Not All College Students are Intimidated

From the Wall Street Journal:

Not least among those welcoming the respite of Thanksgiving must be the nation’s college and university administrators. After student protests evicted Tim Wolfe as president of the University of Missouri, officials at other institutions of higher learning (if we may still call them that) were harassed by shouting or otherwise threatening students. At Princeton University, students occupied the office of the school’s president, Christopher Eisgruber, demanding that he throw Woodrow Wilson down the memory hole.

Even at the remove of several weeks, it is remarkable to recall that the disturbance at Yale University was over “offensive” Halloween costumes. But amid the protests, some important principles are now at risk, notably free speech. We asked at the time where the adults were on campus—either school presidents or boards of trustees? The answer, so far, is that most have caved like wet cardboard. The most hopeful adult response has come from 18- to 22-year olds—the students themselves.

At Claremont McKenna, where a dean was driven from office over a supposedly objectionable email, the student editors of the Claremont Independent published “We Dissent.”

The editors took themselves to task for not speaking out earlier. But no more. Their editorial ended: “We are not immoral because we don’t buy the flawed rhetoric of a spiteful movement. We are not evil because we don’t want this movement to tear across our campuses completely unchecked. We are no longer afraid to be voices of dissent.”

This political courage may be catching on. At Princeton last week, students under the banner of the Open Campus Coalition sent President Eisgruber their own strong statement of dissent. It describes a student body intimidated to silence by the likelihood of being vilified, in public or on social media. It ends: “Princeton undergraduates opposed to the curtailment of academic freedom refuse to remain silent out of fear of being slandered.” They signed their names and class years, and we hope their professors don’t dock their grades for thinking for themselves.

With campus administrators and faculty cowed by political correctness run amok, these students are shaping a movement of principled, civilized dissent. Let’s hope it grows.

So where are the dissenters on the Marquette campus? Turning Point USA has an honorable history. The College Republicans have hardly been heard from. Where are other conservative student groups?

In fact, we know the answer: campus leftists are aggressive and intolerant, and it takes a lot of guts to face them down. Most students don’t want the grief, so they speak up when anonymity is guaranteed, in such places as the Climate Survey and Yik Yak. But like most people most of the time they simply withdraw in order to avoid the bullies.

But the few who don’t count as heroes.

Marquette’s Climate Survey: Conservatives Get a Voice

We were naturally suspicious of the Marquette “Climate Survey,” since such exercises usually have a politically correct “diversity” agenda, and are designed to allow campus victim groups to air their grievances which in turn allows campus bureaucrats to expand their empires with more “diversity” initiatives.

The survey had its limitations (only about 30% of eligible students, faculty and staff participated), but the results were not as the campus race, gender and sexual orientation hustlers would have liked (although they can be expected to ignore that fact). And the analysis from Rankin and Associates was fair enough.

One politically incorrect finding was that there is considerable unhappiness among conservative and Catholic members of the Marquette community with the secular, liberal and often intolerant climate on campus.

To quote a few of the findings:

Pg. 86: “Many respondents cited their Catholic or conservative values being marginalized, saying ‘Conservative Catholic views on the expression of human sexuality are not respected – not even room for dialogue.’ And that ‘There is an ongoing sense of disrespect, anger and assumptions related to the Catholic identity of our university.’”

Pg. 135: “Fifty-four respondents discussed Catholic and conservative views when discussing unfair or unjust employment-related discipline or action. Several discussed John McAdams’ suspension and dismissal, noting that ‘His only crime, sin, whatever you want to call it was telling the truth’ and that ‘A professor was fired for being critical of the University.’ People believed that ‘It seems MU protects liberal views (they can say and do anything) more than conservative ones (they will get fired if they speak out)’ and ‘If you are a conservative, you are not welcome at MU.’”

Pg. 294: “However, numerous other respondents noted that ‘this university has become Catholic and Jesuit in its name alone.’ And ‘ I don’t want to see . . . the Catholic and Jesuit tradition watered down or discounted in an effort to make others feel welcome.’ One such respondent wrote ‘Stop having Catholic students feel condemned for their CATHOLIC BELIEFS,’ and another noted that ‘As someone strong in my Catholic faith, I have been very disappointed with how little influence the Catholic Church seems to have here.’ The general sentiment from these respondents was that ‘MU has divorced the idea of social justice from Catholicism and, as a result, has embraced radical ideas … The Jesuit tradition has been secularized and that is a shame.’”

