New Director of Gender and Sexualities Center Was Assata Shakur Supporter

Marquette’s misguided sop to the campus gay lobby, the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center, caused the Administration a ton of trouble. First, it sponsored the bawdy Femsex seminar, which had women students creating pornography, coloring pictures of female genitalia in the Cunt Coloring Book, and engaging in “non-judgmental” discussions of abortion and prostitution. Marquette had to distance itself from the program, and cancelled the official university sponsorship.

Then there was the mural of black militant murderer and terrorist Assata Shakur, painted on a wall at the Center. When we outed that, Marquette quickly had it painted over, and fired the Director of the Center, Susannah Bartlow. Bartlow, it seems, was simply too politically extreme.

In the wake of this fiasco, Marquette split the Center in two, with one of the pieces being a center with a scholarly focus. According to a Marquette news release:

Center for Gender and Sexualities Studies will support research, teaching

A new Center for Gender and Sexualities Studies will be housed in the Klingler College of Arts and Sciences and will support research and teaching on the topics of gender and sexualities. Directed by Dr. Angelique Harris, associate professor of social and cultural sciences, the CGSS will also hold the Women and Gender Studies major and minor. The CGSS will be located in Sensenbrenner Hall.

“I am pleased that the CGSS will enjoy the leadership of Dr. Harris, who brings deep professional experience and dedication to the center and its mission,” Myers says. “She and I have already had many productive discussions about how we can enhance and grow the major, as well as provide additional academic programming and course development and research support.”

But it seems that Angelique Harris has political views similar to those of Bartlow, at least were Shakur is concerned.

The following is an e-mail that circulated around the campus this past summer:

Dear Colleagues,

As members of MU faculty who teach in Africana Studies or related fields, I’m hoping you might be interested in being a part of a new study collective forming inside and outside of MU. Your insights, histories, research and commitments would enrich it enormously! In addition, it would be wonderful if you’d take a moment to forward the call below (and readings attached) to anyone you think might be interested in your communities and networks. Please email with questions, and I hope you are all having productive, inspiring, refreshing summers.

Yours, Jodi Melamed

Dear One and All,

* In the wake of the firing of Marquette’s Director of the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center and the destruction of a student-created mural of Assata Shakur, a major figure in contemporary Black political activism

*Following 20 years of neglect, zero budget, and no institutional support for Africana Studies at Marquette and in affirmation that Black intellectual history matters

* To support the rise of student and community activism around policing, racism, economic inequality, mass incarceration, detention and deportation, sexual violence and other issues

* Feeling the need to gather to experience the learning that happens when we create knowledge and resist unequal power dynamics in the learning process itself

We send this call for all who are interested to come together in a study collective - name to be determined - inspired by freedom schools and the undisciplined learning collectives of social movements that gave rise to Black, Ethnic, American Indian, and Women’s and Gender Studies.

The name and purpose of the study collective will emerge from our conversations together. Given recent events, we think it makes sense to begin with Assata: An Autobiography by Assata Shakur, a book that has come to represent (once again) the dangers associated with oppositional thinking.

Our first event will take place on July 26th (Sunday) from 3:00-5:00pm at Cudahy Hall (1313 W. Wisconsin Ave) Room 114. Come join us to discuss Assata: An Autobiography, whether you’ve read the whole book, part or none. RSVP not necessary, but appreciated! (To RSVP, email [redacted])

You can also find details on facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/events/841626975905901/

We’ve attached Angela Davis’s Introduction and the first and last chapters of Assata to this email to get you started. The whole book is available on Amazon and in many libraries, including UWM’s and Marquette’s (print and online version available). Please come whether you’ve read the whole book, part or none.

We’re also attaching a short essay entitled “The Whiteness of Police,” which examines policing as a form of racial management which “determines who requires discipline so that others can be secure enough to pursue their self interest.”

Looking forward,
Susannah Bartlow
Angelique Harris
Brianna Hawkins
Jodi Melamed
Sameena Mulla
(Study Collective Co-Facilitators)

This whole project seems as radical as the things that got the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center in trouble. Of course, leftist academics can get together and discuss anything they want, even “The Whiteness of Police” or the deep thoughts of Communist Angela Davis.

And the center that Harris heads is focused on scholarly things, and may be involved only in arcane stuff published in obscure gay and feminist journals (if at all). But, on the other hand, it may be that Marquette has failed to learn a lesson it should have.

Former Director of the Gender And Sexuality Resource Center Moans and Complains About Removal of Mural of Terrorist

This blog broke the story, and it went national: a mural of cop killer and domestic terrorist Assata Shakur in the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center at Marquette. Quickly, the mural was painted over, and the Director of the Center, Susannah Bartlow, was fired.

She has now published an article on the issue in Feminist Studies, Vol. 41, No. 3, “Gendering Bodies, Institutional Hegemonies” (2015), pp. 689-697.

The mere title gives away the fact that this is going to be an example of the arcane and stilted rhetoric common among academic feminists. And indeed it is.

