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.

Mrs. Schlafly’s response to all the furor, on today’s P-D editorial page, reveals a lot about the lady. Presumably the P-D provided the “Match this” header, as is their custom. It was very appropriate.

Can any one of today’s WU students or faculty members come anywhere near Mrs. Schlafly’s record of accomplishments?

It appears most of the opposition from the left is all about this “diversity” worship. They’ve attached an importance to it that causes them to put it above everything and everyone else, and in so doing they become mean and uncivil. Yet, the left does not even tolerate oposing views, while claiming they’re all in favor of diversity.

Not all differences are virtuous or deserving of endorsement, but we mustn’t be malicious toward anyone or seek vengence simply because we disagree with them. Public discourse is what allows the best ideas to take hold and so lifts up our country. Squelching dissenting opinions will plunge this country into such a third rate status we won’t be able to even hope of restoring our reputation as the “shining city on a hill” to which other nations look as a role model of high standards.

Mrs. Schlafly has always acted and spoken appropriately on these issues, because she really cares about people, and she recognizes the harm that is done to those who are being taught to believe the lie that harmful actions are actually desirable. We’re in charge of how we “feel” about what she says and we’re responsible for our reactions. Each of us is capable of deciding for ourselves after hearing all viewpoints. It is shameful to deny a hearing of a reasoned and intelligent argument such as Mrs. Schlafly gives.

Tolerance is one thing. Acceptance and promotion are quite another. Institutions of higher learning should not be in the business of social engineering by attempting to overpower students by allowing professors to push their personal viewpoints on them. Education is supposed to be about exploring all ideas, and teaching students facts and providing them with opportunities and forums to defend their positions. How can that occur when professors are continually browbeating students into regurgitating one opinion — theirs?

Adam,

You make blanket statements that “diversity” is a core value of the university. You and many others throw around innocent and pleasant sounding words without every defining them. How do you define diversity?

Sadly, most in the academic and corporate world use the word to justify the most insidious form of racism which is to assume people’s views are the result of their gender or ethnicity. The mission of any university should be to promote learning and exposure to a variety of viewpoints in order to foster independent research and learning. The best ideas should win out based on their merits. Sadly, universities today have become highly intolerant of any deviation from the current politically correct environment. They foster diversity only when it fits into the preconceived notions of those in charge. Any system that defines diversity by skin color, gender, or ethnicity is inherently racist, xenophobic or sexist and not worthy of a place of learning.

I do not agree with many of Ms. Schlafly view. However, she is a very accomplished person and a graduate of Washington University. If the litmus test you are trying to apply to Ms. Schlafly was applied to the many liberals who have received honorary degrees, the vast majority of the honors would soon dissipate. I believe she if the perfect foil to expose the blatant hypocrisy imbedded in the diversity movement.

In 1970, Mrs. Schlafly spoke to my Illinois Government class at SIUE. It was at the height of the Vietnam War, which she supported. She was speaking to a room full of draft age people who mostly held the opposing view. She said at the start that she understood a lot of us disagreed with her, but she hoped we would allow her to speak and hold our questions till the end. She talked right up to the bell. I always wished I had had the chance to voice my questions about her speech. About 30 years later, I found myself sitting next to her on a flight from Palm Springs to STL. I reminded her about the speech, which she remembered and I told her I’d been waiting 30 years to give her a piece of my mind, but over the 30 years I had come to agree with her on almost everything. Here’s some advice for Wash U. students: don’t get too comfortable with your current positions, the real world has a habit of changing them.

Thinker, you might consider becoming a “Reader.” And the same goes for all of you who are claiming that this is about stifling Schlafly’s opinion. No one is saying that Schlafly shouldn’t be allowed to speak on the campus. You can put a 24-hour Schlafly stand in front of the library for all I care. What people are saying is that WashU should not be giving her its highest award, especially at a ceremony designed to honor a large number of people that she considers to be second-class citizens.

P.S. I notice that absolutely none of you have renounced or tried to defend any of the quotes I provided from Schlafly.

And here you have it: http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/may/13/cu-seeks-right-wing-prof/

Adam, you don’t have to agree with someone or defend someone’s beliefs just because you think they have the right to be heard. This is something that lefties like you can’t quite seem to grasp. I know it is difficult for you people to allow others to speak with whom you don’t agree. How sad.

Centrist, how dense are you? She’s not speaking; she’s getting handed a degree. This is not about silencing speech.

