Leftist Marquette Prof: You’ll Be Penalized for Failing to use “Gender Neutral” Language

With some frequency, we hear stories from students about far-out leftist professors at Marquette.

So it was no surprise when, a few weeks ago, a student told us about a professor (actually, a Visiting Assistant Professor) whom our student viewed as pretty far out.

So far, dog bites man: not news.

This fellow attacked not only contemporary conservatives like Ben Shapiro, but Enlightenment figures like Adam Smith. When the student suggested that the professor read Ben Shapiro’s book The Right Side of History: How Reason and Moral Purpose Made the West Great, the professor replied “What a stupid ass book. He is a fucking idiot.”

He complained about how little he is paid by Marquette, and leaving class one day advised “Oh, and also support your local unions.” But the job market in academic Philosophy is pretty difficult, especially if you don’t have a Ph.D. from a top program, which this fellow doesn’t. Indeed, one source notes that the market is:

Extremely competitive, and job prospects are often dim even for PhDs who graduate from top programmes.

So it might seem like a visiting gig at Marquette is a lot better than what a lot of PhDs have to settle for — a few adjunct courses at $4,000 or so per course.

But this particular professor is quite tolerant of students who disagree with him in class. He even wrote the student a semi-apology for the comment about Ben Shapiro.

So far, just another average day in academia.

Too Far

But this professor went too far when he informed the student he would be penalized if he did not use “gender neutral” language.  In a message to the student, he claimed that “Use gender inclusive language: humanity is not ‘man’ nor is it a ‘he.’”

The student did not do what most students do, and supinely accept the professor’s diktat. Rather, he complained to the Provost’s office, and particularly to Prof. John Su, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs.

After a meeting which the student said “went really well,” Su wrote the student the following e-mail:

Hope all is well with you. I’ve had several rounds of conversation with the department chair, Dr. Kevin Gibson, and email correspondence with the instructor, Dr. James Bahoh, regarding your request to use gender-specific pronouns in formal written work without penalty.

Dr. Bahoh has indicated his willingness to accept a version of what you and I discussed:

1. In each future assignment, after your first usage of a gender-exclusive or gender-specific pronoun, please add a footnote demonstrating that your usage is a deliberate choice (i.e., not an error).
   a. If it’s helpful, I might use something along the lines of “While I recognize that gender-inclusive language is defined as a best practice by the American Philosophical Association, I disagree with it because of my personal beliefs. My decision to use gender-exclusive language is thus not an accident but a deliberate choice to represent my authentic voice.” If that doesn’t feel right to you, please use what is most compelling to you.
2. Dr. Bahoh also asks that the footnote follow the spirit of philosophy in asking us to articulate the reasoning for our beliefs: specifically, for you to clarify the personal belief that guides you to reject gender-inclusive language. You and I had some conversation about that during our meeting in terms of developing your authentic voice and different language choices in different eras, so that might provide you some guidance. I think this only requires 1-2 additional sentences.

I hope this is a reasonable resolution for you.

On your behalf, I pressed the department chair about writing expectations. He indicated to me that the department as a whole follows the American Philosophical Association’s best practice guidelines regarding gender-neutral language. He provided us the following URL: https://www.apaonline.org/page/nonsexist

Please let me know if this works for you. I will forward this email to the department chair and associate dean, so that you can have confidence of a written record for this resolution.

I hope this helps you to find a satisfying conclusion to this course. And I hope you have an intellectually engaging end of the semester.

If you have any questions, please contact me.

Sincerely,
John

Surprise

Given Marquette’s mania for political correctness, this outcome is a bit of a surprise. Having to write a footnote is a bit of an imposition — standard English the way it was for centuries before the advent of modern political correctness should be acceptable without explanation. But the imposition is fairly modest.

But what this case probably shows is that, if a student will stand up to a leftist professor’s demands that his speech be censored, the student can prevail.

Most students are unwilling to do this. They will “go along to get along” and simply do — often grudgingly — what the professor demands.

