You have, in recent days, been subjected to demands from a leftist mob that you
cancel the admission to Marquette of a woman named Samantha. She
expressed some political opinions on social media to which the mob objected,
and now they want to punish her.
You, unfortunately, have encouraged this by cancelling another incoming
freshman student who likewise made a social media post the mob found
If you give the mob what it wants this time, you will face a situation where
you will be swamped with demands that any conservative student who expressed
his or her opinions on social media be cancelled. It will spiral out of
control. It is time to draw the line.
The mob, of course, will say it’s not any conservative opinion to which they
object, but only “hate speech” directed at “marginalized groups.” It
should be obvious to you that these people are so immersed in identity politics
conservative opinion is interpreted this way. Oppose
abortion, and you are “sexist.” Oppose gay marriage and you are
“homophobic.” Oppose tearing down statues (even Lincoln and U.S. Grant)
and you are favoring “white supremacy.”
The mob is intolerant of any and all disagreement.
Samantha says that, during the interrogation to which your office subjected
her, she was told that someone with her political opinions on campus would make
favored victim groups feel “unsafe.”
This would be hilarious if it were not so outrageous.
The mob is essentially taking the position that they feel “unsafe” merely
because of the existence of people who disagree with them. I’m sure you
would have no sympathy for a business major who claimed to feel “unsafe”
hearing the philosophy of Karl Marx, or a devout Catholic who claimed to feel “unsafe”
hearing atheist arguments.
But those are not politically correct victim groups. Thus it is fine to
subject them to arguments and viewpoints with which they disagree.
Indeed, that should be a key part of a college education.
It is condescending and paternalistic to believe that favored victim groups
should be protected from viewpoints with which they are presumed
It would be one thing if Samantha had, for example, advocated beating up
transgender people. But she did no such thing. She simply asserted that
if somebody is a biological male, she refuses to believe that they are really
female merely because
they think they are female.
She has science on her side.
She also has the teachings of the Catholic Church on her side. Pope
Francis has spoken
out on this
. Do you really want to cancel the admission of a
student because she stands with Catholic teaching on gender? Do you want
to reinforce the narrative that says Marquette is no sort of “Catholic
university” but just a secular politically correct one?
But the claims on behalf of favored victim groups that they feel “unsafe” are
simply lies. The worst thing they might face at Marquette is somebody who
disagrees with them, and that happens far too little.
But they know that claims of being “offended” and feeling “unsafe” are tactics
they can use to shut up and stifle opinions of which they are intolerant.
It speaks very badly of the Marquette administration when they accept – either
through naïveté or unprincipled expediency – such claims.
So this issue is a litmus test for the Marquette administration. Does Marquette
care about tolerance and diversity of opinion, or is it just a secular,
politically correct reeducation camp, with a rigid orthodoxy. And indeed
an orthodoxy that is not merely heedless of Catholic teaching, but hostile to
A huge amount of evidence supports that latter view. Do you want to give
students, potential students, alumni and the general public yet more evidence
that it’s true?