Not that I should expect you to learn how to read in a few short minutes, but here’s a quote from my 4:09 post that you were supposedly responding to:

“No one is saying that Schlafly shouldn’t be allowed to speak on the campus. You can put a 24-hour Schlafly stand in front of the library for all I care. ”

And yet, without even blinking, you claim that I am saying that anyone I disagree with shouldn’t be allowed to speak. Amazing!

Adam,

For a person who likes to call others dense, you seem to have difficulty grasping the concepts in opposing posts. My earlier post made no mention of freedom of speech. The point made was that Ms. Schlafly is a highly successful person who was a graduate of the University. This is the prime reason that people are given honorary degrees.

You want to place a litmus test for those receiving honorary degrees. This test is based on holding left-wing politically correct beliefs. Specifically, you said she was against “diversity”. This is a code word for the racist belief that people should be judged by external characterizes such as gender, ethnicity, or race rather than their own actions.

As I mentioned earlier, I do not agree with all of Ms. Schlafly’s beliefs, but it is not credible or honest to assert that she hates those who are not like her. Also, it is hard to argue that she is not accomplished enough to deserve the honorary degree.

David,

When my post said, “Centrist”, that’s actually because it was directed at Centrist, so that just might be why it didn’t address your “concepts”. Anyway, its great that you and Steven Colbert have evolved to the point where you don’t see race or gender, but members of the reality-based community recognize that people’s race, gender, and sexual orientation often effect how they are treated in the world. And I personally didn’t say that those were the only things that make up the concept of diversity; you can define the term more broadly if you want and it still won’t change the fact that Schlafly has insulted over half of the people who will be graduating this week.

Adam,

I am sure you can add a few more victims to your list of those deserving of special treatment under the guise of diversity. If you are looking for those responsible for treating people different based on race, gender, etc., you need look no further than your reflection in the mirror.

I do not think that you speak for half of the population, but I doubt that that 50% of the people in this country feel insulted by Ms. Schlafly. There are plenty of public figures that have received numerous honorary degrees that have insulted far people more including Senator Obama and the Rev. Wright. Under your litmus test, the entire concept of honorary degrees and commencement speakers would vanish. I guess this is not necessarily a bad thing. Your argument is not consistent or intellectually honest.

P.S. I have never watch Stephen Colbert, so I have no idea what his views are on any topic. If this is where you get your news, the genesis for your opinions seems very clear.

Im not sure how this became a political debate. Her comments should incite everyone. Its as plain as day. She does not believe that a husband can rape his wife!! Well that is indefensible; it is a shame that people are attaching political assumptions to a domestic violence issue. I had thoughts of applying to a Washington University graduate program, but their endorsement of such a misguided bigot, makes me questions some of the beliefs that I thought they held true. I am not a left wing time wasting radical, nor a bible thumping conservative. I fall right in the middle, I am a time wasting bible thumper who believe in the rights of everyone. (Mrs. Shclafely- just so you know that INCLUDES women) I think it is a shame that Wash U is honoring someone who promotes violence. Make this a debate about the definition of rape and see who comes out looking like an idiot.

…just like the living-wage sit in and psuedo-fast of 2005 that happened promptly after someone heard about someone else protesting something similar on NPR, this is really more about WUSTL’s student body keeping up with the Joneses @ NIU and UMASS that it is about Phyllis Schlafly, specifically.

Some WUSTL undergrads (college undergrads in particular) are not unlike Roosters. Something perfectly normal and predictible happens to the East of them, and they promptly go along making a locally distracting commotion for a short time just so they can feellike they were part of it.

…Woosters.

I think it is a complete farce for Wash U to confer anything on Mrs. Schlafly. I feel those honors should be reserved for contributions to society as a whole. She has been nothing but devisive with her views. Her response to the protests (Bitter Women) is just a prime example of why this degree should not be awarded.
Cheers to UMASS President for doing what he should do and rescind the degree given to Mugabe-I would not think Washington Univ. would want to have to consider doing the same thing with one given to Schlafly, so why bother in the first place. To place her in the same category as the other deserving recipients is laughable to anyone who belives in individual rights!

I notice no one has a problem with left-wing, Chris Matthews, who was described by the arch conservative Terry MacAullife as being biased, unfair, even Barak Obama’s campaign manager, receiving an award. I am sure he will get a strange feeling up his leg being around all those radicals. Washngton U should be embarressed honoring someone who works for such an example of bias as MSNBC. The radicals at Wash U. continue to prove it isn’t about fairness and an open exchange of ideas, its about Stalinist control of thought. Remember, however, standing up for Stalinist control does not protect you. Stalin’s policy was “investigate those we trust”. You will be next. But, remember, individual rights don’t matter, its all for the common good. That’s all that matters. Is it true Wash U. plans to add the honorific “Comrade” before each graduates; name is read? See how easy that was? But, you don’t see Conservatives caring. You are a bunch of whiny hypocrites.

