May 16, 2008

At Washington U., Protesters Turn Their Backs on Phyllis Schlafly

Several hundred people — including some faculty members and graduating students — turned their backs on Phyllis Schlafly as she was awarded an honorary degree at Washington University in St. Louis today, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Ms. Schlafly, the conservative activist and founder of the Eagle Forum, called the protests “juvenile.” A 1944 graduate of the university and a 1978 graduate of its law school, she was honored in front of a crowd of about 14,000. She is known for her role in defeating the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s and for her vocal opposition to — among other things — abortion rights, gun control, and same-sex marriage.

During the ceremony, she was introduced by Margaret Bush Wilson, a retired civil-rights lawyer, who said she disagreed with Ms. Schlafly on a number of issues but strongly supports free speech. —Lawrence Biemiller

Comments

1. Good for the students. Phylis Schlafly is about as deserving of recognition as George W. Bush is if he were to receive a Nobel Peace prize. Schafley is one of this country’s number one hate mongers.

   — Donald Winters    May 17, 12:53 PM    #

2. Good for Phylis Schlafly. The students are about as smart as the 2008 Democratic candidates for president. These “protesting” students are what’s wrong with college campuses, and this nation’s number one insult to good manners. They need to be spanked and put to bed without supper.

   Whatever happened to”‘free speech” and “diversity” – oh, that’s right, these sacred cows are only for Liberals to milk.

   — Muap Conners    May 17, 03:32 PM    #

3. Muap: You sound as pathetic as Ronald Reagan did when he talked of campus anti-war activists as needing a good spanking. These protesters are not kids but young adults who are very adept at identifying their enemies.

   — Donald Winters    May 17, 03:59 PM    #

4. Donald has not spent much time with college grads recently to make such claims. The pathetic thing is that Al Gore won an economics Nobel and smart students would turn their back on him.

   — Peter    May 17, 04:27 PM    #

5. Peter: I’ve taught college students since 1980 until this very moment. I repeat— students today know their enemies and are always ready to turn their backs on liars and fascists. I applaud them.

   — Donald Winters    May 17, 05:51 PM    #

6. Al Gore won the nobel peace prize not the economics nobel

   — derrick    May 17, 07:19 PM    #

7. Muap

   Phyllis Schafly had the right to speak and the students had the right to protest her receiving an honorary degree. Free speech cuts both ways unfortunately to many people on both sides of the political spectrum fail to realize this.

   — derrick    May 17, 07:25 PM    #

8. They should have mooned the old right wing nut.

   — dan brown    May 18, 08:22 AM    #

9. Muap: The notion that the right to free speech entails the right to promotion, such as the promotion of Phyliis Schafly by Wash U by its giving her this chance to speak, is misguided. Her free speech was not encumbered by the students’ actions.

   The students engaged their right to free speech. Phyllis Schafly engaged (and engages on a daily basis, it should be said, as I far as I know, without any form of censorship by the state) her right to free speech. Heck, even Wash U engaged its right.

   All of those people making use of that right does not encumber upon any of the others from doing so.

   And let me practice my right: Wash U made a poor decision to invite such a divisive, negative, and unappealing personality to their graduation ceremonies and I applaud the students’ actions.

   — Sean    May 18, 11:09 AM    #

10. Enemies? Are we not all AMERICANS!?!?!?!?

    Precious freedom given to us by young men and women in scores of battles gives us the unique opportunity to speak without violent retribution.

    A genuine threat to our freedom would represent an “enemy”.

