Marquette Bureaucrats Trash Catholic Teaching on Gender

From LifeSiteNews:

MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin, November 1, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Administrators at Marquette University have rebuked an on-campus demonstration held on Thursday opposing the Catholic university’s embrace of gender ideology.

The protesters, from the American TFP’s Student Action, who were on a tour of Wisconsin, held a 14-foot banner with the quote “God made them male and female” from Genesis 5:2. The scripture quote was followed by, “Stop the ravages of transgender ideology.”

Marquette introduced gender-neutral restrooms to accommodate “transgender” students last year. Signage was replaced, and instead of bathrooms being labeled “Men” and “Women,” they became “Bathroom A” or “B,” and “Bathroom 1” or “2.”

The TFP Student Action demonstration included flyers with information on how transgenderism is dangerous to the family, triggering some hostility and at least one faculty member who attempted to block their message.

A counter-protest by students was joined by the university provost, who said the TFP Student Action demonstration consisted of “messages of discrimination” that do not reflect “who” Marquette is.

“Messages of discrimination are completely out of alignment with who we are,” Dan Myers blogged.

Myers also demeaned the TFP Student Action demonstrators and presumed to speak for their intent, terming them “this small group” who “arrived at Marquette University with one goal in mind  —  to show their disdain for our LGBTQ community, particularly its transgender members.”

He joined the counter-protest by students, lending his signature to their banner that stated, “Transphobia, biphobia & homophobia are not Marquette values,” something he glowingly described in his blog, concluding, “I can’t express how proud I was to see our community rally together.”

Myers was not the only Marquette administrator to show disdain for TFP Student Action’s message, with Office of Institutional Diversity and Inclusion Executive Director Dr. William Welburn telling the student news service Marquette Wire, “If you’re going to come to our university, you should respect our position on human dignity and what we teach our students.”

Myers had embedded his tweet in the blog post, “All MU members are welcome, any skin color, sexuality or religion. No outside protest changes that,” linking to the Marquette University Diversity Statement. He also included a tweet from Marquette Vice President of Student Affairs Dr. Xavier Cole on the matter in his blog post. Cole also linked to the diversity statement, saying, “I support this statement as well as diversity and inclusion at Marquette.”

Marquette University did not respond to LifeSiteNews’ inquiry into how the message constituted discrimination or disrespects the university’s position on human dignity, the specifics of Marquette’s position on gender fluidity, and whether the scripture quote conflicts with any Marquette policies.

The reason they did not respond is simple: in the world of the politically correct, to refuse to affirm and pander to sexual deviation is the same as “discrimination.” If some person with a penis and Y chromosomes thinks he’s a woman, it would be actual discrimination to (say) refuse to admit him to Marquette, or withhold a scholarship, or refuse to let him participate in student government.

But in the world of the politically correct, you are required to agree that he’s a woman, reconfigure bathrooms and dorms to suit him, and tell women to junk their desire for privacy when he wants to enter the ladies’ room.

He must, like every other politically correct victim group, be pandered to.

The rhetoric about “diversity” and “inclusion” is stunningly hypocritical, since Marquette is being grossly exclusionary toward people who agree with Catholic teaching on gender.

Catholic teaching is clear enough. According to the National Catholic Reporter:

Pope Francis has strongly criticized modern theories that consider people’s gender identities to exist along a spectrum, saying such theories do not “recognize the order of creation.”

Speaking of gender theory in an interview in a new book released in Italy, the pope even compares such theories to genetic manipulation and nuclear weapons.

Gender theory is a broad term for an academic school of thought that considers how people learn to identify themselves sexually and how they may become typed into certain roles based on societal expectations.

“God has placed man and woman at the summit of creation and has entrusted them with the earth,” Francis says. “The design of the Creator is written in nature.”

According to Marquette Wire, the counter-demonstration was quickly organized by Enrique Tejada III, a staff person at the Student Affairs Intercultural Engagement office. How politically correct are the people in this office? They all list their “preferred pronouns.” While most are happy with the traditional ones (“he,” “she,” etc.) Tejada wants “(They/Them/Their(s)).”

