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?

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’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.

Student Rejects Marquette Because of Politically Incorrect Intolerance

Via e-mail:

Professor McAdams,

My son was offered admission to Marquette. It had been his first choice, in part because of my family’s roots in Wisconsin, but in part because of the idea of a Jesuit education being academically rigorous, service oriented, and values oriented. He is neither Catholic nor particularly conservative, but he does hold a number of libertarian leaning views. After reading about your treatment, and the vilification of “incorrect” views, he has decided to attend a different university in another state. He was afraid that, if he went to Marquette, he might be ostracized, or even punished, for speaking his mind. He was horrified about your situation and frankly did not believe me at first. He had other wonderful choices, so we leave Marquette in the the rear view mirror.

Best of luck to you, [Name Redacted]

P.S. Although my email reflects my actual name, I would prefer that you not publish my name. I live and work in an environment that is even less forgiving than yours and would like to keep working so we can get this young man through college with no debt.

We doubt that Marquette minds losing a student who might make trouble by voicing politically incorrect views.

But did he make the right choice?

Student Body

The Marquette student body is not particularly leftist, intolerant and politically correct. In the 2014 Wisconsin Governor’s election, the Marquette Tribune claimed “Marquette polling locations solidly support Mary Burke.” In fact, those “Marquette polling locations” included wards that voted at the Marquette Union and the Public Library, and those wards contain a lot of voters who are not Marquette students. Indeed, they include a lot of black voters. Burke won those wards over Scott Walker by 58 to 42 percent, and thus it’s not clear that even a bare majority of Marquette students voted for liberal Democrat Burke, and obvious that no lopsided majority did.

Of course, the leftist students sometimes make a lot of noise, as they did during a “diversity” protest a few days ago. But, depending on who a student hangs around with, the culture is not oppressively leftist.

Faculty

Marquette faculty, like professors at most schools, lean left. Very few these days are Catholic, and those are likely to be liberal Catholics. As with faculty elsewhere, tolerant liberals are fewer and fewer, and intolerant politically correct leftists are more and more common. But they are distributed unequally across the departments. The humanities are particularly politically correct, and often quite intolerant, with faculty sometimes willing to shut up and demean students with conservative views. Sociology, and the schools of Communications and Education are similar. Students majoring in other fields will find a more tolerant environment, with the proviso that they will be required to take some humanities courses, and a “diversity” course. Most of these latter are politically correct victim studies, although a student picking carefully can find, on the list, some legitimate offerings.

Arts and Science Dean Rick Holz, in order to improve the competitive position of the Arts and Science College relative to other schools and colleges, has substantially watered down the College curriculum. In principle Holz is selling out the entire notion of a liberal arts education. But in practice, it will free students from some of the oppressive political correctness of Marquette’s humanities departments.

The Administration

Here is the best reason to avoid Marquette. Institutions become stupid as they become bureaucratized, because as they become more bureaucratized administrators talk more and more to each other, and less and less to people outside their narrow circle. Marquette has become massively bureaucratized. The university’s attempt to fire this blogger has been the epitome of institutional stupidity, but it goes far deeper than that.

As a typically over-bureaucratized university, Marquette has been unwilling to oppose any fashionable initiative found in higher education. Marquette imposed on all employees a “training module” that basically said “shut up” about anything that any excessively sensitive and intolerant person might object to. It has consistently catered to the demands of the campus gay lobby, including mounting a “climate survey” contracted out to an LGBT activist.

Is Marquette worse than other institutions? That depends on the institution, but Marquette claims to provide an “academically rigorous, service oriented, and values oriented” education and to serve a “Catholic mission.” It is difficult to see how this can be so if the university seeks to silence disfavored views and to ostracize what are still orthodox Catholic positions.

No student should come to Marquette thinking that the institution is anything more than a standard, secular, politically correct generic university.

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.

