Last week Hotflash reported on some members of the Young Americans For Liberty (YAL) Chapter at Washington University who were planning to protest communism while commemorating the fall of the Berlin Wall on Monday of this week (11/9). According to the Student Life Newspaper, they built a makeshift prison camp display, identified as a "Peaceful Justice Social Reeducation Clinic," which was inhabited by students representing blood-smeared gulag prisoners. A YAL participant explained:
I think it was mostly about the Berlin Wall, but I think certain policies that are going on today and certain things in the government, and mostly the health care plan, were reasons that we wanted to host the event ...
The display was, however, promptly shut down by the ever so circumspect University administration, citing safety concerns among other reasons:
The University said in a statement Tuesday that the students had not mentioned the display when requesting the space and built the display using power tools without permission and without oversight from the facilities office.
No one can dispute the right of the University to enforce its policies retroactively. Nor could one blame the administration if it wanted to distance itself from potential controversy. However, shutting the display down seems heavy-handed and not very well thought out. Universities, after all, are institutions that ought to be devoted to the rough-and-tumble of ideas - and even the perception of censorship ought to be anathema.
Certainly, if one judges from the student comments attached to the newspaper article, shutting down the display only served to cast the YAL students as victims. And, of course, they and their supporters have been quick to capitalize on this idea with even more hyperbole:
John Burns, an area resident who is not a student but who is involved with the Washington University YAL and participated in the display, said he felt the University censored students in a manner similar to Soviet communists.
"I guess the students at Washington University were in a gulag all along, and the administration proved it through their stifling of free speech," Burns said.
Ridiculous. Washington University is currently receiving a ton of complaints because of Gwen Ifill's alleged bias.
Note to wingnuts: Even granting your argument that Ifill is biased (which I do not), the site of the debate has no input as to the moderator, just as they have no input as to the format, podium height, or myriad other details that the two campaigns negotiate for a presidential debate. If you have a problem with her, take it up with Team McCain. They agreed to have Ifill moderate this debate even knowing that Ifill would be publishing a book on a new generation African-American politicians.
Chancellor Wrighton just sent out an e-mail to everyone at Washington University to confirm that the university will confer an honorary doctorate to Phyllis Schlafly at the commencement ceremony on Friday. The only "concession" he made was to state that trustee Margaret Bush Wilson will read Schlafly's citation. As "the first woman of color to serve as the national chair of the NAACP" and "the second woman of color admitted to practice law in Missouri," her inclusion will supposedly show the university's commitment to diversity and tolerance.
But the chancellor is missing the point. The issue isn't just the inflammatory statements that Phyllis Schlafly has made, it's the fact that she's an anti-intellectual, someone who has made a career out of opposing the very reasoned discourse that should be the foundation of a respected university. Allowing an advocate of tolerance and diversity legitimizes not only the extreme views of Phyllis Schlafly but also her approach to inquiry.
Wrighton also stated that the university would make unspecified changes to the honorary degree selection process. Here's hoping they will block out future nominees who approach the offensiveness of Phyllis Schlafly.
Following up on Blue Girl's recent report of some really bad journalism, I'd like to point out this gem from St. Louis's Channel 5 news on the Phyllis Schlafly debacle, which is either blatantly adopting a right wing frame or is pure laziness incarnate:
So "some students and staff" (ie, DFHs) are upset about Schlafly getting an honorary doctorate. But, of course, the objective way of describing the situation is claiming that Schlafly is a lifelong advocate of "family values." Then, you might as well throw in a couple choice quotes from Schlafly like "I think the role of the full-time homemaker should be honored and respected" (yeah, that's what this whole controversy is about) and the old "I'm not worried about myself, I just hope the university is OK" thing, and one from the university about how any honorary doctorate is going to be controversial.
Finally, to show that they are fair and balanced, they include one quote from the head of the Women's Studies Department. This basically presents this as a "she said, she said" issue; one side thinks this, the other side thinks that (framed all the while around the imaginary question of whether one should be pro-family or not). But would it kill Ryan Dean to actually do some research on the reasons why people are actually upset? For example, would it be that hard to list one of these quotes from Schlafly so that people can make up their own mind on what they think of her views:
"I suspect that the picture of the woman soldier with a noose around the Iraqi man's neck will soon show up on the bulletin boards of women's studies centers and feminist college professors. That picture is the radical feminists' ultimate fantasy of how they dream of treating men." (Schlafly's Eagle Forum newsletter, 19 May 2004)
"By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape." (speech at Bates College, 28 March 2007; WashU's Student Life, 12 May 2008)
Sexual harassment on the job is not a problem for virtuous women, except in the rarest of cases. Men hardly ever ask sexual favors of women from whom the certain answer is no. Virtuous women are seldom accosted. (TIME Magazine, 4 May 1981)
"The flight from the home is a flight from yourself, from responsibility, from the nature of woman, in pursuit of false hopes and fading illusions." (www.CampusProgress.org)
"ERA means abortion funding, means homosexual privileges, means whatever else." (www.brainyquote.com)
"The atomic bomb is a marvelous gift that was given to our country by a wise God." (N.Y. Times, 9 July 1982)
"Sex education classes are like in-home sales parties for abortions." (Eagle Forum newsletter)
On Harvard president Larry Summer's assertion that women are not cut out for science: "The outburst by feminist professors simply confirms the stereotype ... that they are too emotional to handle intellectual or scientific debate." (Eagle Forum newsletter, 9 March 2005)
Oh wait, I just did it; I guess it must not be that hard.
I had started a post about Phyllis Schlafly and her honorary degree at Wash U, but after reading this post by Kathy G, I gave up, because she absolutely nails it.
I am in complete agreement with Wolfe here-Phyllis Schlafly is indeed probably "one of the two or three most important Americans of the last half of the twentieth century." That is a bitter and painful truth, but a truth nonetheless. Wolfe again:
Critchlow [author of the Schlafly biography Wolfe is reviewing] is right to insist on Schlafly's influence-but influence is a neutral category. It may be a force for good or a force for ill, depending upon the ideas that animate it. Let it be said of Phyllis Schlafly that every idea she had was scatter-brained, dangerous, and hateful. The more influential she became, the worse off America became.
The officials at Washington U. can piously murmur all the bland words they please about "difficult issues where differences of opinion are profound and passionate," but let's get real: when you award someone with an honorary degree, you are making a value judgment[...]
But very rarely-in fact, almost never-do you see a great university honor someone who, throughout her public life has shown nothing but contempt for the values of the academia, values such as intellectual honesty and integrity, rational discourse, and the dispassionate pursuit of knowledge.
It gets better from there. As they say, read the rest.
Last week Hotflash 