As the founding director of the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center (GSRC), my job was to build an academic support office for women’s, gender, and LGBTQ+ education and empowerment. In the center’s third year, Amanda Smith (a Marquette senior) and Jeanette Martín (a community artist and program assistant at the center) envisioned, planned, and executed the Assata Shakur mural project as a way to invite greater community interest. In my role as director of the center, I supported the project, communicated it to senior leaders, and spread the word about the community-painting day in late March 2015.

So it wasn’t Bartlow’s idea. But she knew perfectly well who Shakur was, having signed a petition requesting that President Obama take Shakur off the Most Wanted Terrorists List. And she approved the project anyway.

Her claim to have “communicated it [plans for the mural] to senior leaders” is interesting, since if she informed “senior leaders” about who Shakur is, and they approved the mural, they are responsible and Bartlow was a mere sacrificial lamb.

Faced with a similar claim months ago, we wrote Bartlow, asking for details of what was communicated to higher-level officials, and she did not respond.

Defense of the Mural

Bartlow continues:

Over the six weeks it was on display at the center, the mural invited people into a quiet space off a hallway, and it had sparked discussion among staff, faculty, and students who used the space. The mural was one of very few images of a black woman anywhere on Marquette’s campus, and it contributed to a sense among many students of color that the GSRC was a space in which they were welcomed and safe and where they could be comfortable.

Yet in the distortions of white supremacy, the mural looked like a threat, rather than an intellectual and community representation central to the university itself.

So it’s “white supremacy” to object to object to a mural of a cop killer?

Did the mural “invite” people into the Center? If so, why was a mural of a cop killer particularly “inviting?” Does the clientele of the Center think killing cops is fine?

If one wants an image of a black woman, we can think of a lot of black women who have not killed any cop, and are not on the FBI’s list of Most Wanted Terrorists.

As for the mural looking like a “threat,” this is what psychologists call “projection.” Politically correct feminists and other leftists are always claiming to feel “unsafe” when they face arguments and facts they find inconvenient. So they assume that other people feel “threatened” (rather than merely appalled) by an image of a black militant cop killer.

Bartlow goes on:

What happened specifically to this mural and to my job is also connected to the charged context of contemporary racialized violence. What happened to the mural is really a minor symptom of the full-on assault against poor people, people of color, queer people, and others who cannot access or play by the rules of twenty-first-century social dominance. No words fit the loss of life and the daily violations against black, brown, and poor people: in Milwaukee, where Marquette is located, more than 100 of the 105 homicides reported so far in 2015 involve black or Hispanic victims.

The chutzpah here is astounding.

Painting over a mural is part of the same phenomenon of black people getting killed?

Worse still is the assertion that 100 of the 105 homicides thus far this year had black or Hispanic victims. Is she implying that cops killed all these people? Klansmen?

No breakdown of victims by race of offender for Milwaukee is available at the moment, but national statistics pretty much tell the story. In 2012 (the last year for which tabulations are available), of 2648 blacks murdered, 2412 were murdered by other blacks. That’s 91 percent.

And the map of the locations of murders in the city of Milwaukee, published by the Journal-Sentinel, also tells the story.



It shows murders concentrated in black neighborhoods on the north side, and Hispanic neighborhoods on the near south side.

More Arcane Verbiage

Bartlow continues:

Our choice of Assata Shakur—a powerful, controversial black leader, an uncompromising woman, for better and worse—came out of a year-long process of supportive, consensus-based, power sharing between students and staff at our center. The mural was visible evidence that our feminist collaborations were working.

So she thought the process was great. But the outcome of the process was odious.

Why could not a “supportive, consensus-based, power sharing” process have produced a mural of a black woman that almost everybody on the campus could admire, and a mural that the Administration could have supported (rather than having to distance itself from). Quite simply: Bartlow and her collaborators were political extremists who didn’t particularly mind black militants killing cops.

Thus the hiring of Bartlow stands as a major fiasco. Perhaps the Administration will be more careful in the future. If so, this débâcle has served a useful purpose. But given the current administration’s habit of pandering to the activists, we have our doubts.

More from Leftist Marquette Faculty on Cop Killer Mural: Whine, Moan, Bitch

Very few people have been willing to defend the mural, in Marquette’s Gender and Sexuality Resource Center, honoring convicted cop killer and fugitive from justice in Castro’s Cuba Assata Shakur. But predictably, a few dozen leftist Marquette faculty have done so.

There were two petitions urging Marquette not to fire Susannah Bartlow, the Director of the Center who approved the mural.

Then there was a petition, signed by “about 60” faculty and staff protesting the removal of the mural.

Then there was a meeting of aggrieved Arts and Sciences faculty (and some who were merely interested) with Dean Rick Holz, where objections to the removal of the mural were aired.

And now we have yet another statement, with further objections to the removal of the mural. It is as bad as all the others, but it offers further insight into the mentality of the hard core politically correct faculty at Marquette.

Just to deal with a few excerpts:

This most recent incident is another in a pattern (see the firing of Jodi O’Brien and the FemSex controversy) of non-consultative decision-making that has caused the university public notoriety and significantly deteriorated both student and faculty morale.