Intolerant “Inclusion” at Marquette

From Marquette Wire, an anonymous faculty member writes about how “inclusion” has become a slogan for intolerance on campus. One key paragraph:

Welcome to the world of the politically correct. When calls for inclusivity and diversity demand a form of submission, silence and/or repression, we have done a disservice to our community. In the real world people disagree, sometimes on important matters, sometimes on very personal matters with very civil implications, e.g. gay marriage and gender issues. Suggesting that repression of discussion of such matters will advance any real diversity and true toleration is both misguided and offensive. It does not teach our students how to navigate such difficulties in life and society, but only how to compartmentalize them. It does not teach them how to think, or to debate and disagree constructively, but only to accept what they are told – indoctrination rather than education. We are losing our ability as a society to engage in real conversation and to live with and manage conflict. And Marquette University is encouraging rather than remedying that development.

And then summarizing:

The inclusivity agenda does not encourage diversity. It is rather an imposed uniformity that chooses which views to silence and which views to embrace. It is also at fundamental odds with the notion of the liberal arts university, and special interests have driven their agenda so far in this regard that some now even argue to change the first amendment. I urge administration and our community as a whole to reconsider our understanding of terms like inclusivity and diversity, and take more caution in how they hope to encourage them. Let us recall what toleration truly means.

Why is this published anonymously?

I am not some kind of rabble-rouser; I generally steer clear of debates such as these. Yet these developments disturb me greatly, as they do many others on campus. But to question this agenda openly is literally to risk one’s career (hence the anonymity of this letter).

That’s right. This professor fears his or her career will be jeopardized. Are we talking tenure, promotion, emeritus status, salary, grants, teaching load? Probably any and all of the above, depending on this person’s situation.

This came to our attention just a few minutes after answering another e-mail from a faculty member, who explained why he or she was fearful about speaking out on our behalf concerning Marquette’s attempt to fire us.

And in fact, in Marquette’s Climate Survey, where respondents were protected by anonymity, “many” and “numerous” people (using the terms in the published report on the survey) objected to leftist intolerance on campus, and particularly our treatment by the University.

In contrast, faculty who want us fired have been quite willing to speak out publicly.

In short, the climate on campus is one of politically correct bullying. In this context, faculty who have spoken out on our behalf (Tom Jeffers and Dan Maguire), and students like Caroline Comstock and Kevin Selwa (who have done likewise), are to be commended.  As is the student group Turning Point USA.

These folks have been quite brave. But you should not have to be brave on a university campus to speak out. But at Marquette, the politically correct bullies dominate the discourse.

And who are the biggest bullies? The Marquette Administration.

Concerned Catholics of Marquette Faculty and Staff Speak

We recently published a commentary on a meeting that a group of “concerned Catholics” with members of the Marquette administration. Several serious complaints were expressed about freedom of expression at Marquette, and especially the freedom to express Catholic viewpoints.

It was an insightful commentary, but we are now posting the minutes of the meeting, which give the full tenor of the meeting.

We are redacting a fair amount of material that might serve the identify the individuals involved. Many of the participants would not want to be identified — itself a sad commentary on the state of free expression at Marquette.