This is yet another way in which the politically correct crowd is demanding, not the lack of discrimination, but rather oppressive impositions on the rest of society. Marquette’s English Department has already signed onto this nonsense.

The smarmy self-righteousness of people like Myers and Welburn can’t conceal the fact that they are fundamentally secular people who want Marquette to be a fundamentally secular university, with the proviso that a bit of Catholic window dressing is fine, so long as it doesn’t interfere with pandering to the secular, politically correct left.

Mark Belling: Marquette’s War on Catholicism

A commentary on some recent events at Marquette, interesting in that Belling blames (in addition to the usual suspects in the administration) (1.) the Trustees, and (2.) alumni who have accepted the transformation of the institution into a conventional politically correct place.

Guest Commentary: Concerned Catholics at Marquette Climate Study Forum

By John Hardon

Last September I was surprised but gratified to see that the Marquette Climate Survey Final Report included concerns expressed by “conservative” or traditional Catholic faculty, staff and students about the state and direction of Marquette’s Catholic identity.

Then, in November, Drs. Lovell, Myers and Welburn sent an email to all Marquette faculty, staff and students inviting us to organize forums among our like-minded colleagues. Each forum would work with the university’s Climate Study Working Group (CSWG) to define three action items they recommend Marquette administration pursue in order to improve the climate on campus. I saw a few articles in the Marquette Tribune about some of these groups (here and here) and thought we could form one for traditional Catholics. I emailed some colleagues who I knew shared my concerns, they shared it with others they knew and soon we had a large group of faculty and staff very eager to participate. We reached out to student groups as well like Students for Life, The St. Robert Bellarmine Society and the Adoration Guardians but received no response.

Dr. Welburn was very supportive of the effort, and with his help we secured a meeting date of December 2. We had about 20 faculty and staff attend the meeting which, I’m told, was one of the largest among these special-constituency climate study forums.

Our discussion was open and frank. The most urgent issue concerned academic freedom and how the articulation of Catholic teaching, inside and outside of the classroom, particularly on issues of sexuality, is increasingly met with disapproval and even hostility. Most alarming is the fact that enhanced federal Title IX guidelines put the weight of federal law behind this disapproval. As one faculty member expressed,

“I have been intimidated by an explicit campus climate and Title IX training that seems to forbid me, on pain of discipline up to and including termination, from so much as presenting the teaching of the Catholic Church and the historic Orthodox Catholic tradition.”

Student intimidation was another area we discussed. Faculty revealed that when subject matter perceived as controversial is addressed in class, students are increasingly self-censoring in order to avoid accusations of harassment and discrimination by other students, the administration and now – because of Title IX – potentially the government. Stories were shared of traditional Catholic student groups that feel the need to meet and pray in secret and students being subjected to teachers who openly mock Catholic teaching (i.e. the virginity of the Blessed Mother) in the classroom. A teacher recalled how a presentation given a few years ago by retired theology professor Dr. Pat Carey called “Is Marquette Still Catholic?” was punctuated by the comment of a student in the question and answer portion of the talk when she said, “I’m afraid to affirm my Catholicism.” Also discussed was the lack of authentically Catholic formation opportunities for students amidst a plethora of formal and informal formation opportunities in secular, non-Catholic and anti-Catholic ideologies on and off campus.

Lastly, we discussed the lack of outward signs of Catholic identity on campus and in Marquette’s marketing. It was noted that ambiguous terms like “social justice” and “Ignatian spirituality” are increasingly used in place of “Catholic” to describe Marquette’s brand of education. A participant from the college of nursing revealed that “Catholic” was stripped from that college’s dean search criteria. Many agreed the idea of “hiring for mission” seems to have been rendered meaningless and is of no real consequence. University Advancement representatives told us that more and more donors and potential donors are challenging fundraisers as to what distinguishes Marquette from secular, less expensive, colleges and universities.

After our discussion we formulated our thoughts into three action items which we submitted to the CSWG.