    — Trey Coker    May 18, 11:46 AM    #

11. Sean: amen to your remark. And to Trey I say Phyllis is not an American but an amerikan. Big difference.

    — Donald Winters    May 18, 12:23 PM    #

12. Lighten up, people! She’s an alumna; they waited until she was a really old lady to give it to her; and they gave one to lots of other people including Quincy Jones at the same time. Moreover, most kids that age have never heard of Phyllis Schlafly: giving her a degree gave most of them one last history lesson. See http://commencement.wustl.edu/honorary.html for the other speakers, and http://news-info.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/11727.html for Wash U’s statement defending their choice

    — gail    May 19, 06:36 AM    #

13. Washington University embarrassed itself by giving an honorary degree to Phyllis Shlafly. The issue isn’t free speech—both she and her opponents have every right to free speech. It’s a question of whom a university wishes to acknowledge and honor by means of an honorary degree. Universities are always in the business of making judgments about what is more true or more valuable and what is less true and less valuable. That’s what research is all about. It’s not about teaching or trumpeting every idea and every opinion, no matter what. If universities can’t pass reasoned judgment, then they are nothing more than toys of societal opinion and prejudice, from one extreme to the other. That’s what “liberal arts” is all about—using reasoned judgment based on study and research. Washington University showed bad judgment in honoring this extremist who has no use for the values and processes that are the very purpose of universities.

    — Embarassed    May 19, 07:20 AM    #

14. Some graduating Washington University students, and some faculty members, do not understand common courtesy, nor do they understand the concept of free speech.

    — Dexter Alexander    May 19, 07:38 AM    #

15. The students and faculty acted immaturely. I’ve sat through numerous speeches by speakers I disagreed with, but always politely sat still so as to not embarass myself or my institution. Shame on the faculty and students for acting in such a manner. Free speech has its place, but not at a special ceremony. If you do not approve of the act or oppose the ceremony, stay in your office or dorm room.

    — Cicero    May 19, 07:42 AM    #

16. Phyliis Schafly is an American icon who set new standards for political activism. Too bad the liberal fascists, as usual, were so intolerant of views different from their own. Juvenile, maybe. Anti-free speech, definitely.

    — Bob Sarbane    May 19, 07:58 AM    #

17. Chancellor Wrighton’s letter says, accurately, that Ms. Schafly has “had a broad impact on American life.” Is that the sole criterion for choosing recipients of honorary degrees? Or does the term “honorary” mean that one’s impact needs to have been a net positive, and if so, how is that determined? Could there be another reason to award an honorary degree, perhaps having to do with more tangible contributions—past or future—to a specific institution?

    — Curious    May 19, 08:24 AM    #

18. Bob et al: It may have been a case of poor manners, and poor manners are sometimes the order of the day (when, for example, someone who fights really hard every day to make sure your life is more difficult than it needs to be is given an honorary degree at the same time you are). But it is NOT “facism” when students and faculty turn their backs on a graduation speaker. Nor is it a denial of anyone’s right to speak. Really, people. It’s just a protest at a college against someone who has spent her life working against the interests of some people so that other people can see democracy structured by their interests.

    If this is “anti-free speech,” then I do Limbaugh a great injustice every time I turn the dial when I hear his signature grunt.

    — bp    May 19, 08:27 AM    #

19. If colleges insisted that every graduation speaker or honorary degree recipient had to represent a high level of ethical behavior or service to humanity, there would be very, very few speakers or honorary degree recipients.

    — Carl    May 19, 08:41 AM    #

20. If one were to scan the list of honorary degree recipients and graduation speakers across the nation, my guess is that the number on the far left would vastly exceed the number on the far right. Indeed, the number on the far right would be miniscule. In a year in which our local university had a succession of far-left speakers there was one conservative (not far-right) speaker. Indeed, about one a year would be average. Local ‘activists’ immediately demanded to know who was funding the speech, how, why, etc. Conservative people do not expect balance, but a little tokenism and a little tolerance from time to time would be nice. Bill Ayers and Angela Davis have long received plaudits as well as comfortable faculty positions. The academic left should be happy with the tolerance it receives and not exhibit zero tolerance for those with whom it disagrees.

    — Commentator    May 19, 08:45 AM    #

21. Phyllis Schafly has done more to advance the cause of what has made this country great than any of the soft headed reactionaries on this thread or in attendence at commencement. Your comments and the response of the faculty and graduates who disgraced themselves bring to mind the old saw, “DOGS DON’T BARK AT PARKED CARS.”