---

Concerned Catholics at Marquette University
Inaugural Meeting 12-2-15
Minutes

• 20 or so in attendance. Many faculty ([...]), the rest were staff ([...]). No students, though invitation was extended to Students for Life, Bellarmine Society and Adoration Guardians.
• Cheryl Maranto and Alix Riley facilitating
  • “Dr. Lovell wants this survey to have impact. He doesn’t want to “put it on a shelf.”
• One of the attendees asked why the adjective “Conservative” was applied to the group in the invitation to the forum.
  • [...] explained how this was the language that appeared in the Climate Survey Final Report, particularly in excerpts from pages 86 and 135.
  • The group agreed that the term “conservative” was marginalizing and that simply “Catholic” or “Concerned Catholics” would be a more accurate and effective descriptor.
• Instead of breaking up into small groups, the forum opted to work together as a single group.
• It was noted that we had all just received another reminder re: mandatory Title IX training. An attending [...] professor said the Title IX mandate is “very dangerous”.
  • He cited an instance where a fellow MU theo professor was accused of harassment for presenting basic Catholic teaching on sexuality.
  • The LGBTQ agenda is fundamentally against the Catholic faith, yet we are not allowed to challenge for fear of retribution.
  • Those who hold traditional Catholic values are not free to speak up.
• Another professor of [...] noted that there is actual persecution going on in that faculty who stand up for Catholic teaching are marginalized and have measures taken against them – denial of promotion etc.
• A professor from the [...] noted that the anthropology of the survey itself was not in line with Catholic teaching (offering numerous gender options).
  • Also – only 31% participated.
• A fundraiser from [...] noted that many alumni tell [...] of their disappointment and disenchantment with Marquette because of its departure from its Catholic identity.
  • An Alumni “Climate” Survey was discussed. Not feasible at this point, but a good idea for the future.
• Another [...] professor said that the persecution experienced by those who stand up for Catholic doctrine and values is not organized, but it is clear that you are putting yourself at risk (“As we all saw in our own department.”)
  • How can a theology professor not talk about the Church’s teaching on human sexuality? But, under Title IX, any student who claims to take offense at what is heard in the classroom can anonymously report the professor and cause him or her a world of problems. “This is hugely intimidating.”
  • Few, if any, feel free to discuss Catholic teaching on marriage.
  • Another [...] professor said he does – and so far with no negative consequence – but he said he has not yet tried for a promotion.
• A professor said he had heard that faculty and administrators at other colleges and universities were protesting Title IX on the basis that it restricts academic freedom.
  • “Where is the backbone of Marquette administration in protesting Title IX mandates which necessarily restrict the free exchange of ideas, particularly in theology and philosophy – the very core of Catholic, Jesuit education?”
  • It is impossible for a professor who has taken the Mandatum to not represent Catholic teaching. But in so doing, he or she will inevitably violate Title IX policies as they now exist sooner or later.
• A [...] representative noted that CheckMarq now has five or six gender categories. How is this representative of Catholic teaching (at a Catholic university)?
• A [...] representative asked, “Are we Catholic or are we not? And if we are, what does that mean?”
  • Little “c” catholic means universal. Big “C” Catholic means the Church and Her teachings.
  • Being at Marquette (as faculty, staff, student) means respecting the university’s tradition and the faith it was founded upon.
• Another [...] representative added that, as it currently conducts itself, Marquette is almost indistinguishable from secular schools.
• A [...] professor quoted his dean saying “Catholic means whatever you want it to mean.”
• Another [...] professor said that what we’re witnessing is the confluence of a number of university decisions/policies/concessions that – over time -- have had the cumulative effect of diminishing or negating Marquette’s Catholic identity and intellectual quality.
  • “Suddenly you wake up one day and you can’t do what you’re supposed to do” (i.e. educate students in the Catholic tradition).
  • Administration needs to understand that there are unintended consequences resulting from their decisions/policies/concessions to secular demands.
  • “We always do what everyone else is doing.” Why? Why not be Catholic?
• Another [...] professor said “If Marquette were really Catholic, we would be diverse” (i.e. a distinguished and alternative voice in the increasingly homogeneous ideological ethos of higher education).
• A [...] professor noted that complaints from students or others about being exposed to basic legitimate Catholic teachings ought to be dismissed on the face of it. Someone may not like it and no one is being forced to believe in it, but the teaching is what it is.
• A [...] professor asked the UA representatives if they are questioned as to why someone should pay more money for a Catholic education that isn’t in anyway identifiably Catholic.
  • [...] said – yes – more and more that conversation is occurring.
• Another [...] noted that in Marquette’s strategic plan, and in a recent high level discussion about it, there was barely any mention of “Catholic.” Where it is mentioned it is shallow and gratuitous.
• Another [...] said that we also need to protect students – there are few if any clear and authentically Catholic experiences available to them.
  • Campus Ministry is a grave disappointment
• A [...] professor noted that he discovered a group of serious Catholic students who were meeting in secret. When he encouraged them to make themselves known and grow their membership, they stopped communicating with him.
  • Catholic students are scared.
  • A [...] reported of a student who told him of a professor who has made slurs against the Church e.g. mocking the idea of Mary’s virginity etc. in class.
• Many agreed that Campus Ministry contributes to the diminishment of Catholic identity
  • A [...] professor related an incident wherein he and his colleagues were informed that Campus Ministry had declared, “The real problem with making progress at Marquette is the Theology Department” and that, consequently, focus groups would be conducted to assess the perception of the Theo department across campus. The dept. staff were told (by the Dept. Chair) that they would be informed of the outcome of the study. They never were.