1. Academic freedom
   Marquette senior leadership should specifically, formally and publicly state that its commitment to the protection of academic freedom includes the articulation and promotion of Catholic doctrine (as understood by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church) by faculty, students and staff, and that such speech or action will not be subject to penalties or retribution under Title IX or any other speech and/or harassment policies of the university, formal or informal.
2. Catholic Identity
   Marquette should increase awareness of, and engagement in our Catholic tradition and identity through objective, tangible actions including:
   • Meaningful and prominent inclusion of the term “Catholic” in our branding (i.e. print materials, television and radio commercials, etc.) and strategic plan.
   • Expansion of the strategic plan to include demonstrable affirmation of and commitment to strengthening the university’s Catholic identity
   • Proactive implementation of a quantifiable process (see The Application For Ex Corde Ecclesiae for the United States, Part Two, Article 4) for “hiring for mission” that is applied to all levels of the university – from the Board of Directors to staff members.
   • A demonstrable and serious commitment to authentic Catholic identity by the Board of Trustees and university leadership
   • The implementation of a comprehensive, interdisciplinary Catholic Studies program (proposal in progress).
   • Implementation of a Catholic climate survey among faculty, students, staff, alumni and, in particular, parents.
   • An increase in physical manifestations and visibility of Catholic identity around campus:
     • Crucifixes (not just crosses) in classrooms
     • Statue of the Blessed Mother in a prominent location on campus
     • Nativity crèche in more places than just in front of Joan of Arc (i.e., inside or outside AMU)
     • Advent wreath candle lighting observance
     • Lenten observance of Stations of the Cross conducted across campus
     • Offering a weekly rosary service in Joan of Arc
     • Posting liturgical season banners in AMU public areas
     • Featuring excerpts from previous Sunday’s Gospel on closed-circuit monitors across campus
     • Better promotion of existing (and new) liturgical offerings: Rosaries, Adoration etc.
3. Student formation
   As a Catholic and Jesuit university, Marquette must at least offer to students clear and distinctly Catholic alternatives to the abundance of secular formation opportunities that are available on and off campus. Specifically we should:
   • Actively encourage and promote student groups that engage in specifically Catholic activities.
     • Students for Life
     • Bellarmine Society
     • Ignite
     • Others?
   • Make clearly available and accessible to students courses, retreats, devotions, and activities that are distinctly and authentically Catholic.

     Programs could include Theology of the Body courses or lectures; courses on Catholic Marriage, Family and Human Sexuality; starting a chapter of the Fellowship of Catholic University Students; supporting a Milwaukee chapter of Courage and Encourage (Catholic counseling for students with same sex attractions) etc.

Believing there may be others in the campus community – particularly students – who would be heartened to know such a forum took place, I contacted the Marquette Tribune and asked if they would like to write a piece about our forum as they have about others. After two attempts with no response, however, it appears they have no interest.

We sincerely hope and pray that Marquette administration will recognize the seriousness of the issues this forum has raised and take measures to address them. There are many who are ready and able to assist them in any way we can.

Marquette to Students: Rat Out “Bias Incidents”

From Marquette Wire:

“Marquette, along with a lot of colleges and universities around the country, and in particular Jesuit universities, created a bias incident reporting system as a place for students to go when they have either experienced or witnessed an act of bias on campus,” William Welburn, associate provost for diversity and inclusion, said in an email.

While the decision to implement a bias incident reporting system may have been influenced by other colleges, the initial idea and final format came from an introspective approach.

“Bias incidents have historically fallen between the cracks, especially when they don’t rise to the level of being hate crimes or blatant violations of conduct,” Welburn said. “But that doesn’t lessen the sting of aggressive or even micro-aggressive behavior toward a student because of that student’s social identity or group association.”

If a student feels victimized by a biased incident or has witnessed biased actions affecting others negatively, they have the option to fill out a bias incident report which is then sent directly to the Office of the Provost for review.

“When we get them, our interest is in support, referral or just information-gathering,” Welburn said.

So Welburn implies this is quite benign. But then the article goes on:

The system is not meant to directly handle all proceedings associated with a possible hate crime or conduct violation, but instead the Bias Incident Review Team has the ability to make appropriate referrals to other departments based upon the severity of a reported action.