Reasonably tolerant professors will tolerate being challenged by students, and often even welcome it, since it shows that the student is actually paying attention, and might even be engaged.

Intolerant professors need to learn that they cannot with impunity impose their own intolerance on their students. They can only learn this if at least some students push back.

Marquette Philosophy Department Censorship Continues To Reverberate

It was a huge fiasco last fall: James South, Chair of the Philosophy Department at Marquette, ripped down from the door of a graduate student a quote from humorist Dave Barry.

South said it was “patently offensive.”

In Monday’s New York Post, an Op-Ed column from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education rehashes the story.

Of course, Marquette’s behavior sounds as sordid now as it did when the story broke.

Marquette, and especially the Marquette Philosophy Department will have a hard time living this one down.

Philosophy and Patriarchy: Letter to the Editor

When we put up a post about the bogus “pay gap” between men and women, we didn’t expect the amount of controversy it would generate.

We first got an e-mail from Jessica Cushion, defending the feminist position that women are the victims of evil patriarchy, and that she had learned all the details in her Philosophy class.

One parent of a would-be Marquette student wrote to say that he’s glad his daughter is now at the University of Dallas (due to a better financial aid offer).

And then we got these.

Hi John,

I am writing to comment on the letter you received from one of our students who responded to your discussion of the alleged “pay-gap” between men and women. The student appeared to base her response on “an entire class on how patriarchy controls every structure in our society and how women are systematically prevented from being equal to men (Capitalism and Catholicism are among the most guilty parties).”

The first thing that came to my mind after reading this was the term “re-education.”

Greg Rajala

The term “re-education,” of course, has Stalinist connotations.

Which is why it’s probably quite appropriate for a humanities department in a contemporary university.

Then we got this.

As a female philosophy-B.A. holding individual, I’d like to disagree with your student on the claim that, “Other people who have a hard time at their jobs because of their gender:...females in academic disciplines like philosophy and political science (they can’t possibly contribute to the knowledge creation process since they’re so emotional and emotions cloud rationality)...”

I personally never had an issue being taken seriously in academia, probably because I had the ability to argue logically. Those “women are emotional” arguments, though, are prevalent in the 100-level philosophy books because you typically study the ancients or Kant, or other intro-philosophers who, in their time, held that line of thinking. That’s probably where she picked that idea up and took it to still be a common issue for female philosophers. I’d like to let her know: It’s not.

Nevertheless, you ask the question why she picked Catholicism versus Islam or any other religion. My guess: In a 100-level philosophy class centered around feminism, they probably studied the Catholic theologians’ attempts at reconciling faith and philosophy (namely Augustine to Plato and Aquinas to Aristotle). The class probably also centered around western theories. Again, another guess.

I’ll be curious to find out if my guesses are right, or even close.

Cantankerous
http://www.latermeask.blogspot.com

Cushion, in a later e-mail to us, did say that the professor had not dealt with Islam or other religions.

But of course, it makes no sense to blame Catholicism without asking whether any other religious tradition has a “better” record. And why blame capitalism?

Interestingly, the “women are emotional” argument is now perfectly politically correct. But you can’t say it that way.

You have to say that women are more “compassionate” or more “empathetic.”

Of course, some very different gender stereotypes paint women (at least some women) as shrewd, or calculating or conniving. All of which are the precise opposite of “emotional” or, for that matter, “compassionate” or “empathetic.”

[Update]

Jessica Cushion writes, in response to the above post:

Once again, you’ve misquoted me. I said that in fact, we did discuss Islam and other world religions in our class, but didn’t have time in the semester to discuss any religion at length. We spent about 40 minutes on Catholicism, and I’d hardly call that an eternity. To respond to the woman who wrote you the letter, we did focus on western culture, which is why capitalism came up in conversation. Again, we spent about 15 minutes on it. The vast majority of the class was focused on reading feminist philosophers, dissecting their arguments, figuring out where they fit in in terms of other philosophers, and moving chronologically through major authors in the discipline. We didn’t receive some crazy indoctrination -- I chose to subscribe to the belief systems of many of the philosophers we studied because what they wrote made total sense.