• Another [...] professor acknowledged that the Theology Department fell into intense disfavor after the Jodi O’Brien incident as a number of theology profs were critical of her being hired and supported her offer being rescinded. “Other departments hate the Theology Department because of this.”
• [...] professor: “I’m concerned about not being allowed to be a scholar. I can’t say the truth. I am not allowed to say what Catholics believe, even if I was an atheist, I could not communicate what Catholic doctrine” as a result of anti-Catholic/Title IX environment at MU.
  • “Basically now we have the students teaching us.” Students call the shots as to what can and cannot be discussed in class.
  • If we were to take Title IX literally, we would say that the Theo Department suffers from a majority of individuals who self-identify as male and thus lacks diversity. “We need to address this rampant self-definition as male problem.”
  • University needs to decide – is diversity a serious issue or is it a matter of self-definition? If a number of male faculty decide to self-identify as female, is the problem of a majority male staff solved? This is the absurdity we are entering into and encouraging.
• [...] has opposite issue. [example of anti-male discrimination redacted]
  • There are very few males on CON faculty.
  • “Catholic” was removed from the dean search criteria
  • “Catholic” was very nearly removed from CON mission statement (per faculty who wanted it removed.)
• A [...] representative noted that “Catholic” is largely missing from our advertising and marketing branding.
  • “Social Justice” has replaced “Catholic” Social Justice is a vague term that is often applied to definitively anti-Catholic practices e.g. “Reproductive Rights”
• [...] continued – there is no plan for how we are going to be a Catholic Jesuit institution for the future.
  • Do we want to be a Catholic university or not?
• [...] professor said he had cause to address embryonic stem cell research in a lecture.
  • He explicitly told students it was wrong, unnecessary and that they shouldn’t participate in it in their future work.
  • He quickly received an email from Academic Affairs asking, “What did you say???” Evidently there was a strong complaint, maybe more.
  • Prof addressed directly in class saying “This is what the Catholic teaching is and what I advocate. If you don’t like it, go take a different course.”
  • His point was that faculty need to be bold and not afraid to teach Catholic doctrine and in accordance with Catholic doctrine.
• A [...] professor recounted a moment from Dr. Pat Carey’s “Is MU Still Catholic” talk a few years ago.
  • An undergraduate student stood up and said, “I’m afraid to affirm my Catholicism.”
• Students are laboring under a heavier burden than faculty.
  • Students don’t speak up in class. They are policing each other and censoring themselves.
  • There is a climate of repression, not of learning.
  • No one is insisting that anyone believe this or that, but we all must be able to speak freely.
• A staff member from [...] said that real diversity should include respect for Catholic views.
• A [...] representative wondered if we should consider proposing MU remove “Catholic” from its name
  • Misrepresenting the faith to an uncatechized world does untold damage to souls, hearts and minds. Better not to claim to be Catholic than to overtly misrepresent it.
• [...] prof insisted that senior leadership recognizes that Catholic identity is essential to Marquette’s survival.
  • Another agreed and said that he strongly believes President Lovell is trying to make Marquette Catholic again.
  • We (this group) need to support him in this. All agreed.
  • The student group IGNITE was mentioned – trying to restore Catholicism among students. We need to support them and other such student groups as well.
• A [...] professor who has served on the Faculty Hearing Committee and is also an MU Parent said he is very concerned about the state of our core curriculum.
  • “You have to be very careful with theology and philosophy, what’s happening in some of these classes (regarding Catholic identity) is a crime.”
  • Core classes need special scrutiny.
  • He has tried to steer his kids to best teachers etc.
  • Mention was made of Notre Dame’s Fr. Miscamble’s attempt to formalize such a selection process at ND (http://www.ndcatholic.com/) and that he was shut down in the attempt.
• A [...] prof added that Title IX brings all this into focus – “It is ideologically fascist.”
  • A [...] prof added that Title IX represents the imposition of a value system, a creed upon Marquette (all universities).
  • Students and faculty are self-silencing.
• Concept of hiring for mission has completely disappeared.
  • If MU tried this now, they might find an expanded talent pool
  • Some departments adamantly refuse to hire for mission. This needs to be addressed by administration.
  • Hiring for mission can just be words. Just say “social justice” and you’re in.
  • Admitting to devout Catholicism has and can backfire on candidates.
• [...] prof asked [...] reps – Do you seek funds for Catholic aspects of the university?
  • [...] rep said we do: monstrance for adoration, March for Life … but there aren’t many opportunities
  • Office of Mission and Ministry/ Campus Ministry are in some disarray, hard to identify funding priorities
• [...] prof mentioned that a proposal is in the works for a Catholic Studies program
  • Similar to St. Thomas and others, but more inter-disciplinary/comprehensive.
  • This could be a fundraising priority and an item in the MU strategic plan
• Another professor emphasized that it’s very important we not accept the notion of a dichotomy between Catholicism and diversity.
  • Catholicism truly embraces all.
  • MU’s challenge is in balancing its commitment to Catholic identity and embracing all
  • Another theo professor added, “The Catholic Church is the most inclusive organization in the world.”
• A professor asked if there wasn’t a class action lawsuit or some legal action being taken by colleges and universities against restrictions of Title IX – which is harmful to secular institutions as well.
  • Can MU administration take some kind of stand at all?
  • Can MU Legal look into how faculty, students and staff can be protected from Title IX consequences merely for articulating Catholic doctrine?