    — maxsdadeo    May 19, 08:50 AM    #

22. “Whatever happened to free speech”? Look around, it’s still working. All the talk about how such figures as Ms Schlafly have been prevented from speaking on campuses is rubbish. She herself counts her appearances on college campuses at more than 500. The beauty of this system of ours is that views from all quarters are still being heard, and expressions of displeasure such as that shown at Washington U. this weekend are peaceful. Several commenters on this very page could take a lesson from the students at that ceremony.

    — BD    May 19, 08:52 AM    #

23. For those complaining of some perceived first amendment violation, there does not appear to have been one. Firstly, Ms. Schlafly was allowed to speak. Secondly, the protesters were allowed to protest. Thirdly, it does not appear that anyone was appealing to a state entity to stop Ms. Schlafly from speaking (or the protesters from protesting). The bottom line is that Ms. Schlafly is a lightning rod for debate/protest/criticism. When a school picks anyone who fits that bill (either conservative or liberal) to award an honor to, there will be a reaction. This is simply a continuation of our long and agonizing national debate over culture issues.

    — EAC    May 19, 09:03 AM    #

24. I must admit I’ve never paid much attention to Ms. Schlafly. However, there’s little question she has contributed mightily to the civic debate, and that’s always healthy for everyone. Thank goodness we have “other voices” speaking to us.

    Even back in the old days when I was one of those who disagreed with a decision to present an honorary degree I thought it was rude of some of my colleagues to turn their back on the recipient. My parents taught me to be kinder and more civil than that.

    What kind of message do we send to students if the only persons we honor (or are allowed to speak) are those whose stances conform to the common views of the people in the academy?

    — bill    May 19, 09:08 AM    #

25. “Free speech has its place, but not at a special ceremony. If you do not approve of the act or oppose the ceremony, stay in your office or dorm room.”
    Um, if I’m reading this right, Cicero suggests that students should not attend their OWN commencement if they don’t like who has been picked (by the admin) to get an honorary (not REAL) degree?
    I think the real travesty here is that the event is SUPPOSED to be about the students and faculty…if they are aren’t so polite as you might hope, they have a right to do so. After all, it’s their ceremony, for goodness’ sakes! This is not the same as someone going out of their way to show up and be disrepectful. You might say it was disrespectful of Washington U. to bring outsiders into this special time. Particularly ones so divisive.

    — Whatever!    May 19, 09:30 AM    #

26. For what, specifically, was is being honored? She is a nationally known columnist, a strong and consistent voice for the far-right, and a holder of a law degree from Wash U. For which of these is she being acknowledged, seriously?

    — Droste    May 19, 09:37 AM    #

27. Congrats to Wash. U. for honoring a great American!

    — Fellman    May 19, 09:42 AM    #

28. Good for the students to protest! Equal Rights is important to the success of our society. What if George Wallace would have received such an honorary degree? Would student protest – absolutely!

    — Dan Negron    May 19, 09:52 AM    #

29. Muap asks: “Whatever happened to”‘free speech” and “diversity” – oh, that’s right, these sacred cows are only for Liberals to milk.” Do you mean liberals like Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr who was invited to speak at Northwestern’s Commencement?

    — LiberalSpeech    May 19, 09:52 AM    #

30. The overwhelming number of commencement speakers are leftists, telling the Ward Churchills what they want to hear from the leftist agenda: global warming is real, affirmative action is necessary, trans fats must be banned, etc. These bobos are unable to listen to moderates such as Sen. McCain, let alone conservatives such as Mrs. Schafly. Once their backs were turned at the commencement, did they close their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears and hum, to prevent even hearing a different idea other than The Vision of the Anointed?

    — FS    May 19, 09:57 AM    #

31. Chronicle
    May 1, 2008
    Northwestern Withdraws Offer of Honorary Degree to Obama’s Former Pastor

    Northwestern University is withdrawing its offer of an honorary degree to Barack Obama’s controversial former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, according to news reports.