Please. Schlafly is a remnant from the stone age on several counts. She is part of the far right that wants to dismantle higher education and public education. Wash U. obviously supports Schlafly’s barbaric and uneducated stance on social issues, which is also why they dismantled the Sociology Department years ago. She is a perfect poster elder to represent the NEED for education, not the success of education.

Some of you folks are having a great time insulting each other. I haven’t read much of Phyllis Schlafly’s writings. Every time she spoke, I found myself disagreeing with her position (I was a young new voter at the time just learning about my own viewpoints). I think I do agree that she probably should not receive a degree, but here’s why; I don’t think I’ve ever heard her RESPECTFULLY disagree with a political position. As has been noted, her comments are so frequently insulting to the objects of her criticism. There is respectful, intelligent dissention, and then, there is trashy, beer-drinking, smartass, angry, redneck dissention. Her comments usually remind me of the latter. Sorry, that’s just the way I see her. And we don’t care who she talks to or where she talks, but as a WUSTL employee, I do late to see honors bestowed upon her, but, “this, too, shall pass!”.

Kevin, I like your Rodney Dangerfield impression.

Rock on phyllis …………..you are right on every count. These women are self loathing professional victims who hop around with one foot in a bucket crying foul at every turn. Why don’t you “progressives” do something about the 3 million children a year slaughtered thru abortion. I see you recently blocked any attempt to relieve the pain of these babies before they are ripped to pieces because it offends you. Unreal………dogs have more rights. Don’t forget that half of these babies you rip to shreds are female. How is that for women’s rights. Protest your own ignorance, you sorry lot.

As a Mother of three daughters - I was VERY active in the early 70s PRO EQUAL RIGHTS!! The statements Ms. S. made re the Amendment were scare tactics, statements that were untrue- Unfortunately they worked!! Hopefully SOMEDAY the AMENDMENT will pass and my four granddaughters will benefit - and Mrs. S will be proven WRONG !!!

No, she’s not Mugabe. Do you meant to imply that, because she’s not, reasonable people cannot argue she is unworthy of an honorary degree from the most prestigious university in the region? There’s a whole lot of evil people that Schalfly’s not. Does that mean she gets a pass?

All of you who are terribly concerned about freedom of speech will, of course, be cheered to realize that what you’re seeing is freedom of speech in action. The University has done something with which many of the members of the community that surrounds it (students, faculty, staff, alumni, and others) disagree. They are exercising their freedom of speech in making that disagreement known. No one is attempting to silence Mrs. Schlafly. They are answering the University, and to some extent answering her, in making clear their disapproval of the honor being bestowed on her.

If there’s one thing in life I’m abundantly tired of, it’s people claiming that their free speech rights are being violated by someone else’s protest of their speech. Free speech guarantees you the right to have your say. It does not guarantee you protection from the consequences of having your say. If your say sparks controversy, those who disagree with you will be exercising their free speech rights in denouncing what you have said. If you don’t like that, you don’t like free speech.

Oh, and before I forget, the joking comparison with Mugabe is something I’d expect from a high school kid. It trivializes the discussion and makes it seem that anything less than mass murder shouldn’t disqualify one from receiving academic accolades. What’s far funnier than the dumb joke, though, is the huffy response from the people who are taking it seriously as a slur on Schlafly. That’s comedy gold, right there.

Kevin,

What would be more interesting is to report it from this angle……

Isn’t it funny that the same professors and students that are so upset with Mrs. Schlafly and her comments never have a problem with the administration cashing her endowment checks. Or anyone they find repulsive for that matter.

Putting a white armband on as a sign of protest is cowardly at best, but mostly petty and dumb. Sending the checks back takes some guts……..

I bet their contempt for Mugabe goes just about as far as the last zero on the check he wrote……..

There must be dozens of other qualified graduates upon which this honor could be bestowed. Why Schlafly? She has worked tirelessly to restrict the rights of women and others. Curiously though, she has always ignored her own advice and recklessly stepped out of her husband’s house to pursue a career.

I suppose Wash U now has so much money they can waste it on honorary degrees for a woman who has done what, exactly, to deserve it?. So much for my donation when they call begging for alms, as they invariably do every year.

