Young Americans for Freedom

From The New Guard: An essay about Marquette Provost Dan Myers, whose bureaucrats have arranged an absurdly biased program of speakers on racial issues, and then hypocritically wrote an op-ed opposing the one conservative speaker who has been on campus this year:

Last week, the Young Americans for Freedom at Marquette held a wildly successful talk featuring Ben Shapiro. Two lecture halls were filled beyond capacity, even as Marquette staff attempted to sabotage the event behind the scenes.

The first time any Marquette administrator publicly addressed students about the Shapiro talk was in an editorial in the campus newspaper on February 14. Provost Dan Myers —who once carried a sign that labeled conservatives as homophobic, transphobic & biphobic—penned an op-ed pleading for “critical thinking” when considering conservative speakers like Shapiro.

His message was simple: the conservatives who came to hear from Ben Shapiro failed to think critically.

According to Myers, Shapiro’s visit “produced some controversy.” In reality, it was university staff that ginned up the controversy. Myers argues that campuses “should not avoid controversy.” Instead, he wants the campus to challenge “controversial” views. Myers, as the second in command at Marquette, has made it his duty to challenge exclusively conservative views the few times they are allowed to be heard on campus.

Interestingly, Myers did not even attend Shapiro’s lecture, but this did not prevent Myers from responding (presumably, he watched the video provided by YAF).

In his contradictions of Shapiro’s assertions, Myers leans heavily on fallacies. When Shapiro remarked that “institutional racism” is no longer the norm, Myers wrote that targeting “legacy” students is racist. He continued, asking whether the legacy advantage “replicate[s] that racism in the next generation.” That is, Myers believes recruiting students who are more likely to attend Marquette because of a prior family connection is racist. Surprisingly, Myers never mentions Marquette’s expressed desire to slant the admissions process in favor of Hispanic students, despite the fact that he himself supports a policy which would require Marquette’s racial demographic to reach at least 25% of all enrollments.

A quick recap of Myers logic reveals a troubling conclusion:

To recruit legacy students, those whose parent or sibling attended Marquette University before them (regardless of race), is institutional racism. But to set a goal of creating a Marquette where 25% of the population is Hispanic (potentially at the expense of other qualified minority students) in order to seek federal funds is not institutional racism.

That’s right Marquette alumni: The provost of your alma mater does not want to recruit your kid, younger sibling, or grandkid in the name of some warped version of Jesuit social justice.

Marquette’s desire to welcome more Hispanics is laudable – but not through this scheme. Skewing numbers to fleece the feds and pander to progressive pieties will throw off other diversity metrics, including socioeconomic status, religion, sex, and many more. Note that intellectual diversity is never part of any initiative promoting inclusion on the campus of Marquette University.

Doubling down on his accusations, Myers argues that Ben’s promotion of the Brookings Institution’s Three Simple Rules to Join the Middle Class is also racist: Graduate from high school, avoid early pregnancy, and get a job. Myers says not all races have equal opportunities to finish high school, get into college, or, evidently, avoid unwanted pregnancies.

Myers offers no solutions to address this broad institutional charge of racism. For decades, conservatives have advocated school choice that would benefit minority students. Yet progressives dramatically opposed Betsy DeVos for the Department of Education, despite her plan to expand to expand choice for impoverished children.

Milwaukee Public Schools (serving the residents who live around Marquette) have been run into the ground by progressive unions for decades. Perhaps left wing unions are the example of institutional racism Myers was seeking?

Myers writes, “Healthy skepticism is at the very foundation of active learning.” If Myers is genuinely interested in interaction with active learning, perhaps the Young Americans for Freedom might bring Shapiro back for a debate.

In fact, Young America’s Foundation has a strong reputation of supporting dialogue on Marquette’s campus. The Foundation has sponsored Attorney General John Ashcroft, Speaker Newt Gingrich, John Stossel, Michelle Malkin, S.E. Cupp, Allen West, Steve Forbes, Herman Cain, Christopher Horner, and many more.

Additionally, the Foundation has sponsored two debates at Marquette. Marquette’s own liberal theologian Dan Maguire backed out of a debate on pro-life issues with conservative Mike Adams.

The Foundation also paid for Liz Cheney to debate Howard Dean prior to the 2012 election. Marquette was one of only a handful of campuses to host such a debate. The Foundation paid for both speakers.

Non-progressives are left to wonder if Myers is planning to write a similarly scathing op-ed after Shaun King appeared on campus this week, or well-known domestic terrorist Angela Davis appears next month. We won’t hold our breath. As Myers pointed out in his op-ed, a “variety of speakers” were on campus last week. Myers singled out the conservative.

What does it say that, on the Marquette campus, it is usually conservatives who arrange debates, but the Marquette administration arranges only one-sided programs? It must mean that, deep down, the people running Marquette sense that they would be at a disadvantage in an open, balanced debate.

If they were confident of their views, they would welcome having those views be shown to be superior in head-to-head competition.

No doubt they are confident of their moral righteousness. But somewhere deep down they know that there are things they don’t want aired, else people start having doubts about the “social justice” agenda.

[Update from YAF]

YAF-Marquette chairman and adviser reached out to Provost Myers for a meeting. Through his chief of staff, Myers denied the request because he was too busy. Myers’ office said they could direct the YAF chapter to another person on campus. At this point, Myers is unwilling to defend his actions directly to conservative students.

We can’t imagine Myers refusing to meet with representatives of any politically correct victim group. But he refuses dialogue with conservative students. That’s the Marquette version of “inclusion.”

Marquette Provost Touts “Critical Thinking,” Then Repeats Politically Correct Clichés

That Marquette’s administration is dominated by politically correct leftists is shown by the fact that Provost Dan Myers took to the Marquette Tribune to argue against conservative speaker Ben Shapiro, who appeared on campus last week.

Myers claims to be making a plea for “critical thinking,” but in fact simply demands that people not critically examine politically correct shibboleths. He focusses on the notion of “institutional racism,” a notion that Shapiro challenged.

