Marquette Backing Away From Inflammatory Anti-Israel Program

We blogged about this a month ago: a rather virulent program on the Marquette campus that labelled Israel an “apartheid state.”

It was not particularly surprising that Marquette’s Palestinian student association would sponsor such a program — although it certainly doesn’t speak well for the students that they would want to use such inflammatory rhetoric.

More surprising was the announcement that two offices at Marquette — Intercultural Engagement in the Office of Student Development and the Office of International Education — were cosponsoring the program.

Is it now Marquette’s position that Israel is an “apartheid state?”

It seems, however, that the university has now backed off its support for this program.

We queried Vice President for Student Affairs Chris Miller about this, and he responded “Student Development is not sponsoring the event. It is purely student sponsored.”

Terence Miller, of the Office of International Education, was not immediately available for comment. But it appears that they too have withdrawn their sponsorship.

The issue here is “what were they thinking?”  What kind of bureaucratic culture prevails among mid-level bureaucrats at Marquette such that declaring Israel an “apartheid state” seems like a good idea?

We have seen this before, most recently with the Femsex seminar, which was approved by the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center. When the true nature of the program was revealed here, Marquette’s top administrators withdrew support.

But the fact that things like this can happen at all is terribly revealing.

Campus Speaker is Incendiary Race Hustler

We learn that Marquette is having an “anti-racism” speaker on campus, sponsored by all the politically correct leftist suspects: the Office of Student Development, MUSG, the Office of Residence Life, the Division of Student Affairs and the College of Education. We are told for “more information, contact Carla Cadet, assistant dean for multicultural affairs. . . .” So that office must be involved too. The speaker is a fellow named Tim Wise, and he claims to be “anti-racist,” although in reality he is, like all the politically correct crowd, an anti-white racist.

He’s also anti-capitalist, anti-Catholic, calls the criminal justice system “racist,” has called Israel an “apartheid” state and favors reparations to blacks. A good collection of his fulminations is found here. Let us just repeat a few. Wise alludes to:

“the seeds of pure evil planted deep in every one of us [white people] by our culture. . . Better to blame the dark-skinned for our [whites’] hardship since we can take it for granted that they’re powerless to do anything about it. Whites, as it turns out, take most everything for granted in this country; which makes perfect sense, because dominant groups usually have that privilege.”

One can easily imagine the response if anybody said that blacks have the “the seeds of pure evil” planted in them. But anti-white racist is acceptable, even applauded, in academia.

“Indeed, persons of color know well that they will likely have to work twice as hard to get half as far or be considered half as good as whites; and they have known that since long before affirmative action came around. But at least with affirmative action they get the chance to work twice as hard and demonstrate their capabilities.”

Wise says that whites must work:

“individually and collectively to overcome that which is always beneath the surface; to overcome the tendency to cash in the chips which represent the perquisites of whiteness; to traffic in privileges — not the least of which is the privilege of feeling superior to others — not because of what or who they are, but rather because of what you’re not: in this case, not a nigger. . . . Fact is nigger is still the first word on most white people’s mind when they see a black man being taken off to jail on the evening news. The first thing we think when we see Mike Tyson, Louis Farrakhan, or O.J. Simpson (as in ‘that murdering nigger’).”

Of course, people like Wise prate about “institutional racism:”

“I view the U.S. as a nation in which racism has been interwoven from the beginning, and in which it continues to operate. But this racism is not principally the individual racism of ‘evil’ white people, let alone those out to ambush people of color due to some kind of boiling hatred, but rather the more impersonal racism of institutions, whose actors perpetrate unequal treatment often without deliberate intent to harm. If anything, it is my argument that white people are far less individually culpable than the institutions in which we find ourselves dominant, the policies and procedures of which continue to advantage whites to the detriment of people of color.”

These, of course, are the same institutions that (like Marquette) discriminate against whites (it’s called affirmative action) and provide massive social welfare support to the poor, who are disproportionately black. Indeed, the institutions that seem to do the most harm to blacks (the public schools) are the pets of unions, Democrats and the left.

On the Catholic Church:

“Finally, it appears as though the official Catholic Church has lost its mind. First, a Bishop in Colorado announces (and is followed by several others around the country) that the sacrament of the eucharist should be denied to any Catholic who supports reproductive freedom for women (i.e. is pro-choice). Then, the dottering pontiff himself (through his spokespersons) announces that the Church is moving to beatify some hallucinatory nun named Emmerich, who, in the 18th century and early 19th century, claims to have ‘experienced’ in visions the crucifixion of Jesus. She then proceeded, in her writings, to add to the already contradictory Gospels, her own spin on the Passion narrative, replete with a devil figure encouraging the ‘evil’ Jews (of course) to kill Christ, and the ‘evil’ Jews gladly doing just that. Emmerich was, as it turns out, the source of most all of Mel Gibson’s most controversial parts of his latest film — not the Bible, but a crazed nun, who had apparently ingested too much acid, or whatever they were taking at the convent back in those days. Then today, there is this. Apparently, Gays and Lesbians in Chicago who make clear their opposition to institutional Catholic and Christian heterosexism are now to be denied the eucharist as well. One wonders when Catholic churches will also begin denying communion to members of their flock who support war, support the death penalty, or who are insufficiently committed to ending poverty. . . . On the positive side, 5 dozen Catholic churches in the Boston area have been forced to close. Not enough money. Pity. Maybe if the Pope would sell some of his art in the Vatican, they could take care of that little problem...ah, priorities.”