    — LiberalSpeech    May 19, 09:57 AM    #

32. I find it interesting that most of the responses conflate the constitutional right to free speech with whatever speech and conduct policies exist at Wash U. I agree with those posts that view this as a statement on the private institution’s judgment, rather than a free speech issue.

    — Michael Fried    May 19, 11:39 AM    #

33. I’m amazed that so many “educated” individuals are so fast to defend a reactionary Birchite like Phyllis Schlafley. Her book from way back, “A Choice Not an Echo” illustrates her shallow thinking.

    — Donald Winters    May 19, 11:39 AM    #

34. If folks want a reason for the students’ turning their backs, I suggest looking no further than those in the White House who have done the same on the American people. This apparent “lack of courtesy” is not a lack of courtesy. Rather, it is what we get when Washington refuses to listen.

    — Eric    May 19, 11:45 AM    #

35. What’s always presumed, quite without moral principle, is that somehow there must be symmetry (“balance”) between liberals and conservatives in every situation. Has it ever occurred to anyone that the reason there are more liberals in the academy is because smart, educated, thoughtful people tend to embrace progressive, rather than fear-based head-in-the-ground, values and points of view? Enough of this silliness (Horowitz, et. al.) that there must be exactly the same quantity of expression from all conceivable sides. The value of the marketplace of ideas is that the better ones (i.e., more persuasive, more articulate, more reasoned) will prevail, as they typically do in the academy, where they are not subject to the political crassness of ideologically motivated forums like, say, Fox News. So, maxsdadeo, get yourself some learning before you open your reactionary mouth. – Love, Misstra-Know-It-All

    — Misstra Know-It-All    May 19, 11:52 AM    #

36. Truly, what is the point of awarding “honorary” degrees anyway? Doesn’t it just take away the true focus from those who have actually earned their degrees that day? I for one am glad that my institution does not bother with such things. The focus and honor should be on those who have truly earned the right to receive a degree from that institution.

    — Jackson    May 19, 11:56 AM    #

37. Look, this ain’t rocket science. If you invite a polarizing figure like Schafly to highlight your commencement, expect polarizing behavior. Get it?

    — original marcii    May 19, 11:58 AM    #

38. I’m not sure we’ve heard from one out Lesbian or Gay man. Let me ask: as citizens, would you applaud the honors awarded to someone who spent much of her/his life advocating the persecution of ANY other group of citizens (i.e., African Americans, Native Americans, interned Japanese-Americans, Conservatives, etc.) What Phyllis Schlafly has spent her life advocating has, in many cases, bordered on hate speech towards homosexuals (among others). There must be a distinction between that and “free” speech.

    And by the way, the students’ behavior seems to fall under the purview of “civil disobedience.” They did not shout, throw things, make rude gestures (that we know about)—they simply turned their backs. It is simple, elegant protest—and, I may add, hardly juvenile.

    — A Lesbian    May 19, 12:06 PM    #

39. First, Trey: The right to free speech does not come from the military. Please read both the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States. The former makes it clear that rights proceed from “the Creator,” and the latter makes it clear the rights belong to the people and the state may not infringe upon that right.

    This is a common error promulgated by such luminous “protectors,” of the Constitution as G.H.W. Bush (whose administration authored the “Patriot Act”), and the Current Occupant of the White House who called the founding document of the country “an old piece of paper.”

    People have rights, Trey. The state may not infringe upon them. The military is a means of the state to protect the rights of the people from foreign enemies. This is usually covered in Jr. High School Civics classes, Trey. Were you asleep?

    Second, Posting #38: I’m an out lesbian and find myself conflicted about honoring those such as Schlafly. Her right to free speech is something I support, even if her speech is hateful to me. But, the students also exercised their free speech. This case is a perfect example of the Constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of speech being exercised in an effective and peaceable manner.

    Schlafly’s attempt to cast the students in the light of petulant children is a key marker of her worldview that includes the belief that she and hers are always correct and that anyone who disagrees with her is always wrong. She’s correct because she’s the “Mommy,” and that necessarily makes those who disagree with her the “kids.” This is the same mindset as the current administration which believes it knows what’s best (because Daddy always knows what’s best) and the kids have to shut up and do what they’re told.
    I disagree strongly with this kind of thinking, but in this country, I will, and have as a member of the armed services, defend the right of people to think this way.