There is a lot to address there, but let’s focus on three critical questions before we express agreement. First, has the institutionalized racism of yesteryear really disappeared? Take one instance in our own world of higher education. It is widely accepted that back in the bad ol’ days, universities had racist recruitment and admissions practices that severely disadvantaged African Americans. That disadvantage is gone in our new enlightened era, Shapiro says.

But is it? Consider this: Almost all universities have long had recruitment and admissions practices that target legacy students (the children and relatives of its alumni). If the parents or grandparents were admitted using a racist standard, then doesn’t the legacy advantage replicate that racism in the next generation? Haven’t these legacy practices built racism into the access to higher education? Maybe it’s possible that racial advantages still exist more than we think.

Does Marquette target legacy students? If so, Dan Myers, you are the Provost, why don’t you stop it?

But of course, targeting legacy students is not racial discrimination, even if it has a differential racial impact. Universities target good athletes too, and (at least in “revenue sports”) this benefits blacks. But that’s not racial discrimination either.

Then there is the huge advantage racial minorities have with affirmative action. It typically is (as Shapiro reported) in the range of 250 SAT points (Verbal plus Quantitative).

School Choir

Myers then offers an example of a bad person: a choir director who systematically excluded black students from a highly desirable program.

Myers seems not to understand that this simply isn’t “institutional racism.” There was nothing about the “institution” of the choir that discriminated against blacks, but rather one bad person who did.

And Myers admits he is now dead. So much for this as any sort of example of contemporary racism, institutional or otherwise.

Individual Agency

Myers continues:

By denying institutional racism, Shapiro can boil racial differences down to individual agency: if Black people just tried harder and made better choices, they’d do just as well as Whites. Simply finish high school, avoid early pregnancy and get a job. If you do, you’ll be OK. Seems reasonable, but let’s pause again. Does everyone (regardless of race, income, where they live and family circumstances) have the same chance to finish high school? Does every high school produce the same results (learning, skills and chances of getting into college)? Does everyone have the same chance of getting a job? If the answer to any of these questions is “no,” we must rethink whether individual agency is the only thing that matters.

Myers is oblivious to the fact that he is demeaning black people. They are, he seems to be saying, so beaten down that they are unable to make good decisions. For example, today about 72% of all black kids are born out of wedlock. Poor beaten down black folks can’t make good decisions about sex, birth control and marriage, according to Myers.

But in 1955, only 20% of black babies were born out of wedlock. Why could blacks make good decisions in the 1950s, before the civil rights legislation of the 60s, but can’t now? The generation of blacks that had kids in wedlock in the 50s was the generation that marched with Martin Luther King. What has happened in the black community? It hasn’t been the rise of “institutional racism.”

That blacks are, on average, in poorer schools than whites is certainly true. But it is leftists like Myers that are the staunch defenders of poorly performing public school monopolies in central cities, and the opponents of charter schools and vouchers schools.

It is, in other words, the people who whine about “institutional racism” who are defenders of the clearest form of institutional racism that harms black kids: the inner city public school monopoly.

Unemployment

Myers goes on to talk about unemployment, and claims that if the “jobs were there” black people would take them. He points to the fact that the black unemployment rate is consistently higher than the white unemployment rate.

But is this “institutional racism?”

In the first place, because blacks tend to have less human capital than whites (because of poorer education), they are at a disadvantage.

Secondly, because blacks tend to have less human capital, they are more likely to be lured into dependency on government programs, which compete too well with actual employment. (The same thing happens with poorly educated whites, but it is less noticed.)

Here are the data on dependency on means-tested programs, by race.

Here are the data on dependency and family structure. Married couple families are quite unlikely to be dependent on government programs.

One of the many things that politically correct types won’t talk about is the fact that the black/white gap in unemployment was, in an era where “institutional racism” was undeniable, nonexistent. This chart, from the linked article, tells the story:

Hypocrisy on Critical Thinking

But the most blatant, bizarre thing about Myers and his bureaucrats is that, instead of promoting critical thinking, they have promoted one-sided political correctness.

Critical thinking involves confronting diverse, often conflicting ideas. But the programming coming out of Myers office (and offices under his control) this year has consisted of nothing but leftist indoctrination.

And Myers, uncomfortable with Shapiro challenging his one-sided programming, goes to the Tribune to try to debunk Shapiro.

Marquette’s Stunning Hypocrisy on “Hard to Hear” Opinions

From an article by Jerry Bader in Media Trackers:

The Winter Edition of Marquette University’s “Marquette Magazine” includes what appears to be a self-congratulatory piece where open expression on campus is concerned, through its yearlong Marquette Forum series. The column chronicles the university’s fall semester efforts to generate discourse on the topic of racial justice and inequality:

During the fall semester the university seized the moment when issues of racial justice and inequality were central in the national and local consciousnesses to launch a conversation format designed to inspire thinking — together. Those efforts included hosting a conversation with Sam Pollard about his film Two Trains Runnin’, which was featured at the Milwaukee Film Festival and a panel discussion “Segregation in Milwaukee: A Conversation with Leaders on the Near West Side.”

The sub-headline for the article was:

This is about talking and listening even when opinions may be hard to hear. This is about being a university.

The irony of that sentiment was not lost on suspended MU professor John McAdams. McAdams, you may recall, was suspended for a blog post about an instructor who wouldn’t allow debate over same sex marriage in her philosophy class. In January, McAdams received a letter telling him his suspension would continue until he apologized. Media Trackers asked McAdams for his opinion on the Marquette Magazine piece:

It’s absurdly ironic, since Marquette only wants to hear opinions from the hard left.

There are plenty of voices who would dissent from the uniform leftist slant of these programs. One thinks of Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell. On criminal justice issues, there is Heather McDonald. I could name a dozen more. But nobody who at all dissents from the notion of blacks as entirely innocent victims of white oppression is allowed to speak.