We have long said that there is nothing wrong with extremist speakers on college campuses. We wouldn’t terribly mind having a Klansman speak on campus. Students might learn something, although it would probably be something about political pathology and not anything useful about public policy.

But what if various University officials brought the Klansman to campus with the clear implication that he had something worthwhile to say about race relations in America? And what if the University paid him a lot of money?

Wise, in fact, is no better than a Klansman. He simply believes nasty racist things that are fashionable in academia, rather than nasty racist things that are unpopular in academia.

And he hates capitalism and the Catholic Church to boot.

Orientation Indoctrination: Update

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

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

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

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

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

1. Homelessness/urban issues

2. Alcohol use/abuse

3. Sexual assault/date rape

4. Racial/ethnic diversity

5. Sexual orientation

6. Decision making re: sexual behaviors

7. Depression

8. Body image

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

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

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

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

Discouraging Illicit Sex – Among Heterosexuals

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

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

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

Getting More Controversial

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

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

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

Gay Guy in Chemistry Class

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion and “Taking a Stand”

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

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

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

2. I feel comfortable living in the city.

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

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

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

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

7. Only women are victims of sexual assault.

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

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

10. Being gay is a choice that people make.

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

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

13. There is no such thing as bisexuality.

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

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

16. I would not mind having a gay roommate.

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

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

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

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

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

22. Only women are concerned with body image.

23. Men who cannot handle stress are weak.

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

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

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

Group Leaders

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

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

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

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

Stay Off the Line

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

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

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

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

Student Affairs Responds

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Ultimate Protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Is The Nature of the Monologues?

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

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

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

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

This past spring, there was a huge uproar about Marquette’s refusal to hire an outspoken lesbian as Arts & Sciences Dean. Just looking at protesting students, one might think that all undergraduates wanted the lesbian dean. But a fair number were silenced by the intolerance of pro-gay students. One Marquette senior complained on an online discussion forum: “Who would post what they actually think as their Facebook status? The answer is sadly very few, because to do so is to be labeled as an anti-gay bigot . . . and a blind follower of an ‘intolerant’ religion,” and further, “fear of labels silences the traditional Catholic voice.”

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

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

But it gets much worse.

Take a Stand

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

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

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

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

Or “Being gay is a choice people make.”

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

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

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

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

Marquette Bureaucrats Conceal the Details

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

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

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

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

But they didn’t send it.

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

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

Translation: stonewall.

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

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

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

Andy Thon’s Replacement Announced

From a University e-mail:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We will most definitely see.

Repression and Intolerance in the Universities: Is It Just the Faculty?

Via Cold Spring Shops, some interesting observations on the culture of intolerance and repression so typical in universities.

The standard line is to blame on the faculty, and in many cases they deserve the blame. But University of Wisconsin-Madison Professor Donald Downs points out that a very large role is played by non-faculty bureaucrats.

A lot has been written about the details of the residential life program at the University of Delaware, and the ways in which it has bullied students and residential assistants to accept regnant orthodoxy. The nation’s collective hat should go off to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education for exposing this program, and for compelling the university to back down - at least temporarily. The episode brings to mind last spring’s heated debate in the Chronicle of Higher Education over whether FIRE was too extreme in its attacks on higher education, and whether FIRE had outlived its usefulness. One case is not statistical proof, but the fact remains that without FIRE, this remarkably repressive program would still be in effect.

I want to address a broader issue in the Delaware case that has not attracted enough attention thus far: the role of non-faculty members in promoting the politicization of higher education. Kathleen Kerr, a mastermind of the Delaware program, is director of residential life for the University of Delaware. Interestingly, as John Leo has recently pointed out, she is also the chairperson of the American College Personnel Association’s Commission for Housing and Residential Life - a group with connections to universities across the country.

Most of the literature on the ideological politicization of higher education has focused on faculty members. The standard line is that the rise of political correctness and its tools of war (e.g., speech codes, sensitivity training, etc.) have been the product of left-wing baby-boomers assuming positions of authority on faculties and in the upper echelons of administration. The standard line provides an explanation in some cases. But my own experience and reading have caused me to look for further explanations of this state of affairs.

Frederick Lynch provided a detailed portrait of numerous interlocking national programs designed to promote diversity and attitudinal change, almost all of which were run by non-faculty personnel. The University of Michigan, for example, had about 100 such programs (this is not a misprint), but the faculty tended to ignore them because they applied to areas outside of the faculty’s main concern. As long as such programs did not jeopardize faculty research, no problem.