I AM SHOCKED THAT SOME DON’T WANT HER TO RECEIVE THE HONORARY DEGREE. ISN’T HIGHER EDUCATION ALL ABOUT DIVERSITY AND HONORING THOSE WHO MAKE A CHANGE, OR AT LEAST MAKE A NOISE TO PROMOTE CHANGE?

Phyllis Schlafly is an old biddie who is partly responsible for women still making less money than men and still hitting the glass ceiling in business. Personally I really think she is a man. No self-respecting woman would ever say the idiotic things she has said in the past and still says today. Honorary degree? I think not. There is no honor in Phyllis Schlafly.

Rosalie, you say your 4 grand-daughters will benefit if ERA finally passes. What do you expect them to get that they can’t get now for crying out loud? As the father of daughters I think you are deluding yourself.
Adam, your three quotes do not “insult” anyone, much less women, foreign students, and/or GLBT misfits. You haven’t shown anything by reprinting them. Diversity is a straw man…used to mean whatever liberals want it to mean at any given moment.
And the statement by the Post-Liberal that Schlafly is no Robert Mugabe is disingeneous at best.

“my assiduous research and preparation for the day’s work” - oh come on Kevin, now don’t try to fool us into believing you actually do any real research, because if you do, it surely doesn’t show.

Adam - how dense are you pal? I didn’t mean that she was literally speaking at the Commencement. I was referring to her past “words” that she has every right to say whether or not you agree with them. Chris Mathews has said many things that I find offensive, but I would not protest his Commencement speech or his honorary degree. He was a speech writer for that moron Jimma Carter for gosh sakes - that should disqualify him from ever doing anything again in his life.

My how this asinine debate takes me back to my days at Wash. U. I recall once sitting in on am impromptu discussion of the 10 most influential people of all times. After about 10 minutes of debating the placement of Jesus Christ and Muhammad on the list, they were rejected, not for a denial of the belief in their actual existence as people, but for their lack of importance in peoples’ lives today (Circa 1999). The supporter of their placement on the list was asked to leave when she calmly interjected that they were clearly more influential than Bob Dylan (#6 on the list). I was left flabbergasted by the closed mindedness and ignorance of the far left by which I was surrounded on this campus. Apparently some things will never change. If the university wants diversity, perhaps it should look for diversity in social and economic philosophies among its faculty rather than pandering to the far left academic eggheads. At times like this I am disgusted to have been a part of that community.

I’ll never forget my senior year at Kansas State University (1983) when Phyllis Schlafly took part in a debate with four professors on campus (the university’s definition of ‘balance’). At the time, I was not familiar with Mrs. Schlafly’s work; only her supposed reputation as a ‘feminist-hater.’

Phyllis Schlafly had these professors for lunch.

She stood her ground, her opinions were forceful, and she was well-versed in her perspective. I developed an admiration and respect for her.

I praise Mark Wrighton for standing HIS ground and doing the right thing by giving her an honorary degree. She is an EXTREMELY strong and accomplished woman in business, politics and the marketplace of ideas. I always thought that was a goal of modern-day feminism. You would think the feminists on campus would give the woman praise, if only for that.

Yet, sad to say, modern-day feminism holds to the ideological position that a woman HAS to have EXTREMELY liberal positions on abortion, human sexuality, ever-larger government intervention in our lives, etc. in order to be accepted by their kind. It seemingly has NOTHING to do with allowing women the opportunity to have careers in whatever field that they choose anymore…and if you DO hold to a well-reasoned - but different - position, they apparently will do the ‘tolerant’ and ‘inclusive’ thing by wearing armbands and turning their backs on you.

How childish.
How selfish.
How pathetic.

Ms. Schlafly has strongly held views on gay rights (opposed), women in the workplace (opposed), school prayer (supportive), the teaching of evolution in schools (opposed), civil rights for minorities (opposed), and the authority of the male spouse (supportive). Since Ms. Schlafly is being honored for her political work and her strong support of the views listed above, I believe that this indicates that the Washington University leaders are, in effect, condoning her political views. They may be doing with with an eye to increase donations from conservative alumni, but they are still condoning her views.

You said it all KEN.Remember all of you who vote democratic are voting for murdering innocent babies.

‘Ms. Schlafly has strongly held views on…women in the workplace (opposed)…civil rights for minorities (opposed)’ (Tony)

One of the reasons this debate is so silly is because there’s so much erroneous information. I’ve NEVER heard Mrs. Schlafly say that women shouldn’t be allowed ‘in the workplace.’ This is absurd. She, herself, is an attorney. All she has EVER said is that women should THINK about marriage, when to have children, etc. before going gung-ho and pursuing a career; you may (and probably will) regret your decision later…as so many millions of women who have left the full-time workforce TO stay-at-home (at least part-time) and try to raise a family can attest.