We checked the earlier e-mail from Cushion, and she said:

We talked primarily about western culture where those two things are most relevant. We did talk about Islam and other world religions, and they all came under the same blanket critique as Catholicism did. Organized religion is not a place where women can find equality, regardless of what organized religion you subscribe to.

So she is correct about what she said in the e-mail, and we remembered “we talked primarily about western culture.”

But, in her original e-mail, Cushion said:

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

So we are back to wondering how, if she studied Islam, Catholicism could be “among the most guilty parties.”

Presumably, she means “among the most guilty parties in the west.”

But how does it make sense to condemn capitalism and Catholicism when all the alternatives are even worse?

As for Cushion’s claim that she chose to accept feminist philosophy, and was not indoctrinated, we can’t forget what she said in a previous e-mail to us. Here, the context was the fact that women may choose to stay home with the children:

There is debate about whether women are actually choosing these routes or not. . . . We talked about this kind of stuff in one of my psych classes too, where your socialization can actually cause you to hold negative stereotypes about groups you belong to (i.e. an African-American who is racist against other African-Americans, self-hating Jews, homophobic gays) and especially women who are raised to believe that a woman’s work is in the home or in teaching children or something like that. Women shouldn’t believe that their place is in the kitchen, but if the societal trend is to put them there, it’s not unlikely that a girl will grow up thinking that her purpose in life is to pop out kids and bake for her husband. She may say she’s making the choice to do so, but is she really making that choice on her own? It’s debatable.

So when Cushion adopts a feminist worldview, she has freely “chosen” that worldview.

But when a woman fails to make the choices that feminists think she should, it’s “debatable” whether it is really a “choice on her own.”

Cushion, quite simply, is not willing to accept choices made by women if they are choices with which she disagrees. They have been indoctrinated by society.

But her choices could not possibly be the result of indoctrination.

This unwillingness to respect other people’s choices is what drives so much of the authoritarianism of politically correct people on college campuses. Cushion, for example, has claimed that Marquette should ban speakers who oppose gay marriage, since such a view constitutes “hate speech.”

Ironically, women who choose to stay at home, or (more typically) subordinate their own careers to the demands of child rearing, are resisting the feminist indoctrination that permeates the schools and the media.

Ideological Bias in Marquette’s Philosophy Department

Stu Ditsler is the Philosophy graduate student who had an “offensive” quote on the door of his office last fall. On September 5th, it was torn down by Department Chair James South, who claimed that several people had objected.

What terribly offensive thing did Ditsler post? Here it is:

“As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government.”

It appears that this particular act of ideological bias was just the tip of the iceberg.

Ditsler had earlier been chastised for his libertarian views. In an e-mail he sent us yesterday, he explained.

I’ve been holding onto this for a while, but I feel compelled to write about it now in light of the events of last semester and my impending graduation. Some background first. At the end of every semester the faculty members in the Philosophy Department have a meeting to discuss the performance of the graduate students in their classes that semester. Each graduate student subsequently receives an individual evaluation from an advisor based on the comments made at the meeting. Here are some of the comments reported about me in my review following the Fall 2005 semester.

“The general impression of the Department is that you are a good student who has the potential to do good philosophical work. It was also mentioned that you are for the most part a strong writer. There are some ways, however, in which you could improve your abilities as a philosopher. First, it was mentioned that it is sometimes the case that you interpret a view you do not like in a terribly unsympathetic manner. This is not a virtue, in philosophy, because we want to get at what is being said for or against the strongest arguments an author presents. Starting from an unsympathetic position short-circuits this sort of discussion. On a related note, it was also suggested that you think about setting your philosophical and ideological commitments to the side while assessing the views of others, and be a bit more flexible about what is valuable and what is not.”

