Month: February 2004

Here’s a 2002 letter from a Duke professor delineating why most faculty hires lean left:

“In seeking faculty, universities look for people who can analyze and discuss matters of some complexity, who are unafraid to challenge the wisdom of simple solutions, and who have a sense of social responsibility toward those who cannot buy influence. Such people tend to be put off by a political party dominated by those who believe dogmatically in the infallibility of the marketplace as a solution to all economic problems, or else in the infallibility of scripture as a guide to morality. In short, universities want people of some depth, subtlety and intelligence. People like that usually vote for the Democrats. So what?”

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Columbia students use blogs to pursue an Internet rumor.

SHE WAS BERATED IN CLASS: The young student who wrote the anti-race preference letter below talking about her two brothers – one white, one Guatemalan – had to endure one of her professors publicly berating her in class for her insubordination. Details here. Re-education camp next?

It’s high time the front-runner was sat down and peppered with serious questions about what his policy now is. The Washington Post yesterday ran an excellent editorial dissecting Kerry’s record of dizzying, shall we say, nuance:

In 1991 he voted against the first Persian Gulf War, saying more support was needed from Americans for a war that he believed would prove costly. In 1998, when President Clinton was considering military steps against Iraq, he strenuously argued for action, with or without allies. Four years later he voted for a resolution authorizing invasion but criticized Mr. Bush for not recruiting allies. Last fall he voted against funding for Iraqi reconstruction, but argued that the United States must support the establishment of a democratic government.
Mr. Kerry’s attempts to weave a thread connecting and justifying all these positions are unconvincing…

To say the least. I’d say his vote against the $87 billion is a huge liability in the coming campaign. Kerry needs a serious proposal on Iraq that isn’t designed purely to attack the Bush record. So far, I haven’t seen one.

THE ZARKAWI LETTER: Whoever wrote it, it fits completely with the atrocities now being inflicted on Iraqis trying to rebuild their country.

It was bound to happen. Finally, a Washington Post reporter did the work that the New York Times’ David Kirkpatrick didn’t. In an important piece on Saturday, the Post revealed that critical authors of the current federal marriage amendment do indeed intend it to bar civil unions for gay citizens in every state. Money quote:

Two of the amendment’s principal authors, professors Robert P. George of Princeton and Gerard V. Bradley of Notre Dame Law School, contend that the opening sentence also would forbid some kinds of civil unions.
They argue that future courts would have to interpret the amendment to protect not just the word “marriage,” but also its essential meaning — in the same way that, if the Constitution forbade states from creating “navies,” they clearly could not establish “flotillas” or “armadas,” either.

The possibility of civil unions – as the equivalent or simulacrum of civil marriage for gay couples – would be removed everywhere by this amendment. Amendment sponsor Representative Musgrave, who emerged in Colorado in part because of her hostility to gays, is also opposed to civil unions. What’s fascinating is that Bradley and George believe that the first sentence alone would do this. The second sentence – barring any courts from enforcing any of the “legal incidents” of marriage to gay couples as such – is therefore perhaps best read as an attempt to ensure that this interpretation is the prevailing one.

THE REAL AGENDA: You can see how this might play out. If the FMA were to pass, civil marriage rights would be denied gay couples. But if states then passed civil union laws instead, the religious right would spring into action and sue to gut them of any force. Why do I think that’s a plausible scenario? Because they’re already doing it on a state level. In California, an anti-marriage initiative was passed keeping gays out of marriage; but a comprehensive civil unions bill was then enacted. What did the far right do? They sued. The judge, mercifully, didn’t grant a preliminary injunction against the law. But imagine that such a suit occurs after the FMA. Such a federal amendment would be an extremely powerful tool to use in state courts to shred civil unions of their protections for gay couples. It could also be used by, say, parents of a gay man to deny his spouse inheritance or access to a hospital room. So the authors of the FMA can plausibly say that a state can have civil unions, as they have. But it’s meaningless. In practice, those civil unions could contain nothing that marriage contains, because none of these “incidents” could be upheld or enforced by the courts. Yes, we’ll allow you to have a car, but you have to remove the engine and the wheels. That appears to be the real agenda. The FMA is one of the most radical attempts to disenfranchise a group of citizens in history. No air-brushing or spin or sloppy journalism should be allowed to disguise that naked and alarming fact.