In a later essay, Downs discusses more explicitly the role of faculty members.

A panel discussion/debate in October between Stephen Balch and Harry Lewis at the Pope Center in North Carolina highlighted this disagreement. The panel dealt with the problems besetting liberal education, focusing on education’s aimlessness and failure to instill knowledge and respect for free institutions. Balch and Lewis agreed on several things, but offered two different slants on the ills of higher education. Comparing the views of Balch and Lewis can help us to clarify and refine the problem of politics in higher education today.

Balch, the distinguished president of the National Association of Scholars who recently was awarded the National Humanities Medal in the Oval Office, blamed the ills of liberal education on politicized faculty. According to Jay Schalin’s report of the panel, Balch argued that higher education is failing “because it has adopted a left-wing ideology that is at odds with our traditions. The university system, with its population of impressionable young people, is naturally attractive to people with ‘an inclination toward visionary and utopian thinking,’ and these Utopians feel that the purpose of education is to ‘move people toward their visions.’”

Lewis, a former dean of Harvard College and recent author of the noteworthy book, Excellence Without a Soul, contested Balch’s assessment. Lewis agreed that liberal education is failing to train citizens who are knowledgeable about the strengths and weaknesses of free institutions, and that this state of affairs constitutes a crisis for the nation. But he does not believe that the fault lies with a politicized left that disdains liberal democracy and American institutions. “The aimlessness problems are not the result of evil faculty or evil presidents, or even left wing conspiracies,” he declared. Rather, they are the “unintended consequence” of the overwhelming emphasis on the production of research at the nation’s leading institutions. “The root cause is the nature of the faculty who have been appointed in deference to research extremism.” With so much attention devoted to research, there is neither time nor inclination to pay attention to the quality of education and academic freedom.

And further:

Stephen Karlson of Northern Illinois University raises a further point in responding to my last essay on his blog Universities are divided between senior faculty members with tenure and faculty members without tenure (most of whom are not even on the tenure track at all). These are the people who usually teach large courses, as many senior faculty disdain reaching out to large numbers of students - another problem of citizenship. Without the protection of tenure, they are more vulnerable if they resist the pressures of staff and others who promote politically correct agendas. At Wisconsin, for example, teaching assistants - perhaps the most vulnerable of all campus citizens - are exposed to sensitivity training that even my most liberal graduate students find exceedingly insulting and bullying. They complain to one another and to associates, but are reluctant to speak too loudly. (Alas, this is an area academic freedom advocates have not dealt with at Wisconsin or elsewhere.)

Downs, with excessive fair mindedness, wants to split the difference between Balch and Lewis. But he’s wrong.

No doubt a lot of the rigid indoctrination in universities comes from non-faculty bureaucrats. Any reader of this blog has seen documented what the Office of Student Development, the University Ministry and other related offices do. To an extent, this is simply bureaucratic empire building. If you come up with dozens of programs designed to promote “diversity” you have an excuse to hire a bunch of additional bureaucrats.

But the problem with faculty is not that they are too busy to protect academic freedom, it’s that they don’t particularly want to.

University faculties (and this certainly applies to Marquette) are not polarized between busy active scholars who don’t have time to protect academic freedom and drones who do have time and do protect academic freedom.

The least tolerant and most politically correct departments at Marquette are not the ones where scholars publish most and get the most grant money. Rather, we find stifling political correctness in places like English, Philosophy, Sociology and Education. And then there are the feminists in various departments. Faculty in such places don’t want to protect students from indoctrination.

Politically Correct Indoctrination: Residence Life at the University of Delaware

Via Modern Commentaries, and Michelle Malkin, a hair-raising account of coercive indoctrination at the University of Delaware.

The University of Delaware subjects students in its residence halls to a shocking program of ideological reeducation that is referred to in the university’s own materials as a “treatment” for students’ incorrect attitudes and beliefs. The Orwellian program requires the approximately 7,000 students in Delaware’s residence halls to adopt highly specific university-approved views on issues ranging from politics to race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy, and environmentalism. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is calling for the total dismantling of the program, which is a flagrant violation of students’ rights to freedom of conscience and freedom from compelled speech.

“The University of Delaware’s residence life education program is a grave intrusion into students’ private beliefs,” FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. “The university has decided that it is not enough to expose its students to the values it considers important; instead, it must coerce its students into accepting those values as their own. At a public university like Delaware, this is both unconscionable and unconstitutional.”

The university’s views are forced on students through a comprehensive manipulation of the residence hall environment, from mandatory training sessions to “sustainability” door decorations. Students living in the university’s eight housing complexes are required to attend training sessions, floor meetings, and one-on-one meetings with their Resident Assistants (RAs). The RAs who facilitate these meetings have received their own intensive training from the university, including a “diversity facilitation training” session at which RAs were taught, among other things, that “[a] racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality.”