The notion that any of these issues should be debated seems never to have crossed the minds of the Marquette bureaucrats. There is only one “social justice” position, and every person of good will agrees on it, and only evil people refuse to sign on.

This is radically at odds with what discourse at any university should be, but it’s all too typical of academia today. There is no “engagement” with diverse ideas, but only one-sided indoctrination.

The only saving grace is that few people who don’t already think this way will attend. That is unless their instructors bribe students with extra credit or require attendance.

It is not “hard to hear” opinions you agree with. Marquette is happy to serve up ideas “hard to hear” for conservatives (typically “hard to hear” because they are absurd) but unwilling to allow anything that the politically correct liberals would find “hard to hear.”

In fact, the whole year of Marquette-sponsored programs has been entirely devoid of anything but standard leftist indoctrination.

Infrastructure of Indoctrination

Consider, for example, a faculty program “Faculty Conversations on Learning: Sparking Curiosity in our Students.” The point, as we have noted, was not at all to spark curiosity, but rather to encourage faculty to indoctrinate students into the standard politically correct view of racial issues.

Then there is the Center for Intercultural Engagement. How politically correct are they? Each staff member lists his or her “preferred pronoun” on the assumption that some “transgender” or “gender queer” or such person might dislike “he” or “she.” One of the staff (Enrique Tejada III) wants to be referred to as “they,” even though there is only one of him.

Not surprisingly, the list of events sponsored or supported by this office is a smorgasbord of politically-correct identity politics, with lots of gay and lesbian events, “dreamers” (read: young illegals) events, and a “Dining in Drag” event.

Catholic teaching on homosexuality is nowhere to be found. Why? That opinion is “hard to hear.” So is the opinion that we should control the border and stop illegal immigration. Those opinions aren’t allowed at Marquette, at least so long as campus bureaucrats are controlling the discourse.

Mission Week

Marquette’s Mission week is merely more of the same. Titled “Black, White and the Call of the Church,” there is not the slightest mention of the problems that most afflict the black community: illegitimacy, a high crime rate, drug use and poor urban schools.

Rather, it’s all about white racism. The video about the event gives the full flavor:

Angela Davis

And of course, Marquette is bringing Angela Davis to campus. Of course, having extremist speakers (and Davis is a communist) as part of a diverse menu of provocative and even extremist opinions is perfectly fine at any university. But there is no diversity in the events Marquette has scheduled. It’s all about leftist indoctrination, with Davis merely being the most extreme of a uniform slate of leftists.

Marquette Backs Away from Language About Student “Resistance” to Indoctrination

This started when a Marquette official sent out a notice about a campus speaker. The title of his speech was listed as “Freedom Dreams Now: Black Lives, Brown Lives, Native Lives: All Lives Matter!” Since “All Lives Matter” is politically incorrect, she quickly sent out, less than an hour later, a “correction” and “apology” that changed “All Lives Matter” to “Whose Lives Matter.” Here is the first e-mail, and here is the abject apology.

But there was something else in both versions of the e-mail that we found objectionable. Quoting the e-mail:

The goals of this interdisciplinary all-campus faculty day are to:

• Provide a framework to discuss the social movements around African American, Latinx, and Native American lives
• Explore strategies for responding to student resistance to learning about the protest strategies of these groups
• Engage in interdisciplinary dialogue and conversation with faculty and students about the impact of these movements at Marquette and the Milwaukee community

Keynote by Joseph Brown, S.J.,
Director of the Africana Studies Department,
Southern Illinois University.

We observed:

Particularly arrogant is the language about “strategies for responding to student resistance to learning about the protest strategies of these groups.” Translation: students might resist being indoctrinated with a Black Lives Matter agenda, and so such “resistance” must be overcome. For these folks, there is no legitimate disagreement with their agenda.

Today

Earlier today, we got another reminder of the event, and the list of “goals” was a bit different:

• Provide a framework to discuss the social movements around African American, Latinx, Native American, Muslim lives and others on the margins
• Explore strategies for responding to student responses to learning about the protest strategies of these groups [emphasis added]
• Engage in interdisciplinary dialogue and conversation with faculty and students about the impact of these movements at Marquette and the Milwaukee community

Marquette, it seems, does not want to admit that students might resist indoctrination. Or even that it is indoctrination.

Joseph Brown, S.J.

But indoctrination it certainly is. Brown, it seems, is an extreme leftist. An observer of a talk he gave at Boston College described his comments:

Fr. Brown, head of the Black American Studies Program at Southern Illinois University, urged fellow Catholics and educators to remember King’s legacy by meeting their obligation to love the less fortunate. He also challenged Boston College to institute a “humanities core for the 21st century” that would require students to take two courses apiece in black studies, women’s studies and Hispanic studies, as well as courses in Native American, Asian and other multicultural topics.

Right. Who needs courses in math, science, philosophy or anything else when you can get 30 semester hours or so learning how straight, white, cisgender males have always oppressed everybody else.

He goes on:

In the course of his remarks, Fr. Brown sharply criticized what he described as the injustice inherent in the American capitalist system, and compared the current political era with the 1890s, when post-Civil War civil rights laws were rolled back and Jim Crow became entrenched.

“There is a profit to be made from inequality. That’s the American way of life,” said Fr. Brown. He maintained that those on welfare are not there as a result of “moral failure,” but are kept there by the forces of capital as a labor reserve to keep the employed in check. “You’ve got to keep the mob as a threat to control those who work for you,” he said.

He also cited several large American corporations that he claimed profit by keeping young black men in jail, and suggested that college graduates who go to work for such corporations are complicit in an economic system that is the modern-day moral equivalent of slavery.

Fr. Brown added that King’s most oft-quoted phrase has been reduced to meaninglessness.

. . .

“He didn’t get killed because he said, ‘I have a dream,’” Fr. Brown said of King. “He got killed because he said we have to restructure the economy of America.”

The writer goes on to say that Brown’s “strident and sometimes tongue-in-cheek delivery drew an enthusiastic response from the audience.”