First of all, this is a completely inappropriate review that amounts to a blatant attempt at intimidation. Were other graduate students in the department with different views than my own asked to set aside their “philosophical and ideological commitments” or “to be a bit more flexible about what is valuable and what is not?” My hunch is no. Regardless, it is not the prerogative of anyone in the philosophy department to suggest that. Period.

Secondly, as if that weren’t enough, this review could only have been prompted by remarks I made outside of class that semester, specifically the time I made some critical comments about Marx at the public defense of another graduate student’s dissertation. In the classes that I took within the Philosophy Department that semester (Descartes and History and Theory of Ethics) my views never arose within the context of a class discussion with the sole exception of some positive comments I made about Nietzsche’s moral philosophy.

Lesson learned: express my undesirable and reactionary views outside of class, and be rebuked for it.

Marquette’s Philosophy Department is truly in a sorry state.

In some places in academia, it is appropriate to keep one’s ideological views out of one’s scholarship. If one is studying, for example, the idea that blacks in Wisconsin are more likely to be thrown in prison than are whites, facts are facts, and it shouldn’t matter what one wants to believe.

But philosophy is necessarily about normative notions. It can’t even pretend to be “value free.”

We can’t imagine any feminist philosophy student being told to keep her “philosophical and ideological commitments to the side.” Indeed, what politically correct humanities departments are about is viewing everything through the lens of race, class, gender and sexual orientation.

But somehow, at Marquette, viewing philosophy through the lens of respect for individual liberty and respect for property should be set “to the side.”

Marquette Tribune Chastised For Failure to Support Free Speech

From the blog of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a post about an editorial in the Marquette Tribune supporting Marquette’s censorship of a Dave Barry quote posted on the door of a graduate student in Philosophy.

What is most disturbing about this editorial is not this [factual] error, though. It is the fact that the editorial treats the avoidance of institutional embarrassment as a higher value than liberty. It is the rare college newspaper that will cheerfully proclaim that speech can be arbitrarily censored because the school “is not a free-speech zone.” One suspects that the Marquette Tribune might feel differently if, instead of removing a Dave Barry quote, Professor South had decided to throw out a stack of issues of the Marquette Tribune. And the idea that free speech is to be confined only to “free-speech zones” is a shocking departure from the ideals of free speech that have served our nation and its universities well for over two hundred years.

There is simply no plausible defense for Marquette’s removing a Dave Barry quote from Stuart Ditsler’s door. The office hallways of most colleges boast doors festooned with quotes, cartoons, political posters, etc. If a Dave Barry quote is the most offensive thing on display at Marquette, it must be a boring place indeed.

What does it say about the culture at the Marquette Tribune that they were unwilling to support free speech in this instance?

Nothing at all flattering. When student journalists turn into authoritarians, free speech on campus is in real trouble.

But we’ve known that for a while.

Marquette Tribune Supports Philosophy Department Censorship

What ever happened to the notion that student journalists favor free speech?

It seems to depend on the ideological complection of the speech.

It seems they don’t favor free speech when a libertarian graduate student in the Philosophy Department posts a quote knocking the Federal Government on his office door.

Exhibit one: the Marquette Tribune, dealing with the issue in an editorial this past Tuesday, takes Marquette to task over communication about the issue, but sees nothing wrong with the actual act of censorship. According to the fledgling journalists:

The university could have easily defended South’s actions with its Student Handbook policy. Despite the romantic impressions of some, Marquette is a private institution — not a free-speech zone.

The removal of the quote didn’t clearly violate any freedoms granted by the Constitution, federal or state, nor by the university. Marquette’s Student Handbook demonstrations policy states when people differ on whether a demonstration infringes on the rights of others in the community, an authority — in this case South — communicates his judgment and can require the demonstration be “promptly terminated.”

So the argument appears to be “since Marquette has a legal right to censor speech, that makes any particular act of censorship legitimate.”

Particularly bizarre is the statement about “. . . when people differ on whether a demonstration infringes on the rights of others in the community. . . .”

Just what rights did Ditsler’s office door quote infringe upon?

Let’s look at it:

“As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government.”