An insightful letter to Michigan State University’s campus newspaper on racial preferences in academia:

I have two younger brothers. One is white, related to me by blood, and the other is Guatemalan, related to me by adoption. Both were raised in the same house, by the same parents, taught the same morals and values, and both are exceptionally bright. They have always been treated equally. However, when they try to get into college, my Guatemalan brother will have a leg-up over my white brother because his skin is brown…

Striking home, no? What if the white kid was given the advantage? Would any “liberal” hackles rise?

Some feedback:

“The only time I was ever really intimidated in class for my political beliefs, though, was in a Spanish class. The professor told us that there are no more dictators in Latin America. When I asked about Castro, I was informed that you cannot take the word of the defectors; they are the worms who want to live off the labor of others rather than having solidarity with the workers. What about the persecution of homosexuals? Well, we persecute homosexuals in the US too. When he asked what I wanted to do with my degree, I told him I was considering joining the Air Force. The next class began with him telling how disappointed he was in one of his students who had gone into the Army a few years earlier, supporting rather than criticizing the foreign policy of our horrible government. I have never been so eager for a term to end. I know he was the exception, but that doesn’t excuse it.”

Another case, this time pure misandry:

“From 1983-1987 I was a graduate student in European History at the Univ. of Mass. I was, very nearly, the lone ‘conservative’ and witnessed then and afterwards dozens of instances of left wing bias both in teaching and in the hiring of teachers for the Academy. The one that stands out, I suppose for humorous reasons, is the following: I had a good friend who was taking a class in the Women’s History department on advertising and women. I sat in quietly during one of the classes and noticed that it was a fairly well-attended class of around 25 women and one man (not including me.) It was about 2/3rds of the way through the semester and they were thick in the process of presenting to the class their research projects for the semester. The teacher was scheduling these for the next few sessions and she would call on each student by name and schedule their day to present. Eventually, she got to the lone male in the class at which point she asked … ‘What is your name again?'”

Ouch. This one struck a nerve as well:

“I’m a doctoral student in English Literature at a large southeastern University, and I also work as a research assistant for a professor who works in a rather trendy area in Theory. In a welcome change, my professor asked me last week to read a biography about apartheid South Africa and help her discuss the book with one of her undergraduate students. The notion arose in our discussion that once peoples previously separated by fear and stereotypes actually met individually, they were often able to put aside these fears. As an example, my professor put forward the abstract idea of meeting Republicans and trying to understand them as people. Misreading the consternation on my face, she quickly noted that she didn’t personally know any Republicans and, anyway, there could be NO justifiable excuse for being a Republican. Now, this professor is a lovely and amiable person, but she felt more than comfortable making this comparison in front of two students whose political leanings she assumed were her own. Considering our discussion of apartheid, I said nothing but savored the delicious irony all day.”

But I’m sure all these institutions are dedicated to the cause of “diversity.” If only they had a clue what it really means.

GOOD NEWS ON HIV: A promising new avenue for eradicating the virus entirely emerges – thanks to U.S. research. And infection rates in San Francisco are stable and even declining somewhat – yet again. No vast new epidemic, at least so far as we can tell.

I cannot verify the authenticity of the letter from al Qaeda murderer Abu Musab al-Zarkawi. But most authorities regard it as legit. If you doubt that we have made real progress in the war on terror, if you buy the idiocy that tackling Saddam somehow made tackling al Qaeda harder, then read this document. It’s alternately terrifying and deeply encouraging. We are winning this war. And only we can choose to lose it.

“It isn’t just Duke. I just wanted to pass along this anecdote from my days attending Indiana University. It was the fall semester of 1994 and it was also the evening of the midterm elections which brought the Republicans to majority status in the House. My prof strolled into class (a class on the Beatles) and began to spew left wing hate in all directions. He said he could not belive a country was so naive as to elect the Nazis (how I tire of this comparison) to head the House of Representatives. Then, as an aside, he smiled and winked at the class, and said, “well, at least I know no one in here contributed to the end of America as we know it”. I wanted to stand up and scream, “I did!! I am bringing about a revolution in American governance and I am damn proud of it”. But, feeling a little ostracized, I did not. I am not one who normally gets “offended” by other people and the things they say but, I have to say I was on this occasion.” Readers are hereby invited to send in any reminiscences – past or present – of blatant professorial political bias in today’s academia. Not just expressions of opinion, but attempts to intimidate or exclude opposing opinions.

She’s fine, looking somewhat pleased with herself. One of the “incidents of marriage” should surely be the joint cleaning up after sick pets or children. I second this reader sentiment:

“Beagles are the exemplars of ‘clever but not smart.’ Although grad students may compete for that title…”

Quite.