It would get an enthusiastic response at Marquette too, but only because leftist students will be the vast majority of those who attend. So instead of staging a program that might present alternative views, and engage the interest of a broad range of students, Marquette has opted for extreme leftists such as Brown, Angela Davis, documentaries about how it is evil to lock up black criminals, and a “Mission Week” that is equally propagandistic.

Brown, by the way, is a supporter of the gay agenda within the Catholic Church. More his his thoughts (unfortunately in verbose and pretentious prose) can be found on his blog.

Conclusion

The use of the word “resistance” was a Freudian slip by Marquette bureaucrats. They know that many students (if they are unfortunate enough to even be exposed to these speakers) will resent the extreme leftist indoctrination. And a vigorous airing of alternative viewpoints would undermine the entire project. So the students must be made to conform. If they resist one-sided persuasion, the guilting and bullying will begin. Resistance to “social justice” must be expunged.

Angela Davis to Speak at Marquette

It came as a bit of a surprise, but should not have: an e-mail from the Marquette Provost that Angela Davis is coming to Marquette to speak as a part of a series of Marquette Forum events called Freedom Dreams Now.

Angela Davis is a Communist. It’s not that she has opinions that other people call communist, it’s that she had loudly proclaimed “I have always been a communist.” In 2014 she sent “greetings” to the National Convention of the Communist Party USA (although Wikipedia says she left the party in 1991).

In 1970, Davis was a party to a murderous plot to allow some of her Black Panther cohorts to escape from custody in California. According to Wikipedia:

Davis was a supporter of the Soledad Brothers, three inmates accused of killing a prison guard at Soledad Prison.

On August 7, 1970, Jonathan Jackson, a heavily armed, 17-year-old African-American high-school student, gained control over a courtroom in Marin County, California. Once in the courtroom, Jackson armed the black defendants and took Judge Harold Haley, the prosecutor, and three female jurors as hostages. As Jackson transported the hostages and two black convicts away from the courtroom, the police began shooting at the vehicle. The judge and the three black men were killed in the melee; one of the jurors and the prosecutor were injured. The firearms which Jackson used in the attack, including the shotgun used to kill Judge Haley, had been purchased by Davis two days prior and the barrel of the shotgun had been sawn off. Davis was found to have been corresponding with one of the inmates involved.

As California considers “all persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense ... principals in any crime so committed,” Marin County Superior Judge Peter Allen Smith charged Davis with “aggravated kidnapping and first degree murder in the death of Judge Harold Haley” and issued a warrant for her arrest.

Is There Anything Wrong With This?

We have long said that there is nothing wrong with a Klansman speaking on a college campus. So why not a communist?

In the first place, Marquette has put Davis on a program that claims to be a serious discussion of racial issues in America. Given that Marquette has not lined up a group of speakers with competing views, inviting her looks like an endorsement. Indeed, unwilling to tell the truth about Davis, Marquette puts a highly-sanitized blurb on its website:

Dr. Angela Davis, a living witness to history and important struggles of our contemporary era, will deliver a distinguished lecture. Davis is a scholar, activist, and sought-after speaker, presenting at dozens of universities including Dartmouth, Stanford, University of Northern Iowa, Lawrence College and Seattle University, a sister Catholic, Jesuit university. She has written eight books; taught at UCLA, UCSC, Vassar and Stanford; and focuses on social justice issues like racism, oppression and prison abolition. Davis has spoken in every state in America. Additional details and registration coming soon.

In the second place, we can’t imagine any university inviting a Klansman who had been involved in a criminal plot that got civil rights workers killed.

Finally, one agency lists her “Minimum Fee - U.S. Dates” as $25,000-$39,999. Yes, parents of Marquette students, this is where the tuition you pay is going.

A Program of Propaganda

Having an extreme leftist speak as part of a program of competing views would be fine, but the Marquette Forum is essentially nothing but leftist propaganda. It is described as follows:

Marquette University is launching a yearlong series of inclusive conversations, bringing experts of national renown together with those from the Marquette and Milwaukee communities.

Inspired by visions of inclusion and a better world emerging from Black freedom struggles, we hope to look with new eyes at the challenges that inequality presents at the national level and within Milwaukee. As a Catholic, Jesuit university committed to social justice, we seek to energize our campus and engage all Milwaukee’s communities by asking, “What is your freedom dream now?”

The only other listed forthcoming program is described as follows:

Join us for an open screening of the documentary Milwaukee 53206, which explores issues of incarceration and racial justice in a neighborhood on the north side of Milwaukee and the ripple effects of incarceration of men of color on their families and the greater community.

That’s right. This is a program about how it’s bad to lock up black criminals. But in the rarefied world of the politically correct, blacks don’t commit crime at a greater rate than whites. Rather, a racist criminal justice system locks up blacks at a greater rate just because it hates blacks.

It’s ironic that what is described as an “inclusive conversation” excludes any views other than the politically correct. There is no discussion of the fact that 72% of black kids are born out of wedlock, and the disastrous effects of that. Catholic teaching about sexual morality might be relevant there. But you are not going to see that mentioned at Marquette (except perhaps among this or that small group of conservatives.)

There is no discussion of black on black crime, and the fact that over 90% of homicides of blacks are committed by other blacks.

While Angela Davis is invited to campus (and paid a huge fee) we can’t imagine black intellectuals like Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams being invited by Marquette. If they ever come, it will be because some conservative student organization invites them.

Marquette, instead of a free market of ideas, is committed to politically correct indoctrination.

Marquette Warrior on Vicki McKenna Show

From this past Tuesday, discussing the kerfuffle over the Marquette Philosophy instructor who told a student that arguments opposing gay marriage would be homophobic, and that any gay students in the class should not be exposed to such arguments, since they would be offended.

Marquette: How Do We Deal With Students Who Don’t Accept “Social Justice” Indoctrination?

