And to compare the two, even it was tongue in cheek, shows the Post Dispatch is not a credible journalistic enterprise.

Here’s a little history lesson for you: The Leftist intelligentsia in this country have ALWAYS supported dictators and totalitarians, no matter how economically distastrous, socially backward, or genocidal they are, so long as they use the word socialist in their party platforms. (The Left swooned over Mussolini, Stalin, and Mao for decades, and many so-called Progressives even admired Hitler right up to the moment we went to war with him.)Therefore it’s no great suprise a pillar of the academic Left would think nothing of honoring a blight on humanity like Mugabe. Conservatives in this country on the other hand, especially staunch supporters of classical liberalism and democracy like Phyliss Schlafly, NEVER have.

But by all means, continue to publish execrable smears against honorable people. When your readership finally plummits to zero, you won’t have to look hard for the answer why.

Mr. H, I surely hope that you are not trying to compare Mrs. Schlafly and Mugabe. Have you “Googled” Mugabe?

Go Fish, you might want to learn how to read; the post clearly states that the two cases are not equivalent.

I agree Mugabe is a far worse person. However, Schlafly should also not get a degree because her stated positions are directly opposed to the commitment to diversity in WashU’s mission, and because she has insulted the women, foreign students, and members of the GLBT community who are graduating. If anyone wants to know what Schlafly thinks, just check out these quotes:

“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)

My friends, surely you’re reading too much into this post. After all, I’m the one who started this whole Phyllis Schlafly-Washington U controversy on this blog a week ago yesterday and came out forthrightly in favor of academic freedom, even as applied to wingnuts.

Today’s post came about as I was doing some of my assiduous research and preparation for the day’s work and came across a link to the Boston Globe story on the National Journal’s “earlybird” news summary. I thought, “Hmm, Robert Mugabe. And Mark Wrighton thinks HE has problems.”

So I posted the story for all to enjoy. And now I’m getting insinuations that I’m part of the vast left-wing conspiracy. I tell ya, I don’t get no respect.

Mr. Horrigan:

So, how’s this whole ‘reader feedback’ thing working for you?

Yeah, thought as much. Well, have a great day… oh, and keep your hand out of the crazy, will ya?

Tsquare–it’s working great. The more some readers write, the more reasonable and wise our opinions appear. Thanks for all your help!

“Schlafly should also not get a degree because her stated positions are directly opposed to the commitment to diversity in WashU’s mission, and because she has insulted the women, foreign students, and members of the GLBT community who are graduating.”

I have stayed out of this Schlafly brew ha ha because I think it is just stupid, and quite telling of the left. Lets look at the above statement: The writer seems to make us believe the support this thing called “diversity”, but wants Schlafly’s opinions silenced. That is the lefts version of “diversity”, silence all who disagree. Then you mention that she had the audacity to INSULT people (again, by expressing opinions not in lock step with theirs)?

I see no better expression of “diversity” than to award an honor to someone who is “diverse” from WashU.

Well said sir!

Might have been the best thing you’ve written in a long time.

Not that you’re right, of course.

Sorry Si Vis, forgot who I was dealing with. I’ll explain this very slowly for you; there’s a difference between (A) a university allowing a diversity of viewpoints, and (B) awarding its highest honor to someone who is opposed to the core commitments of the university. That is, you can have a university that allows all different kinds of viewpoints, without awarding its highest honor to all of those viewpoints, and in particular to those viewpoints that are demeaning to other members of the university. Most people understand this difference, which is why absolutely *no one* has called for Schlafly’s opinions to be silenced. See how that works! I know, thinking is a pretty amazing thing.

By the way, how did I end up in a freeper chatroom?

How dare you even suggest a conncection. Outrageous. This PC-baiting doesn’t deserve respect.