As a 47-year old, I know many women who have reached their forties and have great regrets (and bitterness) that they didn’t get married or had children during their child-bearing years. Does the Women’s Studies programs at Washington University tell their students this?!?

John C. is wrong about Mrs. Schlafly. Time and again, she has argued that a woman’s place is in the home and not in the workplace. John C. is simply not telling the truth when he denies this fact. With regard to civil rights, Ms. Schlafly wrote a series of articles attacking Martin Luther King, Jr., and also Roy Wilkins. She previously claimed that she didn’t know about the Voters Rights Act of 1964 when she was working on the Goldwater campaign, but many of her associates at the time were vocal opponents of the bill.

Mrs. Schlafly deserves this recognition because she spoke for the voiceless population of her time “Stay-at-home mothers”. She gave me the courage to become educated and yet stay at home to raise our three children. When the children were older I became a college administrator and managed to have the best of both worlds. I still believe in the hand that rocks the cradle…

Thank you for this opportunity to exercise my freedoms,

Mary
Scott Air Force Base, Illinois

The views I hold of Phyllis Schlafly are of no consequence. What I find particulary disturbing is the absurd amount of emotion that this issue has generated. The entire concept of reasoned, informed and respectful discourse is lost on most of the respondents. What I have witnessed throughout the responses is a regurgitation of right or left ideology and not a tremendous amount of research or fairness. Most any quote can be taken out of context to prove one view point or another and unless taken as a whole is a significant statement, not on the individual being quoted, but rather on the individual doing the quoting.

It never ceases to amaze me that such an inconsequential event as an honorary degree can stir such passion. What difference will this degree make one day after it is bestowed? One week? One month? One year? Every day there are real issues of consequence that face us and yet we choose to ignore them. Every day action in governments at all levels strip away our freedoms and liberties. Every day, persons capable of working receive social program money and yet children in this nation go to bed hungry. Every day in this nation, families worry about loved ones in harms way as Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Police Officers, Firefighters and other servents of the public good. Every night, people sleep on the streets, a very large number are former members of the armed forces whose sacrafice and dedicatio to you freedoms and liberties are rewarded by the richest nation on earth with homelessness. And yet you’re worried about some worthless honorary degree being bestowed upon someone with whom you disagree?!!!

Where are your priorities? Why aren’t you expending this same passion on something that matters? Why are you wasting your energy on something so remarkably trivial as to not even be worth an ounce of thought? And in case you are interested, I was refered to this blog by someone wishing my opinion on the debate. This is my opinion! What a pathetic waste of time!!!

Publius touched on where I was going with this.

Wash U, and the people who are getting all worked up about this, waste time, effort, energy and money with these stupid “honorary” degrees. If the university in general, and the law school in particular, wanted to do something that actually mattered, they would pour that money into scholarships, fund internships, and offer loan forgiveness for grads who want to work in the public sector and do something worthwhile in this world.

As a graduate of Wash U’s law school, I become more appalled by the year with the glossiness of the mailers I receive, the shamelessness of the appeals for money, and the willful failure to use that money to do something other than pat themselves on the back for working at such an expensive school. If they want me to donate, they are going to have to prove they spend my money on something other than an honorary degree for a lightning rod of controversy.

If the school really believes in different views, both sides
so to speak, then by all means, P Schlafly should receive
the award. Thank you

John C.

It’s true that Schlafly is an extremely strong and accomplished woman. The problem lies within the fact that she does not apply the same rules to heself that she advocates for women in general. Her strength is admirable but her hateful words are not.

The USA and Missouri and Saint Louis and Washington University should be most proud of the accomplishments of Phyllis Schlafy. May the good Lord bless her.

There is nothing wrong with Schafly getting a degree from Washington University. Just because a small group of students don’t like it, doesn’t mean that a person who has dedicated their life to worthy causes, and not harmed the name of the University she attended, should not get this honor. The students, should they ever graduate to the real world, may one day figure out that there are more important things in life than Starbucks, iPods, and complaining. It’s rather hilarious that the panel that approves honorary degrees, some of them students themselves, saw no problem with the degree earlier. The students, who obviously didn’t do any research, blindly approved it. Now, they are second guessing it. Well, sorry, you can’t change your vote now. Actions have consequences and people need to realize that you can’t have it both ways all the time. In any case, beings that this is Sweeps Month, the news organizations will cover it like some real scandal had occurred. But, this is NOT news.