Translation: if you are a Marquette student and say something that some student with a chip on his or her shoulder thinks is “biased” or a “micro-aggression” or feels “stung” by, you can be in big trouble.

Of course, on a modern university campus, comments that are merely politically incorrect are routinely condemned as racist or sexist or homophobic and punished. Statements such as “America is the land of opportunity” or “I believe the most qualified person should get the job” are condemned.  At the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, terms such as “man up” and “third world” are condemned.

At Marquette, leftist activists have labelled as “racist” a variety of comments on Yik Yak, most of which are not at all racist (Facebook login is necessary to see the page).

This, combined with the new rules about “harassment,” send a clear message to students: if you have any politically incorrect ideas, stifle. You can get in trouble if you disagree with the race and gender and gay hustlers on campus.

Marquette’s New Rules: Enabling Repression on Speech, Sexual Accusations

This is an era in which college campuses are becoming more and more repressive. First, campus speech is coming under attack, with speech codes so broad that they could be used to silence perfectly legitimate expressions of opinion. Students who express opinions that aren’t politically correct face bullying and harassment, and have to retreat to the anonymity of Yik Yak to avoid repercussions.

Secondly, a moral panic has surrounded sexual violence on campus. Males accused of sexual assault are assumed to be guilty until proven innocent (and sometimes presumed to be guilty even after being proven innocent). Bogus rape claims at places like Columbia and the University of Virginia create a huge national furor. Males accused of sexual assault are deprived of basic due process protections.

Could we expect a supposed “Catholic university” to buck these trends? If the university is Marquette, most certainly not.

At Marquette

Marquette recently released a new “Title IX Sexual Harassment, Discrimination and Sexual Misconduct Policy.” Here is the policy, as captured from Marquette’s website on this past October 15th.

A comparison of the previous policy, captured by Archive.org on September 15th shows a number of changes.

Sexual Violence

The previous policy addresses “1. Non-Consensual Sexual Intercourse (or attempts to commit)” and “2. Non-Consensual Sexual Contact (or attempts to commit).” Then the issue is: How is “consent” defined.

The policy is as follows:

Consent is the equal approval, given freely, willingly and knowingly of each participant to desired sexual involvement. Consent is an affirmative, conscious decision – indicated clearly by words or actions – to engage in mutually accepted sexual contact. A person compelled to engage in sexual contact by force, threat of force, or coercion has not consented to contact. Lack of mutual consent is the crucial factor in any sexual assault. Consent CANNOT be given if a person’s ability to resist or consent is impaired because of a mental or physical condition or is there is incapacitation due to drugs or alcohol or if there is a significant age or perceived power differential. Providing alcohol or drugs to facilitate sexual activity is a violation of this policy. Use of alcohol or other drugs will never function to excuse behavior that violates this policy.

A person may not consent if s/he is:

• unconscious
• frightened
• physically or psychologically pressured or forced
• intimidated
• impaired because of a psychological condition
• intoxicated by use of drugs or alcohol

Most of this is just fine, although we note a couple of problems. The policy seems to embrace the questionable “affirmative consent” standard, but it makes clear that “actions” an be construed to imply consent.

If a girl goes up to a guy’s apartment, takes off her clothes and gets in bed with him, that pretty clearly means “consent” even if she never says “we can have sex.”

Of course, the traditional rule was different. Consent could be implicit. A guy was allowed to try to “steal a kiss.” He could kiss a girl without asking, but was expected to move slowly enough such that she could avoid it if she wanted to. Similar rules applied to other forms of sexual contact.

The “psychologically pressured” language is equally suspect. A lot of women have been “pressured” into having sex. A guy who would pressure a woman to have sex is not a gentleman, but if he uses no force or threat of force (and she is not incapacitated) , he’s not a rapist.