    — Luccia    May 19, 01:39 PM    #

40. Luccia-
    Thank you very much for adding yet another clear-headed voice to this debate. As someone who graduated from Washington University at this ceremony, and also participated in the protest by standing and turning around, I would like to note that, unlike the assertions made by some of the people posting, there was no yelling, shouting, mooning, stuffing of cotton balls into the ears of other students or people in attendance, or anything else vulgar. I disagree with everything Phyllis Schlafly stands for. Thus, as an exercise of my right to free speech, I showed to her my disagreement in the most respectful way possible. With a silent protest. I did not interrupt her introduction or boo her or heckle her. Did I feel as though my graduation ceremony was ruined? Absolutely not. In fact, I felt as though protesting Ms. Schlafly was a very successful and effective action, and I’m proud I participated. Our chancellor has since agreed to review and amend the process by which honorary degrees are given out. As a result of our protest, something positive is happening. Hopefully, in the future, people who have spent their whole lives being hateful will no longer be able to receive degrees at my institution. I applaud Phyllis Schlafly for supporting herself through college working to help manufacture and test .50 caliber bullets during World War II. However, I disagree with her views on women, minorities, and people who do not conform to the heterosexual norm of our society. I hold this position solely because the people with whom she disagrees are people she belittles. Instead of engaging in honest, intellectual debate, like an institution such as Washington University (her alma mater) taught me to do, she instead labels them as cry-babies, losers, or any number of other epithets to make their position seem intellectually infeasible. Congratulations, class of 2008, for showing her how disagreements should be handled, through peaceful protests and without insults.

    — Ryan    May 19, 02:00 PM    #

41. I have a question for you: Why do you never see conservatives engaging in this kind of public immaturity? Why is it that those on the political left can’t sit graciously and allow someone they disagree with to be honored? Just because I disagree with someone, does that mean that I have to make a public issue of it?

    I would really like for someone among the political left-of-center to explain this to me.

    — Timothy    May 19, 02:15 PM    #

42. “I have a question for you: Why do you never see conservatives engaging in this kind of public immaturity?”

    Oh. So picketing abortion clinics, harassing and even abducting women who are on their way to receive abortions, and picketing the houses of abortion doctors in attempts to make them quit their jobs is not “public immaturity”? I would say it’s more extreme public immaturity than turning one’s back at a ceremony.

    Anyway, good for the students. This article fails to mention that she also called the protesters, among whom were of course professors who actually earned their Ph.D.s (unlike Schlafly), “a bunch of losers.” The ad hominen attacks are a great way to open up space for dialogue, you see.

    She has stated repeatedly that married women cannot be raped. Her views are, simply, irresponsible and hypocritical. I wish women like Schlafly would take their own advice: get married, have babies, and shut up like good well-mannered little girls.

    — J.    May 19, 02:33 PM    #

43. answer: because conservatives tend to lack the capacity for complexity in social thought – hence the need to batten down the mental hatches and take easy, zealous refuge in all-or-nothing positions that have no nuance, for that would require honestly addressing the real conditions of our world.

    — misstra know-it-all    May 19, 02:38 PM    #

44. Timothy-
    I hate to make this personal, but it seems to me that your maturity level can be accurately gauged by the way that you have refused to question any of my beliefs or even to attempt to support Ms. Schlafly’s. Instead, you have resorted to implying that I am immature because I disagreed with someone in a public setting. Instead of actually engaging me in an intellectual debate about what I believe and in what ways it differs from the hateful things Phyllis Schlafly preaches, you are instead labeling me as immature, in contrast with you, who clearly must be much more mature. My ability to make any sort of statement in public is in fact protected by the United States Constitution. Just as you can label me immature online without fear or repercussion, I can demonstrate either my support for, or disagreement with, Phyllis Schlafly in any sort of forum that I feel fit. Because my actions didn’t endanger anyone’s health or life, I have a government protected right to do so.