The university suggests that at one-on-one sessions with students, RAs should ask intrusive personal questions such as “When did you discover your sexual identity?” Students who express discomfort with this type of questioning often meet with disapproval from their RAs, who write reports on these one-on-one sessions and deliver these reports to their superiors. One student identified in a write-up as an RA’s “worst” one-on-one session was a young woman who stated that she was tired of having “diversity shoved down her throat.”

According to the program’s materials, the goal of the residence life education program is for students in the university’s residence halls to achieve certain “competencies” that the university has decreed its students must develop in order to achieve the overall educational goal of “citizenship.” These competencies include: “Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society,” “Students will recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression,” and “Students will be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality.”

At various points in the program, students are also pressured or even required to take actions that outwardly indicate their agreement with the university’s ideology, regardless of their personal beliefs. Such actions include displaying specific door decorations, committing to reduce their ecological footprint by at least 20%, taking action by advocating for an “oppressed” social group, and taking action by advocating for a “sustainable world.”

In the Office of Residence Life’s internal materials, these programs are described using the harrowing language of ideological reeducation. In documents relating to the assessment of student learning, for example, the residence hall lesson plans are referred to as “treatments.”

We would like to say that nothing like this could happen at Marquette. But unfortunately, this is all too similar to what has happened here.

We just blogged about propagandistic programs put on by the Office of Student Development, the University Ministry and the student government.

Then there was the Stalinist boot camp that Freshman Orientation staff had to endure.

And the “Tunnel of Oppression” staged by Residence Life and Intercultural Programs (both parts of the Office of Student Development).

The administrative bloat that afflicts most universities plays a large role in this. Way too many bureaucrats have to have “programs” to justify their jobs, and politically correct indoctrination is what comes most naturally.

University Ministry J.U.S.T.I.C.E. Teach In: Encouraging Students Not to Think

As we type this, a debate is going on (elsewhere in the Alumni Memorial Union) where advocates on both sides of the debate on universal government health care engage each other.

The event is sponsored by the College Democrats and College Republicans.

Three weeks ago, the conservative Federalist Society at the Law School had a debate on gun control. They expended considerable effort in getting capable advocates on both sides.

But such programs are rare on the Marquette campus.

More common are propagandistic programs run by the Office of Student Development, the University Ministry, Manresa, the Office of Mission and Identity and Marquette University Student government.

On their programs, both sides of controversial issues are never heard.

The orientation is “activist,” meaning the world is chocked full of injustice, and the task of education is to mobilize students to go out and fight that injustice.

How is this a problem? Because the definition of “injustice” is a partisan left definition, and the students are discouraged from ever questioning whether the standard leftist solutions are the correct ones.

Exhibit One, the JUSTICE Teach-In held on campus just last month.

The program for the event shows no concern whatsoever with the notion that there are different, competing ideas about what “social justice” consists of, and different ideas about how to achieve it (even if we could agree on what it is).

Some of the program consisted of pretty bland stuff like an after school program to teach African dance and drumming to students on Milwaukee’s South Side. Then there was something called Capoeria, defined as “a Brazilian fight-dance, game, and martial art created by enslaved Africans during the 17th Century.” We suppose the fact that black slaves created it makes it politically correct. But how it relates to any serious “social justice” issue remains a mystery.

Some of the sessions were rather silly, for example three different presenters talking about Fair Trade coffee! But saying that the subject is “silly,” unfortunately, understates the case. The trendy leftist obsession with “fair trade” comes at the expense of pushing for free trade -- which is something that promises to have vastly more impact in improving the lot of the world’s poor.

But the “fair trade” crowd doesn’t much like free trade. The problem is: it’s capitalism. It’s not under the control of bureaucrats -- and they most certainly identify with bureaucrats. And it doesn’t make them feel self-satisfied.

More controversial, and more suspect, are groups like Voces de La Frontera, a group that promotes violating the nation’s immigration laws. You absolutely won’t hear, at any event sponsored by the campus leftists, the view that immigration laws should be enforced, or that this nation needs to control its borders.

But most odd, at a university that claims to be Catholic, is the full-blown promotion of homosexuality, and even a transgender and transsexual agenda.

Quoting the description of two of the groups presenting:

GSA (Gay Straight Alliance)- The purpose of this organization is to provide awareness, education and support for people that are lesbian, gay, straight or bisexual. They offer the support of a community that works for justice in issues that are in regard to one’s sexual orientation and study the effects of that on the Marquette community.

And then there is this:

Project Q “What is Transgender and Transexual?” Project Q is the youth program of the Milwaukee LGBT Community Center. Project Q offers three main services to LGBTQ youth. They build a supportive community for the youth, provide them education on essential topics. The center offers a lounge area with computers, TV, DVD/video players, and a library for the students that participate in drop-in activities. They also provide support services where they can receive valuable information from programming staff and peers. The third service is a skills building program which empowers youth for the future. Project Q believes in the ability of youth to gain the knowledge and skills necessary to become healthy educated adults.