And what is the evidence that student and faculty morale has deteriorated? Apparently just that the leftist faculty (and a few of their student sycophants) are unhappy. Only a few dozen of several hundred Marquette faculty and staff have signed these petitions. And the only body with any claim to represent students (Marquette University Student Government) has supported the university’s decision to remove the mural.

But apparently for these leftist professors, they are “the faculty” and their student acolytes are “the students.”

Student Opinion

First and foremost, the decision not to engage the leadership and members of the sponsoring sorority, Alpha Kappa Alpha, sends the very clear message to students that their opinions and concerns are irrelevant to the administration.

Just how should the women of Alpha Kappa Alpha have been engaged?

They should have been confronted and asked “what were you thinking?” But that’s not what these leftist faculty have in mind.

And the message that “students” in Student Government apparently got was that Marquette had acted responsibly. Since student government tends to be dominated by more liberal and politically activist students, the message from the entire student body would have been an even more emphatic “what kind of idiots thought this was a good idea?”

Expertise?

Second, we find it deeply troubling that in a university—a societal institution explicitly designated to exchanging ideas and advancing knowledge—no efforts were made to consult faculty or staff with expertise in the area in order to understand the context and content of the mural itself from intellectual, cultural and historical perspectives. Instead, the reactionary rhetoric of a single faculty member who is currently suspended by the University took precedence over the knowledge of faculty in Africana Studies, Women’s and Gender Studies, History, Sociology, Criminology and Psychology, to cite only a few relevant academic disciplines, who possess years of training and valuable insights into the complexities surrounding race and gender studies generally, and the case of Assata Shakur specifically.

Translation: we leftist faculty were pretty much ignored.

And they should have been ignored.

Here is the dirty secret of academia: disciplines and subdisciplines are not merely repositories of expertise. They are little cottage industries where people tend to think alike. Sometimes there is genuine expertise: astrophysicists can tell you a lot about the universe. But often they are dominated by narrow ideological biases, the result of both self-selection (only feminists go into Women’s and Gender studies) and group think. And if you think independently, you’ll have trouble getting tenure.

So this statement is asserting that Marquette should have gone to the most narrow and biased centers of politically correct thinking to ask for advice about the mural. Given that this statement comes from those places, this is not a surprise.

Instead, the reactionary rhetoric of a single faculty member who is currently suspended by the University took precedence. . .

These, of course, are the same leftist faculty that have been demanding that Marquette fire us, and it must gall them terribly that they have not succeeded in shutting us up. Nasty authoritarians often have been successful in cowing and bullying into silence people whose views they dislike, but it didn’t work this time.

academic freedom; or the cold climate surrounding race, gender and sexuality in which we must work and live at Marquette.

Irony alert!

People who wanted us fired are talking about academic freedom? When they use the term, they apparently think it only applies to ideas of which they approve.

As for “cold climate:” what has actually happened is when they push too hard on their anti-Catholic, secular agenda, they get pushback. Since they are absolutely convinced in the righteousness of their cause, they consider this unfair. But anybody who thinks Marquette should try to be at least a little bit Catholic will have doubts about an aggressively lesbian dean candidate (Jodi O’Brien) and a Femsex seminar where women color pictures of female genitalia, produce a piece of pornography, and participate in a “non-judgmental” discussion of abortion and prostitution.

Catholic Identity a Sham?

Apparently, these secular faculty leftists have gotten the idea that a “Catholic identity” at Marquette is just a sham marketing ploy. One can easily see why they might think that, given that it’s mostly true. But then when Marquette is forced into a corner and has to reject something radically at odds with any notion of a “Catholic identity,” they whine and moan.

We expect to contribute our expertise in this process and challenge you to invite that of Marquette’s most important constituency, the students themselves, as you chart a new, inclusive and collaborative path for the University.

Of course, these leftist faculty have no “expertise” that would allow them to say that honoring a cop killer is acceptable. They have only leftist ideology.

Including all faculty would be a dandy idea. Including all students would be too. As noted, they are doubtless less likely to condone a cop killer mural than is MUSG. And alumni should be included, something the faculty leftists don’t like, having already lamented “that the university satisfies the Catholic, conservative base of alumni and donors.” But these folks are real stakeholders, the value of whose degrees are dependent on the reputation of Marquette, and whose contributions heavily support Marquette.

A genuinely inclusive and collaborative process would find these few dozen leftist faculty outnumbered and marginalized. Which is why they don’t want any such process. They simply want Marquette to cater to them.

Susannah Bartlow: Doubling Down on Assata Shakur

When we first discovered that a wall of Marquette’s Gender and Sexuality Resource Center was decorated with a large mural of convicted cop killer Assata Shakur, we thought that perhaps somebody simply didn’t know who she really was. Maybe somebody found some quote from her that they liked without bothering to learn anything about her. Otherwise, who would honor a cop killer?

We quickly discovered that the Director of the Center, one Susannah Bartlow, knew exactly who Shakur was, having signed a petition demanding that she be taken off the FBI’s list of the Ten Most Wanted Terrorists.

Bartlow was sacked, but she has a blog, and she has not backed down at all from her support for Shakur.