    — Ryan    May 19, 02:58 PM    #

45. Donald Winters, I know that you haven’t finished grading those essays for the five sections of freshman comp that you teach. Now get to work—grades are due tomorrow. I can find another adjunct to replace you, you know.

    There’s a good lad.

    — Susan Stamleyson    May 19, 03:03 PM    #

46. Tolerant used to mean that we could disagree in a kind, civil way. Now we are expected to believe that to be tolerant is to say nothing against the beliefs of the “favored” group. I ask you – which is free speech? Which promotes critical thinking and increased learning? Certainly not those promoting the student/faculty behavior in this case.

    — The Old Tolerant    May 19, 03:09 PM    #

47. Ryan,

    You said “As a result of our protest, something positive is happening. Hopefully, in the future, people who have spent their whole lives being hateful will no longer be able to receive degrees at my institution.”

    How does this promote learning? Does this differ from book buring or other forms of censorship? It does neither. However, you have labeled her speech as “hate”. Will not open debate bear this out or does the discussion generated by a situation such as this lay bare the vacancy of (at some) of the arguements against her stands?

    I say that when a university such as this chooses, exclusively, one set of voices over another (be they liberal or conservative), they have failed to be an institution of higher learning and have become an institution of propoganda. I truely hope the review of the adwarding of honorary degrees results in more openness and not less. I fear, however, it will go the way of most universities – fearful of allowing open debate. No wonder our graduates lag so far behind their overseas counterparts – it’s not about learning, but indoctrination.

    — Mike    May 19, 03:23 PM    #

48. Mike-
    Now this is the sort of discussion I appreciate. You didn’t insult me or label me. Instead, you are questioning my beliefs and challenging me to defend them. Now, in response to your queries. First, I believe it is important to not that Phyllis Schlafly only received an honorary degree, she did not speak and was not invited to speak. In that sense, no one at Washington University censored her, be it administration or students. The only person who received an honorary degree who was given the opportunity to speak was Chris Matthews, and only because he was invited to give the commencement address. In that sense I do believe that this is very different from book burning and other forms of censorship. No one was censored. Instead, the students expressed their disagreement with the University’s selection of one particular person to be honored. The issue with the way honorary degrees are given out at Wash U is that only the board of trustees has a say in that decision. The general student and faculty bodies were unaware of the decision to award Ms. Schlafly the degree and were not allowed to influence the decision. No open debate at the university was a part of the decision to award her. Instead, a closed, limited, like-minded group of individuals made a decision which put a woman, who, in my opinion is very disagreeable, on stage at my commencement. I too hope that the review of the process for awarding honorary degrees results in more openness: openness for input from all types of people into the process before the decision has been made on who to honor. Input from students and faculty and other employees at the university who’s voices, in this circumstance, could not be heard asking that she not be honored until it was too late and the decision had already been made.

    — Ryan    May 19, 03:35 PM    #

49. Sometimes, free speech takes the form do doing something unpopular the same way civil disobedence sheds light on some very unjust laws (Rosa Parks, for example). Would there be the same type of response if conservative students at Bob Jones university turned their backs on Ted Kennedy (for example) while he was giving a speech there?

    — H. Mickey Gill    May 19, 05:06 PM    #

50. Ryan (#40ff), in all your posts you articulate clearly and eloquently the reasons why your behavior was civil and appropriate. You do great honor to Washington University. Congratulations on your degree. I expect you will use it well.

    Timothy (#41): If you honestly believe that conservatives never engage in publicly rude or inappropriate behavior, you haven’t been paying attention. They are just as prone to public rudeness as liberals are. Just watch question time at the House of Commons from England anytime.

    In my view, silently turning one’s back on an offensive person at an otherwise reasonable event is the epitome of polite, civil protest, and one of the best ways to exercise free speech. Mrs. Schlafly’s response, that the behavior is “juvenile” is evidence that she is not worthy of the attention she is getting.