The view that homosexual acts are sinful (which is, after all, the Catholic view) is something that will never be presented at any program mounted by the campus leftists.

What else is never dealt with? Abortion. That’s right. None of the programs staged by the leftist axis on campus has, for at least the past several years, dealt with the issue.

We can only conclude that the bureaucrats in places like the University Ministry and the Office of Student Development (and their pet students) think that abortion should be legal. But actually having pro-abortion speakers would be a “bridge too far.” So they evade the issue.

Last April: MUSG Diversity Conference

The fall Teach-In was pretty much a clone of the MUSG Diversity Conference last spring.

The usual obsession with “fair trade” was much in evidence there, as was the usual politically correct tripe about race, gender and sexual orientation.

The gay lobby, in the form of the Gay/Straight Alliance was there, and so was Voces de la Frontera.

But one example of the sort of presentation that is designed to dull the critical faculties was a session titled “Hurricane Katrina: A Man-Made Disaster.” According to the description:

In the aftermath of Katrina it is hard to ignore how certain populations have been demonized, victimized, and ignored in the recovery process. A look at the lower 9th ward, a primarily black, home-owning community, shows many of the injustices experienced in New Orleans. New Orleans can serve as the shining example of what not to do. They have allowed the rich, elite class, which is primarily white, to take over the city.

Given that New Orleans had a black mayor (who was, strangely reelected in the wake of the fiasco) it’s difficult to know what she is talking about. But we suppose, for this kind of activist mentality, all things come together (even hurricanes) to oppress blacks and empower the evil white male elite.

A University ought to, first and foremost, teach students to use their critical faculties.

How this is done is no mystery. One critically examines arguments. One listens to people with different positions. One asks whether the conclusions follow from the premises -- and this after actually trying to determine whether the premises are true.

But on a politically correct campus, all of this is discouraged. Of course the University bureaucrats who mount these programs would say they are encouraging students to engage in “critical thinking.” But they stifle critical thinking about the politically correct orthodoxy.

Health Care Debate on Campus Tomorrow Night

The Marquette University
College Republicans and College Democrats present

A Debate on
Wisconsin State Health Care

Tuesday, November 6
7:00pm
AMU 254

Featuring the following panelists:

Gerald W. Frye, President of the Benefit Services Group

Representative Leah Vukmir (R – Wauwatosa) of the Wisconsin State Legislature

Dr. Robert Kraig, Communications & Program Director of Citizen Action

Dr. Therese Lysaught, Associate Professor of Theology at Marquette University

Questions or concerns can be directed to:

Sarah Kirby, Director of Events and Education for the Marquette University College Republicans
sarah.kirby@marquette.edu
OR
Jason Rae, Chairman of the Marquette University College Democrats
jason.rae@marquette.edu

Kudos to both groups for staging this debate.

At Marquette, as at most universities, speakers and events tend to be one-sided and propagandistic. At Marquette, a leftist axis including the Office of Student Development, the University Ministry, Manresa and the Office of Mission and Identity is notorious for staging programs where competing viewpoints are not represented, and the purpose is merely to rally the troops behind “social justice.”

Social justice is always assumed (remember, these folks can’t admit there are two sides to any issue) to be the standard leftist agenda.

For whatever reason, the College Democrats are not part of this axis. Unlike J.U.S.T.I.C.E. they are not the pets of the University Ministry nor the Office of Student Development.

Of course they lean to the left (they are supposed to lean to the left) but their leftist politics is of a more open kind that is willing to engage the issues and debate the opposition.

They, of course, share this openness and sense of fairness with the College Republicans, and with the conservative Federalist Society at the Law School, which when it wanted to do a program on gun control went to considerable lengths to get good advocates on both sides.

So we have a bit of an irony here. When speakers and programs are arranged by Marquette bureaucrats, the agenda is one-sided and propagandistic.

When the program is arranged by explicitly partisan and ideological groups, both sides get heard.

It’s student tuition dollars not at work.

Students for a Free Marketplace of Ideas Has Been Approved by Student Government

A small committee of Marquette University Student Government plus Kate Kusiak of the Office of Student Development met last night, and approved Students for a Free Marketplace of Ideas after a brief and rather non-controversial presentation about the group by Charles Rickert, President.

It remains to be seen what the organization can accomplish on campus, especially given the fact that Rickert will graduate this May. Thus, the future health of the group depends on younger members stepping up into leadership roles.

One potentially controversial idea that Rickert mentioned at the meeting was ending the policy whereby OSD has to approve each and every piece of literature that any student group distributes on campus.

OSD certainly isn’t going to like opposition to their power, but apparently is willing to let the student group agitate on the issue.

An earlier incarnation of the group, Students for Academic Freedom, proposed attacking ideological bias on campus, and OSD made it clear that that issue was not allowed to be even raised by a student group. Or at least, by a conservative student group.

Jeff Wagner: Marquette Fails on Warrior Legacy

Marquette alumnus and local talk show host Jeff Wagner maintains an intense interest in things that happen at this university.