In the real world of sex and dating, pretty much the same rules apply today. A woman who lets a guy kiss her (or have sex with her) is not going to run to campus authorities and accuse him of assault — usually. But if the relationship turns sour, or she finds the experience unsatisfactory and convinces herself she really didn’t want to do it, the guy could be in trouble. Something like this appears to have happened to Mattress Girl at Columbia.

The New Code

What does the new code say?

In order for individuals to engage in sexual activity of any type with each other, there must be clear, knowing and voluntary consent prior to and during sexual activity. Consent is the voluntary, clear, actively given, positive agreement between the participants to engage in a specific sexual act or activity. Previous relationships or consent does not imply consent to future sexual activity. Consent can be withdrawn at any time once given, so long as that withdrawal is clearly communicated.

What is missing? The language that says that consent can be “indicated by actions.” Thus, a girl quite voluntarily getting into bed with a guy does not meet the standard for “consent.” This opens the door for the prosecution of any guy who had sex that was consensual, but not verbally agreed to.

Harassment

We have blogged on Marquette’s absurd and repressive “harassment training” which was imposed on all employees and staff in the fall of 2014.

The previous code defined harassment first in terms of quid pro quo harassment (“you’ll get something of you submit to my advances”) and then went on to add:

. . . conduct [that] is sufficiently severe and pervasive so as to alter the conditions of, or have the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with, an individual’s academic performance or work by creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational, residential, or working environment.

That’s not very precise, but on its face it seems reasonable.

The new code deals (likewise) with quid pro quo harassment, and adds things that might also reasonably be called “harassment” such as “Epithets, slurs, negative stereotyping, or threatening, intimidating, or hostile acts.” But then it goes into dangerous territory, adding:

Placing on walls, bulletin boards, email, social networking websites, or elsewhere on the University’s premises graphic material that shows hostility or aversion to an individual or group (as listed above) because of an individual’s race, color, national origin, religion, age, disability, sex, gender identity/expression, sexual orientation, marital status, pregnancy, predisposing genetic characteristic, or military status or any other characteristics protected by this Policy and/or law, under any of the circumstances described in this section.

(“Listed above” are the same groups listed in this paragraph.)

This, obviously, includes a lot of things that would be protected by the First Amendment in a public university. But often such expressions involve legitimate discussion at any university.

Social Networking Sites

Extending the policy to social networking sites is a major expansion.  It’s one thing if somebody puts up an anti-Muslim or anti-gay poster in a workplace, where all employees are necessarily exposed to it.  But nobody has to visit Facebook or Twitter, and if they do, they get to pick whose posts they see.  This policy means that campus authoritarians can search around social networking sites looking for statements they find “offensive” and then use them to get students in trouble.  

Can one criticize Islam for its treatment of women? That shows an “aversion” to a “group” on the basis of religion. And indeed criticism of Islam (and Baltimore rioters) recently got a student at Texas Christian University suspended for his posts on Twitter and Facebook.

Suppose somebody says of black people:

Their entire culture just isn’t conducive to a life of success. It just isn’t. The outfits. The attitudes. The behavior.

This statement was on a list of posts on Yik Yak that a bunch of feminist and “civil rights” organizations believed should be punished.

 What about a statement like:

Call me a preppy white kid again and I’ll protest you black people for racial profiling.

This appeared on a list of Yik Yak posts in the wake of a demonstration by the Coalition of and for Students of Color at Marquette University blocking traffic on Wisconsin Avenue. The person who compiled the posts (Zoe Del Colle) called them “racist.” (Facebook login required to see the page.)

Thus the language Marquette has adopted could easily be used to punish students who make legitimate (but politically incorrect) comments on public issues. Sometimes groups defined by race, religion, or such can legitimately be criticized.

And one can’t imagine anybody on a college campus getting into trouble for saying that conservative Christians are “bigoted” or that whites are “blinded by their white privilege.”

When people start punishing speech, they never ever do it in a viewpoint neutral way. They only do it to shut up expression they don’t like.

Current Marquette Administration

The nature of Marquette’s current administration engenders no confidence that free expression will be respected on campus, since it is in full “pander” mode toward the student activists.