And e-mail today, sent to all faculty (emphasis added):

One aspect of Marquette’s mission is to form “leaders concerned for society and the world and desirous of putting an end to hunger and conflict” (Kolvenbach, 1989b, 59). The skills and awareness students need are inexhaustible. Whether in STEM, health care, law, communication, the humanities (philosophy, history, English, theology, social and cultural sciences, languages), or business, MU courses should prepare our students to be leaders who will address “the gritty realities of our world.” Many faculty have taken on this challenge with assignments, readings, problems, experiments, service learning, international study, observations, clinics, and social innovation projects. Some teachers experience resistance when they address issues of social justice.

Faculty are invited to prepare proposals for mini-workshops for this interdisciplinary faculty day that will showcase their ideas, resources, assignments, and successes, but also any pushback they experience in the classroom when they treat social justice topics and concerns. These will provide the grist for interdisciplinary conversations that will spark new ideas and ways to proceed.

The University Working for Justice

Wednesday, January 7, 2015—Faculty Conversations on Learning

AMU 157 and AMU 163 from 8:45 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Lunch included. Co-sponsored by the College of Arts and Sciences and Manresa for Faculty in the Center for Teaching and Learning

The goals of this day are to:

• Provide a framework for justice education in the Jesuit tradition
• Build faculty capacity to respond across the disciplines with learning experiences in the classroom
• Explore strategies for confronting roadblocks and pushback
• Engage in interdisciplinary dialogue and conversation about Marquette/Jesuit education goals

What are some of the examples of “pushback” that instructors might face?

We blogged about one just yesterday: a student who wanted to discuss gay marriage in class, and what told that any such discussion would “offend” any gay students and would be “homophobic.”

So this looks for all the world to be a workshop in “how do we deal with students who resist indoctrination.”

At places like Marquette,  “social justice” is merely code for a liberal or left political agenda.  It’s not just “we should care for the poor,” it’s “we should support every standard liberal and leftist idea about how to help the poor.” It’s not just “we should oppose racism,” it’s “all whites should feel guilty about their white privilege.”

And indeed, it’s about opposing some things (like genetic engineering of crops or globalization of markets) that promise to lift millions of the world’s poor out of destitution, since they are seen as benefiting capitalist corporations.

Among these folks, opposition to abortion is not  a part of social judtice.  Neither is opposition to gay marriage.  On the contrary, any opposition to gay marriage is called “homophobia.”

In short, these folks think that by invoking “social justice” they can pretend to be supporting the supposed Catholic mission of the university.  But in reality their agenda is identical to secular liberal and leftist elites.

If Marquette actually cared about “leaders concerned for society and the world” the university would welcome “pushback” from students directed toward their professors.  That would indicate students are thinking and critically analyzing.  It would indicate they are intellectually engaged.

It would indicate the nature of “social justice” is an open question, and people may have different ideas about it.

But that would be highly inconvenient for professors who want to indoctrinate.

Missive From Provost: More Gay Indoctrination For Students, More Reeducation?

An e-mail to all Marquette faculty: You can read the whole thing here, and it’s mostly boring stuff. But some parts stand out as potentially dangerous:

But first, some boring introductory things.

May 12, 2014

Dear colleagues:

As we wrap up finals week and another academic year, I wanted to share some updates related to academic life at Marquette. We are poised to begin a new chapter with President-elect Lovell, who attended the University Academic Senate meeting earlier this week. President-elect Lovell brings a new sense of energy and enthusiasm to our collective pursuit of academic excellence, and is looking forward to working closely with UAS and the academy. Many of us in the room were moved by his remarks at the meeting and his collaborative philosophy, which he said is based on the African proverb: “We can go fast alone or we can go far together.”

Shedding more light on this year’s major milestone for the university – our successful reaffirmation of accreditation by the Higher Learning Commission – the HLC report brief is now available and it documents the review team’s high regard for education at Marquette. Thanks to the leadership of Dr. Gary Meyer, vice provost for undergraduate programs and teaching; the more than 200 members of our campus community who served on committees and volunteered their time and talents during the past two years; and the more than 500 faculty, staff and students who met with the HLC site team while they were on campus; Marquette is reaccredited through 2023-24.

But then we get to the politically correct stuff:

The one area that the HLC visit team recommended for improvement is “operationalizing our commitment to diversity.” To help us make strides toward that goal, Dr. William Welburn, associate provost for diversity and inclusion, has accepted my invitation to lead the development of a campus-wide diversity plan. Components of this plan will include a campus wide climate study conducted during the 2014-15 academic year; a new, anonymous bias incident reporting and response system for students; and enhanced student education on diversity beginning in fall 2014 and administered by the Division of Student Affairs. This will be a campus-wide effort, and I’ll be calling on many of you to help lead this important initiative, which is also a key objective under the strategic theme “Formation of the Mind and the Heart” in our Beyond Boundaries strategic plan.

Of course, a “campus wide climate study” is going to be a survey to see whether students harbor any politically incorrect attitudes about any politically correct group. Gay and lesbian students will be asked to report instances where anybody let on that they think that homosexuality is not a normal condition, or that homosexual acts are sinful or immoral.

In other words, any instances where some student might let slip that they accept Catholic teaching on homosexuality. That can’t be allowed at a modern Catholic university.

And of course, student activists can be counted on to seize on even the most trivial slight or “micro aggression” to make into a grievance. That’s what the grievance mongers do.

Likewise, if a student lets on that they think that problems in the black community are not the result or white racism, of if a white student fails to “own” his or her “white privilege,” that will count as an example of a “hostile” and “non-inclusive” climate.

Admittedly, by the time they come to Marquette, most students have either been indoctrinated into the politically correct way of viewing these issues, or at least gotten they message that they better keep quiet about their views. But there might be a few hold-outs who are bold enough to speak out. Reeducation is what they will likely face.

Another inclusivity effort initiated this year, the Action Group on Campus Conversations on Gender and Sexuality, has met throughout the spring semester to discuss how to improve dialogue on campus related to issues of gender and sexuality and our Catholic, Jesuit mission. That group is organizing campus forums this fall for faculty, staff and students to share their thoughts, and I urge all of you to participate in these meaningful discussions.