Needless to say, he was not pleased upon hearing that a Marquette bureaucrat, Assistant Vice President of Student Affairs James McMahon, told a Marquette student he could not wear an Indian headdress to this past Saturday’s game, and threatened the student with confiscation of the headdress and expulsion from the game if he wore it.

Wagner comments:

As an aside, I was very sorry that I didn’t have tickets to the game Saturday. While I’m a baseball hat guy myself, I would have been glad to have donned Mr. O’Connell’s headgear as a protest against small-minded bureaucrats. I’m not sure if I would have been tossed out but, trust me, I’m a little tougher to bully than an undergraduate student.

On the underlying issue though, let’s think the position of the University through. My question is a simple one: if the “headdress” was really so offensive, why did Marquette wait until the last game of the year to confront the student?

I think the real answer is, of course, that the “headdress” wasn’t offensive - but was instead potentially embarrassing to Marquette officials. Keep in mind, the last Saturday night’s game was nationally televised on ESPN. The ESPN GameDay broadcast originated from Milwaukee. The last thing that Marquette officials wanted was for the national announcers to revisit the whole “Warrior” flap on tv.

The ultimate irony of the story is that the 1977 Marquette NCAA championship team was honored Saurday night. That team was, of course, “the Warriors.”

Students For Academic Freedom: Trying Again As Students for a Free Marketplace of Ideas

In the wake of the rejection of their Constitution by the Office of Student Development, the students who tried to organize Students for Academic Freedom will submit a revised Constitution to OSD tomorrow morning.

The document is here.

The organization will now be called Students for a Free Marketplace of Ideas.

The document has been sanitized of the things that offended the OSD bureaucrats, including especially plans to criticize ideological bias in instruction at Marquette, and affiliation with the national organization Students For Academic Freedom.

It remains to be seen how OSD will react to the new application. Students for a Free Marketplace of Ideas remains a group of conservative students unhappy at the leftist bias of discourse on campus, and particularly at the stifling of conservative speech.

And OSD bureaucrats remain liberals who don’t much like uppity conservative students.

But given that the document contains none of the things that OSD claimed were unacceptable, it will be difficult for people such as Dean of Student Development Mark McCarthy to find an excuse to reject it.

Any such rejection would be an utterly bald admission of ideological bias.

Not that Marquette is unwilling to be baldly ideologically biased.

Marquette Rejects Students For Academic Freedom

This was expected, but the rejection letter is here.

We just phoned Dean of Student Development Mark McCarthy, and he refused to comment, saying “let the Tribune get the story.”

We can understand why he would refuse to comment, since he and other Marquette bureaucrats have failed to articulate any coherent reason for rejecting the organization.

The rejection letter to Charles Rickert, President of the organization said:

. . . we find that a number of the programs and events proposed in your constitution and the affiliation of your group with the national Students for Academic Freedom Information Center and its programs and activities are inimical to Marquette’s committment to academic freedom.

What the organization has proposed to do, and which McCarthy clearly sees as unacceptable, is to criticize instances of liberal and leftist bias on campus.

In his discussion with Rickert, McCarthy first stressed grievance procedures available to students who feel they have been discriminated against on the basis of their political opinions.

Further, he questioned whether students are qualified to judge bias!

Quite clearly, criticizing Marquette, particular programs at Marquette and individual professors is viewed by Marquette bureaucrats as “inimical to Marquette’s commitment to academic freedom.”

In other words, “academic freedom” doesn’t include the right to claim that faculty and administrators are using their freedom in a biased way!

Committee on Faculty

McCarthy had asked the Committee on Faculty to provide some confidential commentary on Students for Academic Freedom, and that group discussed the issue for about a half-hour back in the fall.

According to William Thorn, Secretary of the Committee, the discourse quickly became side-tracked with a discussion of supposed threats to academic freedom at other universities, particular the cases of Ward Churchill at the University of Colorado and Kevin Barrett at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Members of the Committee were quite negative about any off campus group coming in and trying to critique or evaluate the curriculum or instruction at Marquette. Members said “we have an evaluation system.”

Much of the discussion involved attempted intrusion by state legislators at state schools.

One red-herring having nothing to do with Students For Academic Freedom (proposals that the official Marquette evaluations of professors be made public) got dragged into the discussion.

The commentary submitted to McCarthy was generally quite negative, although no vote was taken on the issue.

Given McCarthy’s initial negative reaction to the student group, it appears that he went to the Committee on Faculty not to seek guidance, but rather to try to enlist allies against the group.

A Threat To Academic Freedom?

Thus Marquette’s position is that having a student group on campus that will criticize individual professors, programs and the University as a whole for bias is inconsistent with academic freedom.

But we can’t imagine that Marquette would object if the Gay/Straight Alliance attacked Marquette for being insufficiently “gay friendly.”

Marquette, until recently, provided a link on the Student Government web site to something called Dogears. On this web site, students were allowed to post evaluations of professors.