PROPOSED ACTION ITEMS:

• Commitment to academic freedom for Catholic scholars – protection & articulation - for staff and students too. 11 voted this most important, 1 important, 1 less important
• Hiring for mission – proactive from the top thru to departments. Need clarity 8 voted this important, 1 less important
• Need to include Catholic in our branding and strategic plan. 2 voted this most important, 5 less important
• Have General Counsel determine options to challenge Title IX mandates. 1 voted most important, 1 important, 3 less important
• Board of Trustees needs to show commitment to Catholic identity. 1 voted this important, 2 less important
• Start Catholic Studies program (interdisciplinary). 1 voted this important, 2 less important
• Administration should actively protect Catholic faculty, staff and students. When there’s a complaint, don’t presume guilt. 1 voted this most important, 2 important
• Encourage student Catholic organizations. 1 voted this important 1 less important
• Avoid dichotomizing Catholic and diversity.
• Serious promotion and implementation of Ex Corde Ecclesiae
• Increase physical manifestations/visibility of Catholic faith around campus – Crucifixes (not just crosses), statues of Mary, better promotion of liturgical events, Rosaries, Adoration etc.
• Avoid scrutiny/risk of persecution for articulating traditional Catholic teachings – in classrooms and elsewhere.
• Affirm that people can say that they accept and even like that Marquette is a Catholic institution.
• What happened to focus group re: Theology Department by campus ministry?
• Need physical manifestations of Catholic faith – Crucifix (not just cross)/Statue of Mary.
• Affirm Catholic identity.
• Campus Ministry needs a “Catholic tract” programming for Catholic students, in addition to other faiths.
• Encourage Catholic Student Organizations in and outside of Campus Ministry

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.

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.

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.

Yet Another Faked “Racist” Incident on a College Campus

It has happened with some regularity: some “racist” incident on a college campus that was actually faked by leftist “diversity” activists in an attempt to goad the institution into pushing a leftist agenda. This one, a few months ago, was at the University of Chicago.

As described by The College Fix:

University of Chicago plays down the lie that provoked a federal investigation

A University of Chicago student who claimed his Facebook page was hacked and filled with racist and violent messages against him and another student has now admitted he faked the attack.

Intended to shame the school into making drastic changes around race and speech on campus, the hoax appears to have worked.

The students behind the ruse, the hoodwinked university and the school newspaper have argued that the hoax – which provoked a federal investigation – should not detract from fixing the school’s “culture of racial intolerance,” in the words of a petition demanding policy changes.

Anatomy of a Hoax

The hoax was the culmination of a long list of racial grievances leveled by the perpetrator, Derek Caquelin, and his friend and fellow activist Vincente Perez.