Such discussions, of course, will be dominated by secular politically correct types (as all previous such discussions have been) and will doubtless reach a consensus that Marquette should adopt the entire agenda of the campus gay lobby and the campus feminists.

Finally, I want to thank you for your support this year. Serving in dual roles has been eye-opening, demanding and rewarding – sometimes all at once. I appreciate your kind words, prayers and constructive feedback, and look forward to continuing our work this summer and fall until the search for a permanent provost is completed.

Marquette blessings,

Dr. Margaret Faut Callahan
Interim Provost, Marquette University
Dean and Professor, College of Nursing

But will this be much of a change from what students already face? Not necessarily.

In the first place, students already face a good bit of indoctrination and reeducation, at Freshman Orientation, for example.

But secondly, this may turn into an example of what journalist Charles Peters famously said is a key motto of bureaucracy: “Make believe equals survival.” Thus, an accrediting agency goes through the motions of demanding more “diversity” and a more “inclusive” climate — meaning a climate more friendly to politically correct groups, but also more hostile to non-conforming students. Marquette bureaucrats then go through the motions of implementing “programs” to promote “diversity” — those programs being a great excuse for meetings and reports, and a good way to keep bureaucrats in places like the Provost’s office and Student Affairs busy.

But given the increasing intolerance that marks Marquette (as it marks most U.S. universities) one can’t dismiss the likelihood of real persecution of the few students who hold (and are bold enough to express) independent views.

Indoctrination at Marquette: Professor Louise Cainkar

From an e-mail that a Marquette student sent to talk show host Vicki McKenna:

I am a Junior at Marquette University . . . To receive my minor, I have to take a sociology course so I choose to take the Arab and Muslim Americans class.
At first I had high hopes for the class but it steadily became worse. During her time teaching she has provided us with reading material that calls for abolishing the state of Israel, has openly criticized our governor, and repeatedly given us material that criticizes Republicans, “state tea party movements,” and “the right.” Here is an example of an article that she is making us read. It is from the Democratic Center for American Progress and she wanted us to read pages 1-12. Obviously this is not the only article like this she has made us read and I can provide you with more if you would like. When you read it, I would like you note how it refers to “state tea party movements,” “The religious right,” and “Fox News.”

In another e-mail to McKenna, the student provided more details:

Her name is Louise Cainkar, I’ll attach the link to her Marquette page for you. I thought you might be interest. The professor is very frustrating. Two Wednesdays ago we went on a field trip and the guide was explaining how great it was that the state is proving school vouchers because now the school that we were in would be able accept more students. Prof. Cainkar interrupted her and argued trying to get the guide to agree with her that Scott Walker and the Republicans were awful, it was completely unnecessary and unrelated to the your guide’s point. Frankly, it’s shameful what she is able to say and call “teaching.”

It would be too much to expect that any professor should be so good at concealing their political biases that students could not figure out whether the professor leans left or right.

A lot of our students, for example, figure out that we lean to the right, although some others feel the need to ask. In general, when we lecture on something that makes the left look bad, we discuss an analogous case that makes the right look bad. Yesterday, when we talked about arrogant bureaucrats who overstep their authority, we picked on OSHA and the EEOC, and then discussed J. Edgar Hoover’s campaign to discredit Martin Luther King. When we discuss media bias, we tell students that there is no unbiased media, and that they should look at outlets on both sides of the ideological spectrum.

 Further, there is a difference between letting some ideological bias show and creating a hostile learning environment for students who disagree with the professor. The latter is an abuse.

 A related issue is whether the professor feels free to offer all sorts of political opinions unrelated to the subject matter. The classic canons of academic freedom protect the right of a professor to say what he or she wants in the classroom only when discussing the course material, and expressing scholarly opinions. Stray irrelevant political observations are not protected.

Of course, this distinction is largely unenforceable, but it’s still the case that spewing stray political opinions is an abuse. It’s difficult to see how attacking the tea party and Gov. Walker is relevant in a course in Arab-American politics.

But this is the Sociology Department (technically, Social and Cultural Sciences), and it, along with humanities departments is a center of political correctness at Marquette.

Academic Yahoos: A Roundup

From Walter Williams in The Examiner:

Brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who are accused of setting the bombs that exploded at the Boston Marathon, attended the University of Massachusetts. Maybe they hated our nation before college, but if you want lessons on hating America, college attendance might be a good start. Let’s look at it.

“We need to think very, very clearly about who the enemy is. The enemy is the United States of America and everyone who supports it.” That’s taught to University of Hawaii students by Professor Haunani-Kay Trask. Richard Falk, professor emeritus at Princeton University and the U.N. Human Rights Council’s Palestine monitor, explained the Boston bombings by saying, “The American global domination project is bound to generate all kinds of resistance in the post-colonial world.” Professor Falk has also stated that President George W. Bush ordered the destruction of the twin towers.

University of Southern California professor Darry Sragow preaches hate to his students in his regulation of elections and political finance class, recently telling them that Republicans are stupid, racist losers and that they are angry old white people. A few years ago, Rod Swanson, a UCLA economics professor, told his class, “The United States of America, backed by facts, is the greediest and most selfish country in the world.” Penn State University professor Matt Jordan compared supporters of the voter ID laws to the Ku Klux Klan. Professor Sharon Sweet, an algebra teacher at Brevard Community College, told her students to sign a pledge that read, “I pledge to vote for President Obama and Democrats up and down the ticket.” Fortunately, the college’s trustees fired her.

University of Rhode Island history professor Erik Loomis tweeted, “I want (National Rifle Association executive vice president) Wayne LaPierre’s head on a stick.” He asked, “Can (we) define NRA membership as dues contributing to a terrorist organization?” Here’s a sample of how Professor Loomis frequently expresses himself: “Motherf---ing f---heads f---ing f---.” Then there’s Georgetown law professor Louis Michael Seidman, who explained our national problems by saying, “But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.” Professor Seidman worked for The Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia. When he was sworn in as an officer of the court, I wonder what constitution he swore to uphold and defend.