The comments could be extremely negative. For example, one professor was described as a “prime example of a white elitist male.” Another was described as “extremely, extremely biased. Chooses favorites like it’s his job. Doesn’t read papers – I even turned the same one in twice to prove this.”

And of another professor: “. . . this course was very frustrating, overwhelming, boring, uninteresting, confusing, unorganized. I need more adjectives!” And of a different professor: “I believe this to be the worst class I have taken at Marquette, and that is saying a lot.”

And these faculty were attacked by name, and by students who were anonymous.

Given that Marquette explicitly allowed negative evaluations of professors to be publicly posted, it’s difficult to see why it would be a terrible threat to academic freedom to allow a particular group of conservative students to attack professors for leftist bias.

Does Academic Freedom Mean Professors Can Say Anything?

One might believe that if professors are in any way limited in what they can say in class, this is a violation of academic freedom.

But the classic formulations of academic freedom are far from giving professors carte blanche to say anything they want.

In the first place, the classic statements from the American Association of University Professors make it clear that academic freedom applies when an academic is talking about his or her subject matter. Thus an historian can espouse any conclusion about the origins of the Civil War (even a highly controversial one), but math professors don’t have the right to spout off about the Iraq War.

The same statements affirm that students should not be indoctrinated, and have a right to disagree with their professors.

For example, a 1967 statement from the AAUP says “Students should be free to take reasoned exception to the data or views offered in any course of study and to reserve judgment about matters of opinion.”

These sorts of restrictions are most certainly still applicable, as documents from Temple and Penn State show.

There is one final restriction on what professors are allowed to say. The doctrine of a hostile learning environment precludes certain kinds of statements that are gratuitously demeaning or insulting. Of course, this doctrine can be abused, as intolerant students claim to be “offended” upon hearing viewpoints they don’t like. But it’s perfectly sensible that, in the vast majority of college classes, negative comments about homosexuality should be out of bounds. Why not equally prohibit a professor of engineering saying that “Republicans are selfish bastards?”

What should be acceptable is a professor teaching a course on sexual ethics outlining in a sympathetic and favorable way the view of the Catholic Church that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. Or a professor in a class on public policy coming down on the side of the Democrats on a particular issue.

If criticism of particular professors should be allowed it’s even more obvious that students should be allowed to criticize majors that they think are biased, or criticize Student Government if it sponsors an ideologically biased slate of speakers.

Students For Academic Freedom Would Have No Power

The most important point here is a simple one. No student organization has the power to fire any professor. Or to reduce the professor’s salary. Or to determine the content of any reading list.

All Students For Academic Freedom would be able to do is criticize what they consider to be abuses.

Anybody seeing their criticism could make up their own minds as to whether it was well-founded.

In other words, the only power the student group would have is the power to publicize what they consider to be abuses.

But college administrators don’t like publicity. They don’t like having their decisions questioned, and don’t like having a variety of derelictions and failures publicized.

And if they are liberal administrators, they especially don’t like conservatives doing it.

Politically Correct “Tunnel of Oppression” Coming to Marquette

The bureaucrats at Marquette seem to be planning a spring full of politically correct indoctrination.

Here is an e-mail we got today:

Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 13:40:12 -0600
Subject: You’re Invited...
From: Kate Kusiak
Thread-Topic: You’re Invited...

. . . to be a part of Remove the Blindfold, a new program coming to Marquette this April!

What Is Remove the Blindfold?

Remove the Blindfold is modeled after a well-known event called Tunnel of Oppression, which is organized on a number of college campuses across the country. It allows participants the opportunity to explore various forms of oppression and discrimination including racism, heterosexism, sexism, anti-Semitism, and ageism. The Tunnel of Oppression is intended to be eye-opening and conscious building [sic] and is targeted at those students who have rarely experienced difference. The rationale is that students are unable to fully understand oppression and discrimination until they have experienced it first-hand. The experience should stimulate thoughts, feelings, and emotions around the issues and images presented.

Who Is Sponsoring Remove the Blindfold?

It is a collaboration between Residence Life and Intercultural Programs.

Who Can Participate?

We are inviting all student organizations to be a part of this important program.

What Does Participation Involve?

Student organizations that want to be a part of Remove the Blindfold will create displays representing the form of oppression or discrimination they choose.

Here is a list of potential ideas for a display:

Hurricane Katrina
Homelessness
Body Image
Sexual Assault
Racial/Ethnic/Religious Oppression
Sexual Orientation
Ability
Educational Opportunity
Faith/Religion
Holocaust
Women’s Issues/Gender
Global Oppression/Awareness

When Is It?

It will take place from April 15 – April 20, 2007.

How Does My Organization Volunteer to Participate?

If your organization would like to be a part of Remove the Blindfold, please reply to this email and we will get in touch with you. Or, if you would simply like additional information, please reply to this email and we’ll answer any questions you have.

We look forward to working with you!