Just how does this “infringe” upon anybody’s rights?

The Tribune appears to have bought into the politically correct notion that people on the left have a “right” not to be confronted with ideas they dislike.

The more senior journalists at the Journal-Sentinel sided with free speech on this issue.

But what happens to journalism when younger journalists, steeped in the intolerance of political correctness, come to dominate the profession?

Journal-Sentinel Slams Marquette Over Philosophy Department Office Door Censorship

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, in today’s edition, slammed Marquette for censoring a quote from columnist Dave Barry that was posted on the door of a graduate student’s office.

Editorial: It’s all a free-speech zone

We were under the impression that the entire United States is a free-speech zone. Which is why the phrase’s use is puzzling in the case of a teaching aide and graduate student at Marquette University who had a quote from a well-known humorist removed from his office door recently.

The quote from Dave Barry was, “As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government.”

Philosophy department chairman and associate professor James South called the quote “patently offensive” and said that the campus’ free-speech zones required him to take it down.

Point No. 1: If this quote is “patently offensive,” then a whole lot of folks who call themselves conservatives or Libertarians are patently offensive. Variations of this theme operate as their mantra. There’s nothing offensive about it. It’s a point of view. Agree or disagree, but don’t ban it.

Point No. 2: Lighten up. Most folks recognize hyperbole when they see it, particularly educated people such as those who walk the non-free-speech hallways of Marquette.

Point No. 3: While no right is absolute - yeah, yeah, yelling fire in a crowded theater - free speech should come pretty darn close. An easily offended nanny state might police cartoons and posters pinned up on office doors and walls. Thank goodness we don’t live in one. Right?

Of course, Marquette is a private university. OK, but one that presumably subscribes in some measure to the concept of academic freedom. Or is this reserved only for those graced with tenure?

No, the teaching assistant and graduate student who put up the quote - Stuart Ditsler, who says he is a Libertarian - should qualify. A campus spokeswoman said this is a workplace issue, not one of academic freedom. This makes no sense. The workplace in this case is a university.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has taken up Ditsler’s cause. A letter to the foundation from Marquette President Father Robert A. Wild said, because the quote wasn’t attributed, “someone reading . . . may not have understood the humor/satire of Dave Barry.”

So, here’s a compromise. Attribute the quote and return it to the office door. But here’s a better one. Allow Ditsler to put it up anyway if he chooses.

Of course, it’s not just conservatives and libertarians who distrust the Federal government. Where the Patriot Act is the issue, it’s liberals and leftists who do that.

Which doesn’t matter at all here, since you can be liberal, conservative, libertarian or whatever and still have a right to academic freedom.

And the leftists who run the Philosophy Department probably do believe that “folks who call themselves conservatives or Libertarians are patently offensive.”

And they believe that they have the right to shut up people they find “offensive.”

But it’s the job of Deans, Provosts and, if necessary, university presidents to protect students from those sorts of attitudes.

Mike McKinney, where were you on this?

Madeline Wake, where were you on this?

You both look as silly as James South does.

We know where University President Robert Wild was. Out to lunch.

Marquette: We Can’t Allow Speech To Which Somebody Objects

It’s been all over the news: the fact that Marquette Philosophy Chair James South tore down a quote from columnist Dave Barry that was posted on the office door of a graduate student.

South explained that people “complained” about the quote, and that it was “patently offensive.”

What was the terrible thing that the graduate student posted? Judge for yourself:

“As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government.”

In an e-mail to the student (one Stuart Ditsler) South explained his rationale for the censorship.

I had several complaints today about a quotation that was on the door of CH 132F. I’ve taken the quotation down. While I am a strong supporter of academic freedom, I’m afraid that hallways and office doors are not “free-speech zones.” If material is patently offensive and has no obvious academic import or university sanction, I have little choice but to take note.

Ditsler, doubtless astounded by the effrontery of this message, replied as follows.