Parents don’t have to wait for college admission for their youngsters to receive America-hating lessons. Scott Compton, an English teacher at Chapin High School in Chapin, S.C., was put on administrative leave after he allegedly threw an American flag on the floor and stomped on it in front of his students. He has chosen to resign.

An Advanced Placement world geography teacher at Lumberton High School in Texas encouraged students to dress in Islamic clothing and instructed them to refer to the 9/11 hijackers not as terrorists but as “freedom fighters.” They were also told to stop referring to the Holocaust as genocide. John Valastro, the superintendent of the Lumberton Independent School District, told Fox News that the teacher did absolutely nothing wrong.

In McAllen, Texas, teachers tried to force a teenager to sing the Mexican national anthem and recite Mexico’s pledge of allegiance. The teen refused, saying it was against her beliefs as an American. She was thrown out of the class and given a failing grade for that day’s assignment. Her father has filed a lawsuit on behalf of his daughter against the McAllen Independent School District.

Investor’s Business Daily ran a story that shows student indoctrination is official union policy: “A New Low From The California Federation Of Teachers: Urine Indoctrination” (12/5/12). The union’s website has a cartoon narrated by leftist Hollywood actor Ed Asner. In tones used when reading to children, Asner says: “(Rich people) love their money more than anything in the whole world. ... Over time, rich people decided they weren’t rich enough, so they came up with ways to get richer.” The cartoon finishes its class warfare message by graphically depicting “the rich” urinating on the poor.

These people running our education system are destroying the minds and values of our young people, and we allow them to do it.

Of course, one could argue that these examples of outrageous indoctrination are atypical, and to an extent they are. But we have blogged about several examples nearly this bad at Marquette. Even an occasional example is an outcropping of a narrow, insular and intolerant culture among academics. When an entire subculture leans left, leftist extremism doesn’t seem that abnormal.

One could also argue that college professors (but not high school teachers) have academic freedom, and can say outrageous things. This, of course, is quite correct. But anybody has an equal right to hold such academics in contempt. Taxpayers have a right to vote against politicians who keep funding public universities at a high level, and parents have a right to look for a college for their kids from among the minority of institutions that actually have a diversity of opinion.

A good place to start is among Christian colleges, and not “Christian” colleges that, like Marquette, are only nominally Christian. There are a few that really are Christian. Those, ironically, would be more congenial to non-believers who are conservative or libertarian than the secular, politically correct places.

A Liberal Explains College Education

Want a Resident Assistant’s Job? At Marquette You Must Submit to Thought Reform

From MUScoop (which is mostly a sports discussion board, but which sometimes ventures into other campus issues):

An account of how the Office of Residence Life engages in indoctrination of students, and especially people who are Resident Assistants.

One person posted a link to an ORL event called Remove the Blindfold. This is described as:

. . . an annual event sponsored by RHA that promotes awareness about many social justice issues facing the world today. The experience of attending Remove the Blindfold should stimulate thoughts, feelings, and emotions around the issues and images presented. The hope is that through this experience, students will become more aware of social injustices and move toward positive change by taking action.

Such events, of course, are profoundly anti-intellectual. It’s assumed that there are no contentious issues about which there is a legitimate debate. Rather, there is only “injustice.” And it’s always obvious to those who have “removed the blindfold” what constitutes an injustice. For example, it’s assumes that a lack of affirmative action is an injustice. If you believe that having affirmative action is an injustice, you must be a racist.

And note the elitist assumption that people who don’t see the world the way ORL staff do are blinded. In fact, ORL staff live in the narrow and parochial world of student affairs bureaucrats, and lack both the competence and the open-mindedness to deal with serious public issues.

One might think that silly events like this aren’t of much import, but another poster explained something much more intolerant and insidious:

As an RA for 2 years, I was required to participate in this program, as well as numerous other “diversity” oriented programs. I can say with no amount of exaggeration that they were very anti-male, anti-white, etc. We were bussed to the LGBT Center on MLK Drive as part of our “sensitivity training,” and it was intimated that anyone whose personal beliefs contradicted their agenda was backward and bigoted.

This stuff is all over in MU’s administration. As an openly Evangelical Christian, there were numerous times when I was made to feel that my beliefs were not acceptable within ORL. The ironic thing about the PC movement is that everyone’s beliefs are acceptable unless you disagree with them...

This stuff is indeed “all over all over in MU’s administration.” Freshman orientation, for example, contains a heavy dose of politically correct indoctrination. And not only are freshman students indoctrinated, but students who work in orientation are subjected to what we described as Stalinist thought reform.

And at Marquette, as elsewhere in academia, these things are defended in terms of “tolerance” and “diversity.”

College Course: How to Be a Union Thug

Attacking Catholic Teaching About Sex at “Catholic” Marquette University

From a notice sent around to faculty:

Discussion on human sexuality to take place

A discussion on “The Sexual Person: Toward a Renewed Catholic Sexuality” will take place Monday, April 11, from 3:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. in Marquette Hall 200.

The discussion will be presented by Dr. Todd Salzman, professor and chair of theology at Creighton University, and Dr. Michael Lawler, professor emeritus of theology at Creighton University. Respondents will be Dr. Susan Ross, professor and chair of theology at Loyola University Chicago, and Rev. Bryan Massingale, associate professor of theology at Marquette.

For more information, contact Dr. Amelia Zurcher, associate professor of English and coordinator of the Women’s Studies Program.

This event is sponsored by the Women’s and Gender Studies Program, the Klingler College of Arts and Sciences, the departments of English, History, Philosophy and Psychology, and the Social and Cultural Sciences McGee Lecture Series.

What’s the problem with this? The fact that the most secular and politically correct parts of the university are the sponsors is the giveaway.