Carla Cadet, Cobeen Hall Director
Dannie Moore, Abbottsford Hall Director
Ed Gricius, O’Donnel Hall Director
Pamela Peters, Assistant Dean for Intercultural Programs
Meredith Galloway, Graduate Assistant for Intercultural Programs

Note the elitist assumption that Marquette students have “rarely experienced difference,” need their “eyes opened” and their “conscious” [sic] built.

(We perhaps should not blame these people for the use of “conscious” for “conscience” or “consciousness.” That text was in fact plagiarized from a web page at the University of Maryland.)

Of course, people who mount events like this are hardly “tolerant of difference.”

In their world, there are few if any legitimate political differences. There is only “racism, heterosexism, sexism, anti-Semitism, and ageism.” Banish those things and political conflict will melt away in a society of equality for all. Except for those evil heterosexual white males, who should feel eternally guilty for being oppressors.

Marquette is hardly on the cutting edge in this. It’s become a standard project of the usual suspects at many universities.

An excellent critique can be found on the Critical Mass blog.

Ball State joins a growing list of schools that have staged their own interactive tunnel visions of “hate” (defined in terms of the usual -phobias and -isms). Some of the more ambitious Tunnels of Oppression have been put on at Arizona, where tunnel-goers were cast as Jews in a Nazi gas chamber (some were cast as gay Jews); Maryland, where false sexual assault statistics were presented as true and where white students were handcuffed to a wall to simulate the experience of slavery; and Regis University, which also disseminated false sexual assualt numbers and where tunnel-goers confronted their “ableism” by trying to do tasks while blindfolded or while sitting in a wheelchair.

The Tunnel of Oppression is a good example of what passes for enlightenment on today’s campuses. It is not about disseminating information (not about disseminating true information anyway), or about providing historical context for understanding the conflicts that define our age, but about oversimplifying those conflicts through a disingenuous appeal to our emotions. The Tunnel of Oppression -- which proudly casts itself as a “sensory experience” -- encourages students not to think rationally about what ails the world, or to inform themselves by learning facts and studying context, or even to take reasoned, principled action against injustice, but to react viscerally to images of violence, to become hysterical on cue.

Of course, if the people organizing this really wanted to showcase all aspects of oppression (rather than push a leftist agenda) they might include displays on:

• “The Da Vinci Code” as an example of anti-Catholic bigotry
• Muslim anti-Semitism
• Two-thirds of black babies are born out of wedlock, with terrible consequences for their life chances
• Free speech censored on college campuses across the nation
• White student kicked out of Urban Journalism Workshop because of her race
• Marquette scholarships are discriminatory on the basis of race and gender
• Duke University Lacrosse players prosecuted in bogus rape case
• School chorus forced to limit religious songs
• Anti-military bigotry in San Francisco

Somehow, we don’t think that any of these forms of oppression will interest the folks doing Remove the Blindfold.

Students For Academic Freedom To Office of Student Development: Give Us an Up or Down Verdict

We’ve blogged about attempts of the Marquette chapter of Students for Academic Freedom to get recognized as an official student organization at Marquette.

As of last semester, officials in the Office of Student Development had made it clear to the student group that their Constitution, as written, was not acceptable. But no official verdict had been forthcoming.

Now, the organization is putting the student affairs bureaucrats on the spot by demanding an up or down ruling.

The following is an e-mail sent just this morning by the President of the organization:

From: Rickert, Charles
Sent: Mon 1/22/2007 12:13 PM
To: McCarthy, Mark; Kusiak, Katherine
Cc: Neumann, Kelly; Dooley, Jon
Subject: Students for Academic Freedom: Letter of Determination

Office of Student Development:

At your earliest convenience, the members of Students for Academic Freedom request an official determination of either acceptance or rejection by the Office of Student Development. In a previous meeting, it was stated that formal decisions are communicated through written letter. In the event of rejection, the reasons for refusal would be clearly articulated.

Students for Academic Freedom has demonstrated considerable student interest in the organization while affirming that our mission and constitution are well within the realm of rightful student organizations at Marquette University. As such, the members of Students for Academic Freedom chose to retain its original constitution for the Office of Student Development to review.

On behalf of Students for Academic Freedom, thank you for your time, effort and careful consideration. I look forward to receiving the official judgment.

Best regards,

Charles

Charles Rickert
Students for Academic Freedom

Students for Academic Freedom is a conservative student organization, that has as it’s objective to criticize leftist bias in university programs, speakers series and courses.

One cannot imagine the OSD bureaucrats minding the Gay/Straight Alliance criticizing Marquette for being insufficiently “gay friendly.” One cannot imagine they mind if the Black Student Council complains about the lack of “diversity” and demands more affirmative action hiring, more “diversity” requirements in the curriculum and more scholarships limited to black students.

So quite clearly student groups that intend to criticize Marquette and its policies can get recognized and supported by the student affairs bureaucrats.

But they are in the business of recognizing and supporting politically correct demands coming from politically correct victim groups. Letting conservative students speak is an entirely different matter.