Here is one of her posts on the issue, and here is the other.

The posts are a window into the insular bubble that is political correctness at contemporary universities. It’s not just Bartlow. It’s at least several dozen professors at Marquette, and a fair number of administrators too.

Some examples:

This disrespect for the work of women of color is another astonishing example of how racism works. It is hard to imagine another mural, whatever its subject, being removed without even an attempt to understand the subject or the students’ perspective.

So it is hard to imagine that a mural of a Klansman would be removed without even an attempt to understand the subject or the students’ perspective?

No, if such a mural appeared, it would be summarily painted over, and the “students’ perspective” would be roundly condemned with no “discussion” necessary. But in the world of the politically correct, violent black terrorists are somehow heroes.

Further, the official statement of Alpha Kappa Alpha, the black sorority whose members painted the mural, claims that the members simply did not know who Shakur was, and if they had, they would not have painted the mural.

Assuming that’s true, what we have here is what happens so often on college campuses: white leftists using minorities as human shields.

. . . right now, a national movement is mobilizing in support of black and brown people who have been unfairly targeted by law enforcement! It should be more clear than ever that something is wrong with our system and how people of color fare within it.

In the first place, Bartlow doesn’t seem to notice that the “hands up don’t shoot” nonsense from Ferguson, MO has been thoroughly debunked, and debunked by the Eric Holder Justice Department. And the six officers changed in the Baltimore case of Freddie Gray include three blacks, making the simple racial narrative difficult to sustain.

Racial Grievance

Worse, just how is it that honoring a cop killer addresses any legitimate grievance about policing in the black community? In fact, it only poisons the atmosphere, and does so to the detriment of black citizens. Is the assumption here that black people approve of cop killers? A few do, but they should not be appeased or pandered to.

Although it feels good, “appropriate” doesn’t have much to do with the discomfort it takes to learn new things, especially about volatile political issues. It usually backfires, making people who are already threatened feel less safe, and enabling people who typically feel pretty safe in any environment to keep on keeping on. Educationally, this is counterproductive.

So, in the politically correct bubble, the world is divided into people who feel “safe” and need to be made to feel less safe, and those who feel “unsafe” and need to be made to feel safe.

This is typical of campus political correctness, where favored and petted victim groups are allowed to shut up speech they claim makes them feel “unsafe” (no matter how ridiculous such claims are) but whites, males, Christians, conservatives and so on must put up with whatever demeaning comments anybody chooses to make.

More importantly, though, Marquette students were protesting all year, mostly related to racism on campus. Many of the students I worked with were tired, sad, angry, energized, inspired, and motivated to claim some space where they could feel like their experiences and histories were affirmed.

Very few Marquette students (indeed the number is vanishingly small) are racists, that is unless any politically incorrect opinion on racial matters, or any innocent “microaggression” somehow counts as racism.

But students in the orbit of the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center have been taught to collect and nurse grievances.

Exploration?

. . . why is Assata Shakur “inappropriate for a mural”? Because her story is more contemporary? Because she lives in Cuba? Because she is still alive? Who decides what is appropriate? What is a university for if not to explore these questions?

Unfortunately, the mural was not “exploration,” it was glorification. Had Bartlow’s center sponsored a debate on Shakur, that would have been exploration. Instead, debate was summarily bypassed and a mural painted.

It’s odd for Bartlow, who didn’t feel discussion was needed before the mural was painted, to now tout “exploration.”

In my first post, I used the phrase “regardless of the mural’s content” to argue that the GSRC (and all campus educational/resource centers) should be able to support students’ interests and expressions without censorship or controlling influence.

Of course, this is flatly disingenuous. If some bunch of students wanted to honor a Klansman, Bartlow would not think of making this sort of argument. Indeed, a mural honoring a prominent opponent of gay marriage would be doubtless denounced by campus leftists.

I supported the student-led mural project because my job as an educator is to provide space, resources, and opportunities without censorship or condescension. In an environment of daily racism, the students wanted to research and offer up images of powerful black women leaders—both as a way to brighten up the GSRC as a hangout space and as a way to support identities and experiences that were on the margins at Marquette.

Of course, Shakur is not a “powerful black woman leader.” Condoleezza Rice is.

Again, either Bartlow is a white woman using black women as human shields, or the national spokeswoman for Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority is lying (or at least badly mistaken) about what happened.

The argument seems to be that since black women deserve a “voice,” whatever they choose to say must be supinely accepted, since they are, after all, an oppressed minority group. Ironically, Bartlow adds:

Effective learning happens with healthy discomfort and sometimes with controversy.

But somehow, pampered minority groups should be spared discomfort and controversy. All the while, less favored groups should be made to feel uncomfortable about their “white privilege” in a “racist society” and have their political and social views challenged.

Somebody should have asked the women of Alpha Kappa Alpha “do you know who this woman is?” And if the answer was “yes,” “why in the world do you think she is some sort of role model?”

As is usually the case, politically correct people end up demeaning the victim groups they claim to champion. The implication here is that blacks and other minorities have fragile egos that cannot stand an intellectual challenge. Further, if having one’s views challenged is part of a good education, what does it say if one wants to dispense with that for minority students?