In September of Last year the U.S. bishops highlighted major defects in Salzman and Lawler’s co-authored book (The Sexual Person: Toward a Renewed Catholic Anthropology). It seems the authors approve homosexual behavior, premarital sex, contraception, and artificial insemination.

In fact, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops saw fit to critique the book at length.

How do Salzman and Lawler deal with scriptural statements about sexual behavior? They simply assert that such were merely reflections of the cultural biases of the particular time in history when the texts were written, and are not normative for us today.

That’s terribly convenient. It relieves one of ever having to confront current cultural norms and take unpopular stands.

The sort of people who take this position never have an inkling that today’s cultural norms may be arbitrary fashions with no fundamental moral grounding.

In principle, there is nothing wrong with discussion of Catholic teaching about sexuality at a Catholic university, including the voicing of opinions contrary to Church teaching.

Unfortunately, as is typical at Marquette, no opinions supportive of Catholic teaching are likely to be voiced. Marquette’s own Fr. Massingale is both a political and a theological liberal, and Dr. Susan Ross seems to subordinate any respect for Catholic teaching to her feminist views.

If discourse at Marquette is going to be one-sided, it should come down on the side of Catholic teaching. But balanced discourse is always to be sought in a university.

But how does one rationalize one program after another trashing Catholic teaching?

Marquette is not, in any serious sense, a Catholic university. That claim is just a marketing gimmick.

Politically Correct Fascism in Education Schools: “Dispositions” Litmus Test

KC Johnson on Dispositions Theory from FIRE on Vimeo.

Marquette’s College of Education, of course, has been implicated in this “dispositions” litmus test. Indeed, several of our students have complained about one-sided indoctrination there.

Indoctrination in a Marquette Theology Class

A student of ours provided this e-mail, sent out by an unnamed professor in a Theology Class the student is taking.

The e-mail above bears a strong resemblance to a recent essay by leftist Theology Prof. Daniel Maguire. Maguire has confirmed to us that he sent the message to students.

Thursday, February 17, 2011 6:30 PM

This fits into the exam question on the triangle of justice.

The Ed Schulz Show on MSNBC, Channel 46 is on at 9:00 pm broadcasting from Madison. I’m not assigning that but you might find it of interest.

************************************************

Neoliberalism (neoconservatism) is the operating system in the political economy of the Right.

It has these characteristics:

1) “Possessive individualism.” Greedy individualism would describe it better. It embodies the Social Darwinism—survival of the fittest—mentality. It is “Greed is good” theory.

(2) It is anti-government, wanting to minimize the role of the government, and remove regulations. Therefore it stresses “privatization,” taking things out of government hands and giving it to private business. Following the neoliberal script, George W. Bush tried to “privatize” Social Security, handing over retirement benefits to the mercy of the stock market. Water supply has in some places been privatized; airports and roads have been targeted for privatizing.

(3) Neoliberalism is anti-unions. Reagan went after the air traffic controllers union. Governor Walker is going after public worker’s union--teachers, etc.-- denying them the right to collective bargaining.

(4) Neoliberalism asks us to put our trust in the market and in corporations and to allow them to have unfettered freedom.

In England, Maggie Thatcher was an apostle of Neoliberalism. The results were clear: wealth was shifted from the bottom to the top. When she entered office one in ten Britons were listed as below the poverty line. When she finished one in four were in poverty and one in three children.

Ronald Reagan was another devotee of Neoliberalism. As Kevin Phillips, a Republican analysys [sic] and former aide to President Nixon reported in his book The Politics of Rich and Poor: in the 1980s the top 10 percent of American families increased their average family income by 16 percent, the top 5 percent by 23 percent, and the top one percent by 50 percent. The bottom 80 percent of families and workers all lost something and the lower they were on the scale, the more they lost. The bottom 10% lost 15% of their already meager incomes.

Neoliberalism lacks a sense of social justice. It is basically opposed to sharing. Therefore it is wildly opposed to taxes regardless of what taxes do for the common good. It particularly opposes taxes for the wealthy. The billionaire Warren Buffett pays 17%; his secretary pays 30%. It is the opposite of Jesus’ “Blessed are the poor;” it is “Blessed are the rich.”

Remember Aristotle said “Justice holds the city together.” and Thomas Aquinas said “Justice consists in sharing.”

Neoliberalism is basically opposed to justice. It naturally opposes government since government enforces sharing, e.g. in taxes and in curbing monopolies.

The current demonstrations in Madison are in effect protesting neoliberalism.

As is typical with leftist professors, especially those in disciplines far removed from empirical social reality, this message is absurdly ignorant of the facts. For example, during the evil neo-liberal Reagan Administration, the mean income of the poorest 20% of the population increased. It was $10,682 in constant 2009 dollars in 1980, and $11,681 in the same constant dollars in 1989. Of course, the income of the top earners increased faster. But does “social justice” mean that we should envy and want to hurt affluent people?

Poverty rates in the U.K. are misleading, since they are usually measured as the percentage of people below (say) 40% or 50% of the median income. That way if everybody gets equally better off, poverty fails to decline. And if most of society gets better off, and low income groups remain equally well-off, poverty “increases” (notwithstanding that the poor are no worse off).

So this kind of data is perfect for people who want to play games with statistics.

Neo-liberalism

Of course, neo-liberal policies have been all the rage in recent years, and not just in the capitalist USA. European socialist countries have slashed top tax rates, and privatized nationalized industries. And they have done that not because greed has triumphed, but because socialist policies don’t work.

The opposite of neo-liberalism, in fact, is not compassion or social justice, it’s statism.

Indoctrination

All professors, us included, have their biases, and students can usually figure out what they are. But the majority allow views on both sides to be presented, and don’t push one side of contemporary political conflict.

We, for example, have not said a single word to our classes either in support of or opposition to the union protests in Madison.

But this professor tells students that this e-mail “fits into the exam question on the triangle of justice.” Students, apparently, are supposed to write about the evil of greedy neo-liberalism and how social justice demands that they side with union demands.

It would require a very gutsy student to take a different view in this class.

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.