Marquette Wire, for example, reports on a demonstration on campus last Thursday in sympathy with University of Missouri demonstrators:

Those that gathered were of various races and included faculty, staff, students and Milwaukee community members. University President Michael Lovell, Provost Daniel Myers and the mother of Dontre Hamilton, an unarmed black man who was killed by a white Milwaukee Police Officer, were also in attendance.

Lovell said he went to show support for the students and community. Myers added it was a proud moment to be a part of Marquette.

In another recent meeting, administration officials seemed apologetic for painting over a mural of black militant terrorist and murderer Assata Shakur.

Provost Myers, faced with a demand that Marquette apologize for painting over the mural said:

I want to change things. I came here to change things. I am really committed to this.

Associate Provost for Diversity and Inclusion William Welburn likewise pandered. According to Marquette Wire:

“I believe very strongly that we are not going to have processes like this again, especially when it comes to issues of how this campus handles diversity and inclusion,” Welburn said. “Whatever we do moving forward, we have to think about women, women of color, African-American women specifically because of this incident. We have to think about the damage.”

Marquette’s administration seems no more willing to stand up to activist bullies than other university administrations.

It’s an open question how much of this is the result of politically correct attitudes on the part of administrators, and how much is due to a timid desire to defuse trouble coming from the activists.

Either way, Marquette is becoming a more and more oppressive place. Not only is any notion of “Catholic identity” junked when it contradicts political correctness, secular notions of free expression are pushed aside too.

The Campus “Hate Crime” that Wasn’t a Hate Crime

From Townhall.com:

On Monday, Townhall’s news editor, Katie Pavlich, went to the University of Delaware to give a speech about the Second Amendment. University of Delaware’s student group–Students for the Second Amendment–had invited Pavlich to speak about the issue, which was open to the public at the cost of three dollars. Yet, Pavlich criticized the Black Lives Matter (BLM) for their atrocious “pigs in a blanket” chant - and the overall movement - as one that promotes violence against police officers. Well, surprise; that didn’t bode over well with some folks on the left and a protest was organized during her visit to U-Del.

There was a heavy security presence at the event, and it ended without any major incidents. Yet, reports of nooses being hung in some trees on campus one day after Pavlich gave her speech got everyone freaking out about hate crimes. There was only one problem: these weren’t nooses, thus no hate crime:

University of Delaware police say what was originally believed to be “nooses” hanging from a tree on campus were actually leftover lantern decorations.

Officials say a hate crime investigation ended when it was determined the items were paper lantern decorations leftover from an event that was held on campus on September 16.

The items that were left in the tree were part of a decoration from a paper lantern that was used during an event held on The Green that was a UD-sanctioned event,” University of Delaware Police Chief Patrick Ogden said Wednesday morning.

It was determined that the paper lantern decorations were removed from the tree, but the strings were never taken down, leading to them being mistaken for nooses.

OK, so it was all over then, right?

Well . . . no.

The issue should have ended right then and there, but nope–not a chance. We need to meet and discuss this non-hate crime for reasons that escape logic. On Wednesday, the acting president of the University of Delaware, Nancy Targett, encouraged students to meet her at The Green for a dialogue about what happened.

Can we at least agree that we should be happy that these aren’t nooses? Could we come to that consensus? Of course, if such an incident had occurred, it does deserve the wrath of disgust and anger over what is a blatantly racist act. This incident didn’t carry any of that–and having some un-serious discussion about events that are the figments of some people’s imagination isn’t helping anyone, it’s enabling one’s disconnect with reality.

Campus bureaucrats can’t resist pandering to racial (and gender and sexual) grievance mongers, and it doesn’t seem to matter at all if the people claiming a grievance are entirely out to lunch.

Typically, these folks need to be scolded rather than pandered to. In this case, Targett needs to be asking “why did you say that wire hangers were nooses when they didn’t look at all like that.  What were you thinking?”

This reminds us of what Marquette diversity official William Welburn told a small group of students who objected to the removal of a mural honoring cop killer and terrorist Assata Shakur.