Conclusion

Bartlow’s essays are important as a window into the world of politically correct thinking in academia. It’s the sort of thinking that is increasingly dominant in academia, and part of the general corruption of college life.

Fundraising Support for Susannah Bartlow

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

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

http://www.gofundme.com/susannahbartlow

The appeal starts with some silly statements:

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

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

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

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

So how do we feel about this?

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

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

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

Dan Maguire Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Assata Cult

Assata Shakur, the subject of an adoring mural posted (until it caused a media firestorm) in the office of the Marquette Gender and Sexuality Resource Center, is a somewhat obscure figure to normal people. But the cop killer and domestic terrorist has quite a following on the hard left.

As explained by Michelle Malkin:

“What Assata taught me” is the new “Hands up, don’t shoot.”

For $35, you, too, can sport a politically correct black hoodie emblazoned with a fugitive convicted murderer’s name. Assata’s apparel is the new rage among perpetually enraged Baltimore and Ferguson social justice warriors. It won’t be long now before hipster actresses and cable news progressives are Instagramming themselves wearing this latest entry in radical chic to show their “solidarity.”

Here’s what Assata taught me: The left’s sick fetish for cop-killers is still going strong after four decades of violence, bloodshed, bigotry and excuses. The timing couldn’t be more blood-boiling. As the relatives, friends and colleagues of NYPD Officer Brian Moore, 25, prepare to bury their hero on Friday after he was brazenly shot in the face this weekend by a thug with a long rap sheet and a deep hatred of police, Assata’s army remains as militant as ever.

And just a little Googling shows plenty of examples of the cult:

Yassss! I just bought my Assata Taught Me Tee ✊🏽✊🏾✊🏿 Only available for the next 6 days. Go get you one! ----> https://t.co/raFfJGc0Zs

— Antoinette (@TheFancyFriend) April 30, 2015

So what did the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center think it was doing signing on to this cult? Somebody really concerned with social justice would Tweet something like this:

If we had more black youth wearing t shirts that said "MLK taught me" than "Assata taught me" #BaltimoreRiots wouldn't be happening.

— ✌ Eliza Beth ✌ (@InfidelLizaBeth) April 27, 2015

Marquette Student Government at Odds With Itself Over Cop Killer Mural

When this blog outed a mural, in the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center, honoring convicted cop killer Assata Shakur, the University had to take action. It ordered the mural painted over, and fired the Director of the center.

Some pundits, like Journal-Sentinel writer Karen Herzog, have suggested that painting over the mural was some sort of violation of academic freedom. This, of course, is silly. A mural in a Marquette office, approved by a Marquette official, is an official statement by Marquette. Top administrators have a right to tell lower level administrators (but not individual faculty members) what statements they can make. Endorsing a cop killer was not one that Marquette wanted to make.

But the politically correct lobby on campus has rallied behind Susannah Bartlow, the fired Center director.

There is, first, a petition demanding that Bartlow be restored. Here is the first version (a Google Doc) and here is the second (on ipetitions).

First Petition

It turns out that a posting a petition as an editable Google Doc is a bad idea. Somebody has edited the first petition to say “This petition is for Dr. Bartlow, whose presence at Marquette is greatly needed to help show people how to love cop killers.” Since this will doubtlessly be removed from the document linked to above, here is a cached version.

Diversity Activist

Of course, support for Bartlow has come from the “diversity” crowd. According to the Journal-Sentinel:

A student government leader who coordinates a [Marquette University Student Government] Diversity, Inclusion, and Social Justice Committee said Wednesday that students and others within the Milwaukee community were mobilizing to protest the university’s “actions against its Gender and Sexuality Resource Center” because they view the actions as “taking a step back on its initiatives surrounding inclusion.”

“This center, and its staff, have been responsible and successful in creating a campus environment of inclusivity, respect, and acceptance,” said the leader, Joshua-Paul Miles.

Miles has the politically correct rhetoric down pat. Miles was a recent winner of an LGBT leadership award.

Student Government

While Miles heads a Student Government committee, Student Government itself endorsed the actions of Marquette’s administration. A statement from the organization said:

Marquette University Student Government has been actively engaged in recent developments regarding the mural in the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center. With the best interest of the Marquette student body as our top priority, we have been in collaboration with University leadership to address the situation.

MUSG stands with Marquette University and believes recent decisions were made through a thoughtful process and in accordance with the University’s Guiding Values. In order to effectively address the needs and concerns of every student, MUSG will continue to work in a collaborative and respectful manner with all parties involved.

MUSG will be working with University leadership to hire a new Director of the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center as soon as possible. We are committed to protecting the initiatives of the GSRC and supporting its role on campus.

Marquette President Michael Lovell responded with a Tweet that said:

@MUSG Thank you for your support as we continue the important work around diversity and inclusion.

Conclusion

Everybody involved in this fiasco looks silly. This includes Miles and the petition signers who are desperate for an organization on campus that is committed to the idea that Catholic teaching on sexuality is bunk and should be ignored.