Dr. South,

Because I know that it is tricky trying to convey the right tone over e-mail, I’m going to make an extra effort to be respectful. I just want to express my concerns about a discrepancy in the way this matter has been handled. To wit, last year Dr. [redacted], who I like, respect, and admire very much, posted a cartoon by Pat Oliphant of the Washington Post about the ethical principles (or lack thereof) in the Bush administration that stayed on his door for I believe the entire academic year. The year before that, you posted a piece on your door immediately after the 2004 presidential election criticizing “family values” voters for preferring Bush and the Republican Party to Kerry and the Democrats. What this tells me is that doors and hallways are not “free speech zones” (a Bush administration term, which is ironic in itself) only when the opinions expressed are contrary to those of the majority of the members of the department. Nor do I see, in the first place, what is “patently offensive” about a quotation (taken from a Dave Barry piece) the import of which is that we should always be on guard against the expansion of government power, a sentiment that has been expressed by too many brilliant thinkers for me to even try to recount them (although I will drop Thomas Jefferson’s name). By contrast, the two aforementioned pieces are explicitly critical of a particular political party and a particular administration.

In sum, I feel like not only is the department treating me unfairly, but the complaints are without merit in the first place. I am deeply concerned, and have been since I arrived, about the intellectual atmosphere of the department. This only gives me more reason to worry.

Thank you for taking the time to take my concerns into account, and I sincerely hope that I have been able to convey a properly respectful tone.

best,
Stuart
[emphasis added]

That’s right. Professors had posted partisan anti-Bush cartoons on their doors, and left them there for months, with no attempt at censorship.

South responded with an e-mail that entirely missed the point.

Hello Stuart,

Thanks for your e-mail. I take it that you are responsible for the message on the door?

As I said in the e-mail, I am happy to talk with you about this matter. E-mail does not seem a very helpful way of have a thorough discussion.

Just to be clear, I don’t go around policing doors. I received complaints and that meant I had to take note of what was on the door. I did not do so unilaterally, but consulted two members of the Executive Committee and the Assistant Chair. My action and my e-mail to those using 132F were merely informational and designed to minimize offense to others. They were in no way related to any disciplinary procedure. Also, as I made clear, nothing in my e-mail is related to the responsible use of academic freedom in the context of the classroom.

I’m sorry if you’re bemused by my use of the term “free speech zone” -- I was not using it in the sense in which you construed it, but merely pointing to the fact that university office buildings, like shopping malls and restaurants, are not unregulated spaces.

The larger concerns you raise, while interesting, are not connected to my decision to remove the unattributed passage that was on the door of 132F. My action was based on specific complaints and consultation with other faculty in a leadership role in the department.

Finally, I encourage you to reread the passage I sent from the Marquette Faculty Handbook regarding academic freedom and its correlative responsibilities.

Sincerely,

James South

The passage from the Faculty Handbook involved responsibilities that accompany academic freedom for faculty. Nothing in the Handbook said that faculty have a responsibility never to express opinions that somebody might disagree with.

South claims “I received complaints and that meant I had to take note of what was on the door.” Why? Nothing was on the door but a political opinion that some leftists might take offense at.

Further, South claims that “I did not do so unilaterally, but consulted two members of the Executive Committee and the Assistant Chair.”

A thoroughly damning statement. It makes it clear that intolerant groupthink dominates the decision-making processes of the Philosophy Department.

Ditsler, getting no satisfaction from his department, went to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. They sent a letter to Marquette President Fr. Robert Wild, outlining the case and asking for a response. Wild took his time responding, and FIRE went public with the issue.

Wild did eventually send FIRE a response, however.

October 16, 2006


Ms. Tara E. Sweeney
Senior Program Officer
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
601 Walnut Street, Suite 510
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106

Deal Ms. Sweeney:

I have received your letter dated September 27, 2006, regarding an incident that occurred in Marquette’s Philosophy Department.