“I believe very strongly that we are not going to have processes like this again, especially when it comes to issues of how this campus handles diversity and inclusion,” Welburn said. “Whatever we do moving forward, we have to think about women, women of color, African-American women specifically because of this incident. We have to think about the damage.”

What Welburn should have asked the students was “Did you really think it was a good idea to honor a terrorist and a cop killer? Why in the world did you want that?”

But campus bureaucrats can’t possibly imagine that the grievance mongers might need to be confronted, challenged to defend their ideas, and learn that lots of people out in the real world don’t agree with them.

The coddling of the activists is simply a failure to educate.

Nooses? Here are the “nooses.” What sort of people could see a hate crime here?

Campus Leftists Still Whining Over Removal of Terrorist Cop Killer Mural

From the Marquette Wire, an account of a meeting between some leftist students and the new Provost, Dan Myers. A key topic was the decision of the University to paint over a mural, in the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center, honoring black militant terrorist and cop killer Assata Shakur.

Some students expressed frustration over a university decision in May to remove a mural in the GSRC that featured FBI Fugitive Assata Shakur. Formerly known as Joanne Chesimard, Shakur is on a FBI most wanted list for escaping prison and fleeing to Cuba after she was convicted of killing a New Jersey state trooper in 1973.

“It would have been nice to have some time to go and take a picture and have some dialogue before they just took it down,” said Nailah Johnson, a senior in the College of Health Sciences.

Some attendees said the decision was one of institutionalized racism. They expressed being hurt when little information or explanation was provided before and after the decision was made.

Johnson strongly and tearfully advocated for an apology from administration responsible for the decision, in addition to a space on campus to recreate what the mural symbolized. It was painted with help from Marquette’s Mu Beta chapter of the Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority and included quotes from “Assata: An Autobiography.”

In response to Johnson’s testimony, Myers said “I want to change things. I came here to change things. I am really committed to this.”

And further:

Bartlow’s former supervisor and William Welburn, associate provost for diversity and inclusion, was involved in the decision to remove her from the university.

“I believe very strongly that we are not going to have processes like this again, especially when it comes to issues of how this campus handles diversity and inclusion,” Welburn said. “Whatever we do moving forward, we have to think about women, women of color, African-American women specifically because of this incident. We have to think about the damage.”

These are bizarre responses. So not being willing to honor a terrorist cop killer is “institutionalized racism?” In what sort of alternative universe do these people live?

And how do we interpret Myers comment that “I want to change things”? Does Myers think Marquette is not politically correct enough? Or is he pandering to the campus grievance mongers?

Worse is Welburn’s comment. Does he believe that Marquette should always give “women of color” anything they want, no matter how absurd, or downright immoral?

Were the women of Alpha Kappa Alpha hurt? If we take the official statement from the national sorority seriously, they should have been embarrassed. According to a spokeswoman:

“The chapter worked with the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center to determine a theme and imagery for the mural,” the statement said. “The chapter, along with other university staff and students, painted a mural that featured an image and quote by Assata Shakur to promote student thinking about their educations and history. Unfortunately Ms. Shakur’s entire history and background was not fully researched. If that process had occurred, she would not have been featured in the mural.”

But the campus leftists don’t buy this. They keep insisting that the women of Alpha Kappa Alpha intended to honor a cop killer, and thus were “damaged” when their attempt fell through.

If this is true, they should be shamed for condoning (and celebrating) the actions of a murderer and terrorist.

But moral clarity is not something about which politically correct campus bureaucrats have any clue. Their impulse is to pander to any politically correct victim group.

But members of those groups are ill served by the pandering. When they leave the hot-house atmosphere of a college campus they (with the exception of a handful who find employment as life-long race hustlers) will find themselves in a world where leftist activism is controversial, and where being able to produce for an employer (or perhaps be an employer) pays off, and their experience whining to pandering campus officials has very limited value.

Update

A photo of the meeting from the Marquette Tribune website shows only very sparse attendance at the meeting described in this article. There is nothing wrong, of course, with Marquette officials listening to a small group of students, or even an individual student. But the “student voice” clearly has not endorsed the mural, nor objected to it being taken down.