Then there is Michael Lovell, who having been stung badly by an excess of political correctness continues to pay pious obeisance to the rhetoric of “diversity” and “inclusion.”

And finally there is Marquette University Student Government, which having approved a Diversity, Inclusion, and Social Justice Committee now sides with the university while being opposed by the head of a committee it recently established.

Susannah Bartlow Knew About, Supported Assata Shakur

Susannah Bartlow, who was just yesterday apparently fired by Marquette, was the Director of the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center, where a huge mural painted on the wall honored the cop killer and domestic terrorist Assata Shakur.

Until now, we have entertained the idea that this was merely an act of gross negligence on the part of Bartlow and the staff at the GSRC. Did they not know who Shakur is? Was it just “failure to Google?”

But an assiduous web surfer brings us this information: Bartlow signed a petition at change.org demanding that Barack Obama remove Shakur from the “Most Wanted Terrorists” list.

So Bartlow knew perfectly well who Shakur is. And she chose to present Shakur as a sage and a role model for Marquette students.

Susannah Bartlow Out As Director of Gender and Sexuality Resource Center

According to the Marquette Wire:

“Susannah Bartlow is no longer an employee with Marquette University,” said University Spokesman Brian Dorrington in an email. “We will work with the Center’s advisory board to search for a new director so that we can continue to grow the important programs in the Center.”

The obvious inference is that she was fired over the posting of a mural in the office she heads honoring black militant domestic terrorist Assata Shakur.

Certainly, Marquette wants people to draw this inference.  Otherwise they would have waited a decent interval after the scandal died down and eased her out.

Interestingly, there is a petition (begun even before the firing was announced) urging Marquette to keep Bartlow.

So how do we feel about this?

Back in the old days of the USSR, there was something known as the “vertical stroke.” If a lower level bureaucrat (an Army officer, perhaps) screwed up, not only was he fired or demoted, his immediate superior got the same treatment. And so did his superior’s superior, right on up. In the army, this could be up to the corps or army level. This had some negative consequences: it created a huge incentive to conceal problems. But it did embody a sound principle: higher level people are responsible for their subordinates. The top people put the lower level people in charge, had the power to fire them, and had the responsibility to properly supervise them.

It’s a shame the “vertical stroke” won’t happen here.  Bartlow screwed up badly.  But the ultimate responsibility lies with top Marquette administrators, who created a large “diversity” and “inclusion” and “gender” and “sexuality” bureaucracy, hired the kinds of bureaucrats drawn to those offices, and now find themselves embarrassed when the predictable things happen.

Campus Mural of Cop Killer: Marquette Responds

It has been a massive public relations fiasco, and Marquette had to engage in damage control.

The University just supplied the following statement to Fox News. This, presumably, is what they will tell all media outlets:

Marquette University statement:

Our university’s senior leadership just became aware of a mural that was created and displayed in a remote area of campus. This is extremely disappointing as the mural does not reflect the Guiding Values of Marquette University. It is being removed immediately. We are reviewing the circumstances surrounding the mural and will take appropriate action.

Since they could hardly defend the mural, this statement is not surprising.

It’s possible they just heard of the mural, since they can hardly keep track of everything that occurs on campus. In fact, the bureaucrats who run the University spend most of their time holed up in Zilber Hall, talking to each other, and don’t get out much.

But they should not have hired the sort of leadership for the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center that would allow this to happen.

Further, the office is on the 4^th floor of the union. That’s not some “remote area.” The Union is smack in the center of the campus. It’s true there is not a huge amount of foot traffic up to the 4th floor.

What Marquette has done is to install bureaucracies to cater to the demands of politically correct victim groups — or more properly people claiming to represent politically correct victim groups. In those places — the “diversity” bureaucracies, Student Affairs, Campus Ministry and so on — a very narrow and insular worldview prevails. Those folks don’t seem to realize that glorifying a cop killer is a bad thing.

Gender and Sexuality Resource Center

But worse still, the higher administration doesn’t fully comprehend what they have put in place. Rather, the top administrators are proud of their “initiatives” about “diversity” and “inclusion” and “gender and sexuality.”  They have pandered to the politically correct, and now are embarrassed at what the politically correct have done.

The Gender and Sexuality Resource Center has already embarrassed Marquette once, with the Femsex Workshop, a program that runs roughshod over virtually every Catholic teaching about sex, in addition to having the participants do very silly things, like color pictures of female genitalia. Marquette had to cancel university sponsorship of the program.

It’s interesting that, when the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center was first established, Marquette officials were touting it as a major initiative with huge value to the institution.  Now they are saying it has been relegated to a “remote area of campus.”

Who Knew?

Literally dozens of people had to know about the mural. There were, first, all the staffers at the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center. Then there were the members of Alpha Kappa Alpha, who sponsored the project. Then there was everybody who visited the Center since the mural was installed in March. Finally, there was everybody who visited the Facebook page of the Center since March 24. And none of these people found the whole enterprise sufficiently objectionable to raise some hell.

This incident is thus a window on the culture of political correctness at Marquette.

Is Marquette Finally Going to Tell the Truth About Campus Date Rape?