One section of the survey ask respondents whether they “personally had experienced exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct” and if so on what basis. The report notes that:

19% (n = 791) of respondents indicated that they personally had experienced [such conduct]. Of those respondents who reported having experienced such conduct, 22% (n = 171) indicated that the conduct was based on their gender/gender identity, 19% (n = 146) on their racial identity, 18% (n = 142) on their position, and 17% (n = 138) on their political views; 15% each felt that it was based on their age (n = 119) and on their religious/spiritual views (n = 116). (pp. viii-ix)

It seems that relatively few members of the Marquette community (about one fifth) had experienced any such conduct, and no particular group was the target. It is impossible to tell, from the published tabulations, what percentage of those who experienced exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct because of their political views were conservative, or what percentage experiencing such conduct because of their religious views were orthodox Catholic or evangelical Protestants. But terms like “many” and “numerous” clearly imply a substantial number of people.

What the survey appears to have done is to give “voice” to the voiceless, allowing students who don’t rant about “white privilege” or demonstrate blocking traffic on Wisconsin Avenue to register their views. The same goes for faculty and staff who didn’t complain when a mural of murderer and terrorist Assata Shakur was painted over.

Unfortunately, these are not the voices Marquette wants to hear, and therefore they will likely be ignored.

Marquette Climate Survey: Debunking Bogus Sexual Assault Hype

It’s just out (in the form of an Executive Summary): Marquette’s much touted “Climate Survey.” Given that it was mounted by an LGBT activist, we expected it to be rather politically correct, and claim that the climate on the Marquette campus is really horrid for each and every politically correct victim group.

But it didn’t turn out that way.

Which is not to say that we don’t have some quibbles with parts of it, for example the low participation rate (only 31% for undergraduate students) and the fact that the report sometimes offers generalizations based on very few respondents.

One key part involves the issue of “sexual violence” on campus. An outright hysteria has surrounded this issue during the last few years, fueled by feminist activists, a mainstream media that is both liberal and ignorant of social science, and the Obama Administration. Vastly, absurdly inflated figures about the number of college women who have been victimized have been uncritically accepted.

The report starts out citing a bogus White House document:

In 2014, Not Alone: The First Report of the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault indicated that sexual assault is a significant issue for colleges and universities nationwide, affecting the physical health, mental health, and academic success of students. The report highlights that one in five women is sexually assaulted while in college. One section of the Marquette University survey requested information regarding sexual assault.

But it then goes on to note:

4% (n = 186) of respondents indicated that they had experienced unwanted sexual contact while at Marquette University.

Of course, for the demographic to whom this is stereotypically applicable, the incidence is a bit higher:

A higher percentage of Women respondents (6%, n = 164) than Men respondents (1%, n = 19) reported having experienced unwanted sexual contact.

This, of course, is radically below the “one in five” figure widely touted. Further, “unwanted sexual contact” is a broad category including a lot of things far short of forcible rape.

Oddly, the report doesn’t reveal what percentage of women who experienced unwanted sexual contact reported it to authorities or university officials. But it does reveal:

Respondents were offered the opportunity to elaborate on why they did not report unwanted sexual contact. Sixty-eight respondents provided written responses. Common themes included: (1) Not that serious, 60 respondents indicated that they did not report the unwanted sexual contact because for them it was not that serious.

There are a lot of things a guy could do that are “out of bounds,” but it’s hard to believe that actual rape would not be considered “serious.” And remember, this is 60 out of 68 women who volunteered a reason for not reporting to authorities.  It’s not 60 out of a larger number who failed to report the incident to authorities.

Universities (and the media, and the Obama Administration) need to quit lying about the incidence of campus sexual violence. Social Justice Warriors who pride themselves on being opposed to sexual violence and use bogus statistics to bolster their case deserve to lose credibility as the truth slowly seeps into public consciousness. The implosion of the University of Virginia tall tale of “Jackie,” and the exposure of “Mattress Girl” at Columbia, have put the sexual violence hustlers on the defensive. That’s a good thing.

Marquette Students Ignoring Climate Survey

An e-mail from Kimberly A. Newman, Executive Administrative Assistant in the Provost’s office:

The Climate Study Working Group seeks your help in getting more students to complete the Marquette University Climate Survey. As of today less than 10% of our undergraduate and graduate students have taken the time to complete the survey, falling short of what we need to get the pulse of students’ experiences and observations of life at Marquette. And with a new President and Provost, what information students provide will go far in setting priorities for the future of Marquette.