    — Ray    May 19, 06:29 PM    #

51. It is too bad institutions that have championed diversity in the end do not really want it. The majority of those in the Academe accept diversity only when it walks, talks and acts in ways that are consistent with their biased and intolerant viewpoints. What we need is more education and less indoctrination on our campuses.

    — Veritas Seeker    May 20, 09:50 AM    #

52. I, too, would like to know whether Donald Winters finished grading his papers, or if all of this pontificating and blogification is really just procrastination.

    — Sven Carlsen    May 20, 10:34 AM    #

53. Sven and Susan (if those are your real names): I am not grading papers but working on my second book. What are you two up to?

    — Donald Winters    May 20, 10:42 AM    #

54. Phyllis Schlafly is hot.

    http://gayforphyllis.blogspot.com

    — gs    May 20, 09:18 PM    #

55. Donald,
    I am currently working on my first book “An Anthology of Obscure Academic Writers: Agricultural Themes”

    — Sven Carlsen    May 21, 04:07 PM    #

56. according to http://www.fedspending.org/ WU get $18,440,169 of tax dollars. Maybe working hard to dissolve those funding is a very good peaceful protest – laying off your colleagues and friends.

    — Michael    May 21, 04:08 PM    #

57. SVEN: Cute. Do I detect a note of envy? Why don’t you get back to grading your papers. Perhaps then you can manage to get a book published through some pathetic vanity press. Perhaps your only option. By the way, Sven, how is Ole?

    — Donald Winters    May 21, 04:45 PM    #

58. Misstra-Know-It-All (#35) writes, “Has it ever occurred to anyone that the reason there are more liberals in the academy is because smart, educated, thoughtful people tend to embrace progressive, rather than fear-based head-in-the-ground, values and points of view?”

    Liberals are smart and educated? Please post the citation to the study showing statistical differences in intelligence between liberals and conservatives.

    Here’s another possibility: Liberals are dependent, more comfortable in a crowd who agrees with them. Conservatives are more independent; for example, they may leave school to take the risks of creating new businesses or selling on commission. Liberals, when they are managing businesses, prosper more often in regulated businesses, including the structured world of tenured academia.

    — John Galt    May 21, 06:51 PM    #

59. For all those who write of free speech, would you applaud if Jeremiah Wright was selected to receive an award as your school or if you had to sit through a speech with him speaking about a racist white America? Or as some post said, “politely sit through a speech?” Free speech is for certain persons. Consider the fact that Minister Wright actually had honors rescinded and speeches canceled due to the Obama uproar. What I figure is that people espouse the “free speech” mantra if it is someone whom they can tolerate.

    — D    May 23, 02:15 PM    #

60. Jeremiah Wright would not give a speech about racist America. If you had heard more than the media supplied snippets of his speeches you would know that. I applaud anyone’s right to free speech at a graudation because it’s not really about the speaker but about the graduates. I sat and listen to the Sec of Labor when I got my doctorate and I can’t remember a word she said. But I do remember the thrill of finally achieving a dream I had long awaited in the midst of my adoring and supportive family. Let’s focus people!!!!!

    — Liz Desnoyers-colas    May 27, 10:52 AM    #

61. Her comments to those who protest are just plain mean spirited. I have less respect for Washington University now. Why fan the flames of divisiveness when the world needs more mutual understanding?

    — me 2    May 27, 11:22 AM    #

62. Phyllis Schafly is a dinosaur. The students didn’t interfere with her speaking (which she wasn’t invited to do anyway). they just turned their backs on her and her ideas which are irrelevant nonsense for this day and age

    — Mac    May 30, 06:08 AM    #

63. In a symbolic, but powerful gesture, I have turned my back to my computer monitor. There. Take that.

    — Phyllis Schafly    May 30, 04:47 PM    #

Previous: Embattled West Virginia U. President Says He Won't Speak at Commencement
Next: Blue-Ribbon Panel Assails Planning for High-Security Lab at Boston U.