I believe this matter has now been resolved within the academic department, as properly it should be, and that the original difficulty arose out of misunderstanding. However, I do want to correct a few points in your letter. Specifically, when the quotation cited was posted, it was without attribution; therefore, someone reading the quotation may not have understood the humor/satire of Dave Barry. Second, the e-mail from Dr. James South, Chair of the Philosophy Department, was sent not only to Mr. Stuart Ditsler but to all four students who occupied the shared graduate student office. At the time, Dr. South was unaware of who had posted the flier.

As you correctly point out in your letter, Marquette is a private, Catholic institution. That does not in any way diminish the importance we place on the principles of academic freedom. Marquette’s Faculty Handbook states, “academic freedom is prized as essential to Marquette University and to its living growth as a university.”

Thank you for taking the time to write.

Sincerely,


Robert A. Wild, S.J.

This is an ineffectual, indeed almost bizarre response.

Wild asserts that “when the quotation cited was posted, it was without attribution; therefore, someone reading the quotation may not have understood the humor/satire of Dave Barry.”

The implication here is that the quote would have been acceptable if people had known it was satire, but since they took it seriously, it had to be torn down.

In other words, nobody is allowed to seriously say, on the Marquette campus, that the Federal government is our enemy.

Dave Barry, being a libertarian, almost certainly seriously believes that the Federal government is our enemy -- notwithstanding the humor in his writing.

Wild’s statement about how “academic freedom is prized as essential to Marquette University” would be comical, if censoring free speech could ever be comical.

It’s time to tell the truth about Robert Wild, S.J.

He is utterly ineffective in dealing with the excesses of politically correct faculty and administrators. A well-meaning Jesuit, he simply fails to understand what is going on.

He’s actually capable of saying “academic freedom is prized as essential to Marquette University” while trampling on academic freedom. It’s a problem of intellectual horsepower.

We doubt that if a female student came to the Administration complaining about a case of sexual harassment that had not been properly dealt with at a lower level she would have been blown off in the way Ditsler was. But this is academia, political correctness reigns, and free speech takes a back seat.

Philosophy Department Office Door Censorship Goes National

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has taken up the cause of a Marquette Philosophy Department graduate student who posted a quote from columnist Dave Barry on his door.

Dr. James South, Chair of the Philosophy Department, tore it down, claiming there had been “complaints” and that the quote was “patently offensive.”

From the FIRE website:

MILWAUKEE, Wis., October 18, 2006—Writer and humorist Dave Barry probably never expected that one of his jokes would spark a university free speech dispute. But in early September, a Marquette University administrator removed a Barry quote about the federal government from Ph.D. student Stuart Ditsler’s office door because the quote was “patently offensive.” Facing this arbitrary exercise of political censorship, Ditsler contacted the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help.

“There have been several high-profile free speech controversies on campuses recently, such as at Columbia this month. But incidents like this one at Marquette and on other campuses illustrate how even innocuous expression is under ongoing assault at our colleges and universities,” FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said.

In late August, Ditsler posted a quote by Dave Barry on his office door in the philosophy department. The quote read, “As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government.” On September 5, Philosophy Department Chair James South sent Ditsler an e-mail stating that he had received several complaints and therefore removed the quote. He wrote, “While I am a strong supporter of academic freedom, I’m afraid that hallways and office doors are not ‘free-speech zones.’ If material is patently offensive and has no obvious academic import or university sanction, I have little choice but to take note.”

“This incident at Marquette is part of a truly disturbing trend,” Lukianoff said. “Administrators seem willing to ban speech across the board and to designate increasingly tiny ‘free speech zones’ rather than risk any student or faculty member being offended.”

Ditsler reports that other members of the philosophy department have posted materials on their doors in the past without receiving reprimand or sanctions. FIRE wrote to Marquette University President Robert A. Wild on September 27 stating that Marquette’s policy against “offensive” materials is completely discretionary and therefore subject to abuse. FIRE also reminded Wild that Marquette’s Student Handbook protects the “right of the members of the university community freely to communicate, by lawful demonstration and protest, the positions that they conscientiously espouse on vital issues of the day.” Wild has not responded to FIRE’s letter.

Marquette’s policy of stonewalling on this issue is particularly disturbing.