Faculty are then asked to encourage students to take the survey. Students should be assured, for example, that even if they are Freshmen and relatively new to campus their input is wanted. The survey only takes a few minutes. And further, students should be told “That by ‘climate’ survey, we are asking about what they’ve experienced and observed at Marquette and not their opinions about the weather.”

Good to get that cleared up.

Of course, if students were paying any attention, they would notice some questionable things about the enterprise. For example, Newman assures people:

All responses are anonymous. There will never be an analysis of the findings that might identify any individual who completes the survey, and safeguards have been taken to assure both confidentiality of information and anonymity of responses.

But then you have this:

Why do some demographic questions contain a large number of response options?

It is important in campus climate research for survey participants to “see” themselves in response choices to prevent “othering” an individual or an individual’s characteristics. Some researchers maintain that assigning someone to the status of “other” is a form of marginalization and should be minimized, particularly in a campus climate research that has an intended purpose of inclusiveness. Along these lines, survey respondents will see a long list of possible choices for many demographic questions. It is impossible reasonably to include every possible choice to every question, but the goal is to reduce the number of respondents who must choose “other.”

So students who are asexual or of Croatian ancestry might get alienated if they don’t see that choice in the response categories offered.

But then you have this:

How is a respondent’s confidentiality protected?

Confidentiality is vital to the success of campus climate research, particularly because sensitive and personal topics are discussed. Though the survey can’t guarantee complete anonymity because of the nature of multiple demographic questions, the consultant will take multiple precautionary measures to ensure individual confidentiality and the deidentification of data. No data already protected through regulation or policy (e.g., Social Security Number, campus identification number, medical information) is obtained through the survey….

That’s very reassuring.

But the fundamental problem with the survey is that we know perfectly well how it will turn out. The outside consultant who is doing it (one Dr. Susan Rankin) is in the business of making surveys turn out the way campus administrators want them to.

First, it will not be determined that the “campus climate” sucks for everybody. That would be bad publicity for Marquette. But it will be determined that there are “problems,” almost certainly problems for some politically correct group. It’s completely inconceivable that (say) devout Catholics will be found to face a “hostile climate” as their views are demeaned, or that males will be found to chafe under anti-male sexism from feminists.

These “problems” will need to be “addressed” by more programs, more mandatory “training,” and more “initiatives.” All of which will justify the budgets and staffing of various bureaucracies at Marquette.

The game is pretty transparent.  Except to administrators at Marquette, who probably believe their own rhetoric.

[Update]

From a comment, information on the firm that is doing the survey. Is there any doubt that the “fix is in” as to how this survey will turn out?

Marquette’s Sex Obsessed Climate Survey

Everybody at Marquette is encouraged to complete a “climate survey.”  At the beginning of the survey is a list of definitions of terms used in the survey.

Most of the definitions are sensible enough.   For example: “Disability: A physical or mental impairment that limits one or more major life activities.”

But where sex is concerned, the list goes wild and defines all of the following:

• Asexual: A person who does not experience sexual attraction. Unlike celibacy, which people choose, asexuality is an intrinsic part of an individual.
• Assigned Birth Sex: Refers to the assigning (naming) of the biological sex of a baby at birth.
• Gender Identity: A person’s inner sense of being man, woman, both or neither. The internal identity may or may not be expressed outwardly and may or may not correspond to one’s physical characteristics.
• Gender Expression: The manner in which a person outwardly represents gender, regardless of the physical characteristics that might typically define the individual as male or female.
• Intersex: A general term used for a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male.
• Pansexual: A person who is fluid in sexual orientation and/or gender or sex identity.
• Queer: An umbrella term for LGBT people that advocates breaking binary thinking and seeing both sexual orientation and gender identity as potentially fluid.
• Sexual Identity: Term that refers to the sex of the people one tends to be emotionally, physically and sexually attracted to; this is inclusive of, but not limited to, lesbians, gay men, bisexual people, heterosexual people and those who identify as queer.
• Transgender: An umbrella term referring to those whose gender identity or gender expression (previously defined) is different from that traditionally associated with their sex assigned at birth (previously defined)].

This seems a bit silly, and for the most part, that’s what it is.

But it does reflect the obsession of the politically correct, especially among college bureaucrats, who slice and dice the population into the most narrow groups possible. Each group, of course, is supposed to have a list of grievances, and each group needs a bureaucrat in the Provost’s office or Student Affairs to cater to their grievances.

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

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

But first, some boring introductory things.

May 12, 2014

Dear colleagues:

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

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

But then we get to the politically correct stuff:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marquette blessings,

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

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

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

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

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