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.