It suggests that the University knows that South blundered, but lacks the courage to set things right.

At a minimum, Ditsler is owed an apology.

Philosophy Department on Office Door Censorship: Stonewall

We recently posted about how Marquette’s Philosophy Department has censored a posting on the door of a graduate student.

We have tried repeatedly to get Prof. James South, Chair of the department and the person who tore down the posting to comment. Finally, today, he did respond to our e-mail as follows:

Hello John,

I appreciate your interest in the workings and decisions of the Philosophy Department. I will decline, though, the opportunity to speak with you about this matter.

Best wishes,

James

Translation: stonewall.

We would have liked to ask him whether the Philosophy Department has any written policy on door postings. Our sources say it doesn’t. Without a written policy and guidelines, any such act of censorship is entirely arbitrary.

We would have liked to have asked him what was “patently offensive” about the quote on graduate student Stuart Ditsler’s door. The quote, remember, said the following:

“As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government.”

That’s a pretty straightforward expression of a libertarian philosophy -- although liberals and leftists would entirely agree with it where the War on Terror is concerned.

Might people disagree with this? Absolutely. Is it “patently offensive?” Only in some alternative universe.

The next question would have been: what sort of people would object to this? What sort of people (faculty? graduate students?) think they have a right to take “offense” at political ideas with which they disagree, and then have them censored?

South is unwilling to address any of these questions. It seems that his actions (which presumably had the approval of at least a couple of members of the Executive Committee with whom he conferred) can’t be defended.

Marquette Philosophy Department: Censoring Graduate Student’s Door Posting

It’s the norm in academia for faculty, graduate students and employees to post things on their doors. Sometimes these things are innocuous, but sometimes they convey a distinct political point of view.

From the Distributed Intelligence blog, via the GOP3.COM blog, the fact that some academic departments don’t tolerate this – or at least, don’t tolerate it when the message is from the political right.

Marquette Philosophy graduate student Stuart Ditsler posted a quote from Dave Barry on his door. It said:

“As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government.”

What kind of response did that get? A e-mail from department chair James South (although the secretary in the Philosophy Department refused to confirm the source) saying the following:

I had several complaints today about a quotation that was on the door of CH 132F. I’ve taken the quotation down. While I am a strong supporter of academic freedom, I’m afraid that hallways and office doors are not “free-speech zones.” If material is patently offensive and has no obvious academic import or university sanction, I have little choice but to take note.

South had conferred with two members of the Department’s Executive Committee, and with the Assistant Chair.

What kind of person would consider this “offensive?” It’s one thing to disagree with something, but quite another to go off whining about how it’s “offensive.”

Add to that the fact that liberals and leftists, not knowing that Barry is a libertarian, might take the quote to mean that the Bush administration is the “enemy.” Ditzler says that he did “not try to put up something that was partisan in some way.”

Around Marquette University, the norm is that professors post things reflecting their political opinions. Our colleague Chris Wolfe has a graphic description of a partial-birth abortion. We have a “Marquette Warriors” sticker.

Indeed, partisan political material has been allowed on the doors in the Philosophy Department.

Last year, a faculty member displayed (for most of the year) a cartoon by Pat Oliphant that was highly critical of President Bush.

And the academic year before that (2004-2005) another faculty member displayed a cartoon (drawn in the wake of the 2004 election) attacking the “family values” voters who supported Bush.

If somebody had claimed to be “offended” by those, would then have been taken down?

Or is the policy enforced in an ideologically biased way?

Ditsler says he “wishes the Department had stood up for me, instead of caving to the people who complained.” There is no Philosophy Department policy on door postings - or at least none of which graduate students were made aware. Thus the censorship was entirely arbitrary, and not the implementation of some well-established policy.

Marquette, being a private institution, has the right to impose whatever restrictions on speech it wants. But that doesn’t mean that this particular restriction is prudent. And it won’t prevent people from thinking that only particular ideas are deemed “offensive” in ideologically slanted academia.