Sent out last fall by Marquette: a “Teal Poster” about sexual violence.

It touts the following statistics:

Believe...
“1 in 5 women and 1 in 70 men will experience rape in their lifetime.”
(National Crime Victims Survey, 2007)
“7 out of 10 rape survivors knew their attacker.”
(National Crime Victims Survey, 2007)
“People between the ages of 18 to 24 experience the highest prevalence of stalking, sexual assault an dating violence.”
U.S. Department of Justice (Revised, 2012)
“1 in 4 Stalking victims are cyberstalked”
U.S. Bureau of Justice, 2009

What is missing? Bogus statistics about the incidence of campus date rape.

We have found that our students have been told that 20% of college women are victims of date rape. And indeed, one “training” module that was mandated for all University employees last fall used a somewhat scarier statistic, claiming that 25% of college women are victims of “some sort of sexual assault.”

Click on Image to Enlarge

We called Susannah Bartlow, director of the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center, which was responsible for the poster. We wanted to ask her whether Marquette is backing off inflated claims about date rape.  We left voice mail, but she never got back to us.

Instead, Brian Dorrington, head public relations guy at Marquette, responded.

(It’s significant that nobody in the Provost’s office will talk to us, but rather gives Dorrington the task of framing an evasive response.)

Dorrington said:

Hi John,

Susannah Bartlow shared your inquiry with me and I’m writing to provide context. This year’s sexual violence prevention poster offers new information and statistics to expand the knowledge base of our university community on this important topic. The information from both posters is accurate and includes widely accepted statistics. We have worked diligently to educate our entire campus community about preventing sexual misconduct. This includes sexual violence prevention and bystander intervention during the past four years and mandatory training for all first-year students.

Dorrington, of course, has completely and entirely avoided our query, which was whether Marquette is backing off of the bogus statistics it has been giving students.  Perhaps he did not understand our query, or perhaps he simply was unwilling to admit that Marquette is backing off something it has been (falsely) telling students.

That colleges (following feminist activists) have been trafficking in bogus, grossly inflated statistics about date rape is not new information.

The first widely noticed article questioning inflated date rape statistics appeared in 1991, written by Berkeley professor Neil Gilbert.

And of course, we have repeatedly blogged on the issue.

Why Inflate the Problem?

The chronic inflation of the problem of sexual assault on campus is the result of the confluence of two forces.

The first is feminism, which casts men as the evil oppressor class. What better metaphor for male evil than the notion that lots of men are raping women. Indeed, why not go beyond that and say that all men are responsible for the prevalence of rape, or that a “rape culture” encompasses all men?

Thus, a certain R. Clifton Spargo from the English Department, in a campus program on sexual violence. . .

. . . rejected the notion that rape is “merely aberrant, deviant behavior,” and told the male members of the audience “you are living in the rape culture.” Where? “On Campus. In the bars.”

The other force is the interests of campus bureaucrats. Hyping “sexual violence” is a justification for programs, and initiatives, workshops, and indoctrination sessions. All which have the effect of inflating the budgets and staffs of campus bureaucrats.

There are a few things that students should be told about rape. The “Teal Poster” is pretty good in this regard. Women should be told that, if a victim of rape, they should not shower, not change their clothes, but go immediately to an Emergency Room. Women should be told to be careful about ever taking a drink if it might possibly contain a date rape drug.

And women ought to be strongly encouraged to report rape. The entire student body should encourage women to report rape and support those who do. This is more likely to happen if Marquette can (honestly) tell students that reports of rape will be dealt with in a sensitive and professional manner.

But it doesn’t help when Marquette makes stupid statements about rape.

This page, for example, says that a women has not consented to sex if she is “Giving in or going along with someone to gain approval.” A lot of women have sex to gain approval. A guy who makes his “approval” continent on getting sex is not a gentleman, but he’s not a rapist either (at least if that’s all he does).

Another stupid statement coming from Marquette was in the “training” module required of all employees and faculty. It flatly asserts that rape is “not about sex, it’s about power.” If that’s true, why is it “sexual assault” rather than “power assault?”

Check on Image to Enlarge

Another stupid statement is found in the “Teal Poster.” It tells students:

Consent. If you want to have sexual contact with someone, it is your responsibility to make sure they consent...enthusiastically!

No, grudging consent will do. A guy who gets only grudging consent from his date really ought to back off. But he’s not rapist if he fails to.

Making stupid statements about rape encourages students to blow off the “training” that Marquette offers as politically correct indoctrination, rather than good advice and information.

Marquette Compromised

Then there is the fact that Marquette is badly compromised in dealing with campus rape, having covered up two serious cases of sexual assault during the 2011 school year. Both were reported by the Chicago Tribune. Here is one report. And here is the other.

Conclusion

If Marquette is backing off of bogus claims about campus date rape, good. But it would be better if the University admitted that the numbers it has been giving students are badly inflated, and that a sober view of the situation requires good data.

Gender and Sexuality Resource Center: Politically Correct to the Max

The following comes via e-mail from the College of Arts and Sciences:

The Department of Social and Cultural Sciences Colloquia Series concludes this year with the following presentation. We hope to see you all there.