Indeed, before Caquelin admitted they made the whole thing up, Perez told The College Fix not to ask for more details on the racist Halloween incidents they alleged and instead focus on the hostile “culture” of the university.

The hoax started with an allegation against a shadowy hacker group that calls itself the UChicago Electronic Army, which has feuded with activists who circulated a list of men they claim were sexual threats on campus.

As reported by Chicago area media including Red Eye Chicago, Caquelin’s Facebook page was allegedly hacked by the group Nov. 18.

Caquelin initially said the hacked Facebook status was in retaliation for his online complaints about Halloween costumes depicting Mexican criminals and a corresponding push by Caquelin and Perez to address the concerns of minority students. The Facebook status also said Perez would be the next target.

The petition, co-written by Perez, called for the university to create a “campus climate survey” and “mandatory cross-cultural competency program,” as well as “clearly” lay out its responses to “racially insensitive actions,” incorporate racial and ethnic studies in the Core Curriculum and diversity the faculty, according to the Chicago Maroon.

The Fix could not reach Caquelin for comment.

In a hostile email exchange with The Fix days before Caquelin confessed to the hoax, Perez said: “Please do NOT try to focus on the individual students their identities and their costumes. This movement is about revealing the entire culture of intolerance at the University.”

Despite complaining about racist costumes in multiple Facebook posts and possessing a photo of the students who wore them, Perez said the issue was “not about the students who wore the costume, or the hacking, but about the culture that exists at UChicago where Admin does not address students concern for their safety adequately and promptly.”

Perez declined to refer Caquelin to The Fix for more details, saying it was a “disservice” to the activists “fighting for this culture to be challenged.”

Perez nonetheless shared the widespread media coverage frequently on his Facebook page in a bid to get visitors to sign his petition to the university.

Shortly after receiving a followup email from The Fix, Perez posted a screenshot of his response and claimed he was “exhausted” from responding to media inquiries: “This burden is unfair.”

Muted response to a hoax revealed

Campus leaders, even while acknowledging the hoax and the federal resources expended to investigate a fake threat, couldn’t bring themselves to call for any punishments against the students who cried wolf.

Instead, they endorsed the political agenda behind the hoax.

The university, which said Nov. 20 that the “hateful and anonymous Facebook posts” were part of a “larger pattern,” issued a weak retraction four days later.

“Based on our ongoing investigation we now are confident that the Facebook posting was not created by a hacker,” Karen Coleman, vice president for campus life and student services, told the community Nov. 24.

“That conclusion does not erase the seriousness of this episode, the harm it has caused to individuals and our broader community, or the consequences for those responsible,” Coleman said. “Whatever its purpose, the language used in this incident does not constitute discourse and will not be tolerated.”

Coleman said the school would host “special sessions” for students, faculty and staff who wanted to talk about the incidents and “get support.”

In a Facebook post the same day, Caquelin confessed to the hoax.

“Do not defend my name. I am behind this, and only I,” Caquelin wrote. “No others were involved, so I really would like to ask you to leave them alone. There is no excuse for hate, which includes what I did.”

The editorial board of The Chicago Maroon wrote Nov. 25: “The sentiments that existed before the Facebook post still ring true, and should be treated accordingly. The conversations surrounding diversity and inclusion on campus must continue in light of recent developments.”

The revealing of the hoax “should not de-legitimize the issues of racism that have been raised, or mitigate the seriousness with which they should be addressed,” the editorial said.

In fact, incidents like this should de-legitimize the “issues of racism” that have been raised by leftist activists.

If the evidence of racism is bogus, and the people pushing the cause are dishonest, rewarding these people by pandering to them is grossly irresponsible.

And the charade is made worse in that genuine racism is extremely rare among college students today, whether at Chicago or Marquette. So the activists have to find “racism” in the mere expression of politically incorrect opinions, or the lack of “sensitivity” to the overwrought sensibilities of the perpetually aggrieved or some “microaggression” real or imagined.

But college administrations, who lack the courage to tell the politically correct activists they are being silly, and who indeed welcome an excuse for more bureaucratic initiatives, are easy prey for the race (and gender and sexual orientation) hustlers.