As an alumna of Washington University, I am saddened and embarrassed that Mrs. Schlafly was chosen by my alma mater to be so honored. I am at a loss to understand why someone who has been such a negative force in history should be lauded in such a manner. Why would such a distinguished university want to applaud the societal contributions of a person who said the following:
“After Big Media, U.S. colleges and universities are the biggest enemies of the values of red-state Americans.”?
If Wash U is spending the time and money to honor Mrs. Schlafly, my donations will be much better spent elsewhere.

What is it that scares people so about Phyllis Schlafly? Is it her intelligence? Is it her good old fashioned values? Is it the fact that she accomplished great things in life and did not need the approval or help of angry feminists and liberals to do so?

Obviously this school and the feminist movement only believe that women who share their narrow views should be honored.

Are people jealous because she did not do as the feminists of the day did and forego having a family but raised a family while accomplishing great things? Many feminists have realized what a tragic choice the latter is and are now writing sad little books about not having had children.

She rejected the liberal feminist ideology and is still highly successful. She believes a woman’s place is wherever her abilities and talents take her, whether that be in the home or the House of Reps. In fact, she coined the phrase, “A woman’s place is in the House…and Senate”.

Responding to Amy attributing the quote “A woman’s place is in the House and Senate” to Mrs. Schlafly -
This phrase is commonly attributed to women’s rights advocate Bella Abzug - http://www.abzuginstitute.org/bella.htm

A conservative woman causes controversy at Wash U. Big surprise. I went to SLU, and although it is generally a liberal college like most, they allowed Schlafly to speak. I found her compelling, solid, and a great American. That was back in 2002. Since then, I have entered the real world, and worked for 2.5 years under a pair of strong feminists. Nothing was more miserable than being a bright, hard-working male and having myself and my accomplishments minimized at every turn. God bless Ms. Schlafly; she speaks the truth, and its ashame more Americans don’t listen. Even more so, it is a tragedy the amount of crap that is spewed about in our post-secondary education system. At this point in my life, I have embraced most of her views and it is my greatest wish that she is given more credence as a strong woman. -Scott in Clayton

This is in response to Bonnie. Actually, it was her husband and he did not say exactly what I wrote above. This is from Time in 1978. Bella Abzug probably paraphrased the quote.

“Undaunted, Schlafly ran for Congress in 1970 (she lost). When her role as wife and mother became an issue, she retorted: “My husband Fred says a woman’s place is in the house—the U.S. House of Representatives.” A similar line was used that same year by another woman politician of considerably different views —Bella Abzug.”

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,945990-2,00.html

I believe in free speech and that everyone has the right to voice their opinions. This does not mean they need to be given honorary degrees!

“Isn’t it funny that the same professors and students that are so upset with Mrs. Schlafly and her comments never have a problem with the administration cashing her endowment checks. Or anyone they find repulsive for that matter.”

It’s rip-roaringly hilarious.

Unless a campus location is named after someone, we usually don’t hear about it.

“A conservative woman causes controversy at Wash U. Big surprise. I went to SLU, and although it is generally a liberal college like most, they allowed Schlafly to speak. [...] That was back in 2002.”

Hey, guess what! Us too!
http://media.www.studlife.com/media/storage/paper337/news/2002/11/01/News/Speaker.Criticizes.Feminism-313022.shtml
This is that free speech that we were discussing earlier, and it’s entirely different from giving someone a doctorate. This is taking all of the WU coursework, all of the scholarly inquiry of a standard doctorate, and GIVING it to someone, saying that what they have done throughout their lives has contributed enough to the world to have performed the equivalent. Does prolific demagoguery deserve a doctorate? (For the curious, I would have preferred that Chris Matthews - who recently bragged in a NY Times profile that he would be up to 22 honorary degrees as of this spring, and who gave a commencement speech I would qualify as “adequate” - not receive one either.)

Word has it that at least for the student members of the board that selected the honorees, the atmosphere was hostile to dissent. The vote offered was not on a per-honoree basis. Members faced a single yes-no vote for the entire slate.

Its a true SHAME on Washington University to have given Phyllis Schlafy an Honorary Degree considering her disrespect of Women’s Rights in the 21st Century. I feel the students should have been respected for their wishes and Washington University choose the wrong path in history.Phyllis Schlafy only sets back Women’s progress in the World.