“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!!!