Diversity Ingrates

From Inside Higher Ed:

. . . an article on a book titled Exposing the “Culture of Arrogance” in the Academy: A Blueprint for Increasing Black Faculty Satisfaction in Higher Education.

The book is based on surveys of and interviews with black faculty members and the experiences of the two authors: Gail L. Thompson, an associate professor of education at Claremont Graduate University, and Angela C. Louque, a professor of education at California State University at San Bernardino.

Inside Higher Ed goes on to interview Thompson:

Q: Can you define the “culture of arrogance” in the title of your book?

A: In the book, we describe the “culture of arrogance” as a mindset that is based on four beliefs: (1) whites are smarter than blacks; (2) blacks do not have the aptitude to do outstanding work; (3) whites know what’s best for black students; and (4) the research of black scholars is inferior to the work of whites. As we state in the book, this mindset, which “is based on negative beliefs that equate African Americans and black culture with pathology and inferiority is rooted in racism and deficit theories,” has “created a culture of arrogance in American society, especially among educators.”

[...]

Q: How pervasive is racism in academe today?

A: Eighty-four percent of the questionnaire respondents in our study said that cultural insensitivity is common at their institution and 84 percent said that racism is common. Seventy percent had experienced racism from one or more colleagues, 51 percent had experienced racism from an immediate supervisor, 57 percent had experienced racism from other administrators on campus, and 74 percent had experienced it from students. Nearly 70 percent said the racial climate at work affected their job satisfaction, and nearly 70 percent said it had caused stress for them.

Given that college faculty members are overwhelmingly liberal, voted for John Kerry and (in most institutions) a majority probably favor affirmative action quotas and preferences, why are they being described as Klansmen or some such?

Indeed, many (if not most) of black faculty in the survey were the beneficiaries of affirmative action preferences. Why aren’t they grateful to their white liberal and leftist patrons?

We, of course, have several theories about this.

1. Maybe they don’t know how their own rhetoric plays to people who aren’t politically correct — which includes most students and a considerable number of faculty. For example, what about “negative beliefs that equate African Americans and black culture with pathology?” In reality, your standard victim studies course in academia (of the sort that Education majors at Marquette have to take) equates black people with pathology. Of course, one is supposed to take a liberal view of the pathology. One is supposed to infer from the large number of black males in prison that the criminal justice system is racist. One is supposed to infer from the large number of black students who drop out of high school that we need to pour more billions of dollars into the system of public education. One is supposed to infer from the amount of black poverty that there need to be more affirmative action preferences.

But students and some faculty may not draw the desired inferences. They may accept the equation of blackness with pathology, but not see that as requiring the standard liberal policy agenda. If this is so, what we have here is black faculty — hired by liberal and leftist whites precisely to talk about pathology in the black community — facing the fact that the indoctrination doesn’t work the way they (or their white patrons) would prefer.

2. Next we have the “grievance collectors” theory. Perhaps blacks in academia are socialized to be grievance collectors, keen to find examples of racism, discrimination or even mere “insensitivity.” They are supposed to be finding these things in white society at large, in the media and among their students (especially Republican students). But perhaps they can’t switch grievance collection mode off. Perhaps they turn it on their white liberal and leftist colleagues, and the administrations of the universities where they work.

There is, of course, poetic justice here, since it’s white professors who played a large part in socializing black faculty to be grievance collectors, and who created the demand for grievance collectors in places like “diversity” courses.

3. Finally, we have the possibility that black faculty really are being treated shabbily. Consider, for example, the claim that white faculty believe that “blacks do not have the aptitude to do outstanding work,” or “the research of black scholars is inferior to the work of whites.” When black faculty have been hired on the basis of affirmative action preferences, and hired not because they are doing cutting edge research but to teach victim studies courses or add “diversity” to the faculty, it’s all too easy for other professors to be condescending, good intentions notwithstanding.

Are black faculty victims here? Yes, but several layers of ideology prevent many (and maybe most) understanding the real nature of the victimization. And their willingness to play the race card when convenient leaves us without much sympathy.