Friendship, Fiction and the Dream of Disloyalty:

White Women Telling Tales of Racial Justice Collaboration

Dr. Susannah Bartlow, Director, Gender and Sexuality Resource Center, Marquette University

From Uncle Tom’s Cabin to The Help, white women have centralized their own participation in civil rights and racial justice work and characterized their roles as benevolent, transgressive, or transformative. But the narratives and experiences of women of color (particularly African American women) belie this fantasy. What stories are white women telling themselves as they create and consume this work? Reading The Help through a critical race and queer feminist lens, this paper outlines the parameters of a project on interracial collaborations in pursuit of racial justice.

Friday, 26 April 2013, 3 PM LL 272

Gosh, of course the way to interpret any text is through a critical race and queer feminist lens. And of course, any notions that any whites have about helping blacks achieve equality must be bogus. We all know that whites are evil . . . even those who thought they were helping black people.

This, of course, is from the Director of the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center — that is, the Gay, Lesbian and Any Kind of Sex That Catholic Teaching Considers Illicit Resource Center.

Yes, the same Center that sponsored the FemSex seminar, until Marquette came to its senses and cancelled the sponsorship.

The mentality that pervades the Center is typified in a course the Director, Susannah Bartlow, taught at Dickenson College before she came to Marquette. Titled “Justice,
 Ecology, 
and 
Gender,” it is described in the syllabus as follows:

Ecofeminism analyzes how the same paradigms and historical inequalities devalue and oppress both ‘women’ and ‘nature,’ leading to the oppression and denigration of both. This course is meant to open theoretical, historical, and scientific avenues into your ability to analyze and understand the ways that, in Western society, women are treated as inferior to men, ‘nature’ is treated as inferior to ‘culture’, and humans/men are understood as being separate from, and often superior to, the natural environment/women.

Through a lens which acknowledges the connections between sexism, racism, class exploitation, and environmental destruction, the class will explore and undermine many of the common conceptions which balance technology, culture, progress, innovation, and might, against the traditionally feminine circularity, connectivity, tradition, sustainability, and community innovation. As we learn to understand the misguided, anthropocentric, and engendered frameworks which have led to both personal injustice and global disasters from dangerous climate change to dangerous eye makeup, we can begin to see how solutions to environmental problems require a feminist perspective, and feminist theory and practice require an environmental perspective – in other words, how we can be warriors for the many environment(s) such as forests, waterways, communities, and our own bodies, that we care for, and do so in radically more ecological way than patriarchal norms ever have documented or allowed.

The actual content of the course is exactly what one would expect, given the description.

What topics are covered? All the ones you would expect in an uber-politically correct course. And some that seem a bit odd even to people familiar with politically correct academia:

• Toxicology in the body / nail salons / The beauty industry
• Ecofeminism and environmental justice / agrojustice issues [yes, agribusiness is evil]
• Women and Meat [Don’t you dare enjoy that hamburger!]
• Dismantling oppression: An analysis of the connection between women and animals
• Discourses of racial difference in ecofeminism [we can’t pass up an opportunity to invoke race]
• Native Peoples and the Environmental Crisis [we all know that Indians were huge environmentalists]
• Uses of the Erotic [got to work in sex here]
• Boygasms and Girlgasms [ditto]
• Why Agricultural Biotechnology Will Not Feed the World or Save the Environment [apparently feminism will]
• Toxic Tampons and Coming of Age
• Reproductive Justice [of course these folks are pro-abortion]
• Reconstructing the Hiroshima Maidens
• Climate Change & Gender Development
• Gender, Militarism, and the Environment [yes, every bad thing is connected to every other bad thing]
• Rherotic [sic], Rape, and Ecowarefare [sic] in the Persian Gulf [can’t we get another two or three bogie men in that title?]
• Sick of Man‐Made Chemicals [obviously, only the natural kind are any good]
• Ecofeminist Organizational Tools [what we really want you to do is get out and push our political agenda]

So what we have is a course that has shoehorned into it every obsession of the obsessively politically correct. The possibility of any substantive discussion is virtually zero. Any skepticism about global warming, or inconvenient facts about unsavory practices among “native peoples” or any arguments that technological advances have radically reduced hunger in the world are simply ruled out of bounds.

The requirements for the course are as vacuous as everything else about it. One is:

Reflect on your relationship to your body. How is your body both gendered and not gendered? How do you relate to your body? Is your body gendered? What are the other dualisms which dictate your fundamental associations to your body.

We’ve heard certain exercises described as “naval gazing” but never seen that concept so explicitly mandated in a college course.

Why in the world would Marquette hire a director of the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center who buys into all this? Particularly, why would they hire somebody who is pro-abortion?

The answer is simple. Marquette is radically over-bureaucratized, and university bureaucrats think like this.  Any that don’t think like this know it’s prudent to placate certain constituencies: gays and lesbians, feminists, humanities faculty, liberal media outside the university. Thus we have an institution with only a thin veneer of Catholicism. Underneath, the place is saturated with the secular ideologies that prevail in academia generally.