David Frum wites on the National Review blog:
Seven years ago, Andrew Sullivan and I conducted a fierce debate in Slate about same-sex marriage. Along the way, I hazarded this prediction:
“Andrew, three years after we permit gay marriage, it will be illegal for schools to send home printed forms with one blank for the mother’s name and one blank for the father’s.”
Did I say three years? In Canada, it’s taken barely one.
In the province of Ontario, the words “wife,” “husband,” “widow,” and “widower” are now all to be stricken from the law. The words “mother” and “father” cannot be far behind.
Ontario’s action is a reminder that same-sex marriage is not just the extension of an existing legal status to previously excluded persons. Same-sex marriage is a revolution in the definition of marriage for everyone – a revolution not just in law, but in consciousnessness.
And one effect of this revolution – and for many proponents, one of the revolution’s aims – is to make forever unthinkable the idea that husbands and wives each have special duties to one another, and that a husband’s duties to his wife – while equally binding and equally supreme – are not the same as a wife’s duties to her husband.
Once we lose that knowledge, we lose the basic grammar of marriage. It is one more reminder that in the same-sex marriage debate, we are debating not marriage’s change – but marriage’s overthrow.
Frum’s seems to blame the decline of marriage on the blurring of gender roles, yet what are these roles? While men generally make more than women, that gap is narrowing. One of the wealthiest people in the US is an African-American female. Some men may be physically stronger, but most would be hesitant to jump in the ring with female wrestler Joanie Lauer. Women hold positions on various boards, they are surgeons, attorneys, etc. They can be nurturing as parents but are not necessarily more so than fathers can be. Only in the ’50s was Dad’s role to come home from the office, plop himself in front of the television with a beer and wait for the Mrs. to feed him dinner.
What are we pushing for here, exactly? I’m beginning to wonder if this all isn’t a fear of emasculation on the part of (some) conservative men.
I just love how the Left deals with objections to their so-called progressive agenda. Here David Frum presents a reasonable concern that radical reorientation of the basic family structure will have far reaching negative consequences. So how does the Left (as represented here by JamesK) respond? “Conservative men” are nothing more than a bunch of guys suffering from irrational castration fears. Well, forgive me if I don’t applaud such insightful commentary. Anyone out there want to discuss this issue seriously?
Untangling JamesK comment:
James K begins by skewing the discussion trhough a mistatement of the central thesis of Frum’s article. This is quite an accomplishment given that Frum’s article is so short. Let us compare. James K states that …”Frums seems to blame the decline of marriage on the blurring of gender roles…” Frums actual thesis is …”Same-sex marriage is a revolution in the definition of marriage for everyone – a revolution not just in law, but in consciousnessness.”
RESPONSES TO HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT: Society can respond to homosexual conduct in at least three ways. First, it can criminalize it. Second, it can decriminalize the conduct but refrain from giving the conduct the honor of a Constitutionally protected activity. Third it can elevate homosexual conduct to a Constitutionally protected activity and honor it to the same degree that real marriage is honored. The third alternative is a true cultural and civilizational revolution. The second is not.
Most Americans ascribed to a “live and let live” attitude about life and don’t really want to spend their time hunting down and harassing adults who engage in homosexual conduct privately. Most Americans therefore favor decriminalization, the
second, non-revolutionary alternative.
FRUM’S THESIS REVIEWED: Another way to express Frum’s thesis is to say that he is pointing out that the movement in favor of gay marriage is not simply a rejection of the first noted alternative, a rejection of criminalization of homosexual conduct, but, is in fact, an embrace of the third alternative, which is a true cultural revolution. The cultural revolution, by the way, involves much much more than the private conduct of some consenting adults, it involves inevitably a grand experiment affecting all of our children in ways we cannot predict with certainty and in way that we have some good reasons to fear would harm them. The gay marriage movement is part of a mind set which make a God of sexual freedom and gratification regardless of the long-term effects on the individuals involvle, regardless of the impact on children, regardless of the long-term impact on society.
I actually wish to leave aside the issue of gay marriage and focus on this “gender role” issue alluded to in Frum’s article and that seems to be brought up every time gay marriage is, even though I don’t particularly see the two issues as being very related.
Here’s a quote from a parent about James Dobson’s Bringing Up Boys:
“I’ve heard about the views espoused in Dobson’s Bringing Up Boys before, but this time it really sunk in. Dobson belongs to the old school of gender roles, where men are men and women are women. Gender roles are sharply defined, and crossing those lines is a straight path to homosexuality. Apparently dads are supposed to wrestle with their boys, stock their toy boxes with play guns, encourage them to play sports, and — I wish I was making this up — shower with toddler-aged boys to show them what a penis looks like. If a father fails in those things, the boy is bound to be gay.
T-ball was the extent of my childhood sports career, I rarely wrestled with my dad, and I definitely didn’t shower with him. While I did play with plenty of guns, that’s only 1 for 4. I must be three-quarters gay. My wife played with G.I. Joes as a child, so our marriage is pretty much whacked.
This is the kind of 1950s mindset that firmly divides domestic chores from manly tasks. This is the mindset that declares men as the only fit breadwinners and women as the only fit nurturers. This is the mindset that squeezes people into boxes that don’t fit. This results in non-athletic boys (like myself) and non-girly girls feeling unnatural, like something is wrong with us.”
(reference here).
Some quotes directly from James Dobson’s book:
“Efforts to feminize [boys] with dolls, quilts, non-competitive games, girl-centered books, and feelings exercises will fail; though they will succeed in making millions of boys quite unhappy.”
“[F]ar more men than women will choose to be mechanics, engineers, or soldiers. Early childhood education, family medicine, and social work will continue to be dominated by women.”
Now, I do realize that boys gravitate towards certain types of play and girls towards others and I see no particular harm in that (even though I’m uncertain as to whether this is a result of a natural “tendency” or some type of encouragement from the parents).
However, to insist that giving your son a football and toy gun will prevent him from becoming gay or that giving him an “Easy-Bake Oven” will make him so is a grave over-simplification, yet Dobson (and others) hold fast to these ideals and are using the unrelated issue of gay marriage as a means of coercing others into accepting these ideals.
One of those effects will be homosexual “sex education” alongside heterosexual sex education programs.
Note 4: I would fall out of my chair laughing if it wasn’t so pathetic.
For our consideration we are given in one corner:
Dr. James Dobson, founder and chairman of the board of an international non-profit organization that produces syndicated radio programs heard on more than 3,000 radio facilities in North America and in 9 languages in over 98 countries. Dr. Dobson was Associate Clinical Professor of Pediactrics at the University of Southern California School of Medicine, served 17 years on the Attending Staff of Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles in the Division of Child Development and Medical Genetics, and holds a Ph.D. from the University ot Southern California in Child Development.
And Dr. Dobson’s challenger, in the other corner, is:
Monkey Outta Nowhere, aka, Kevin D. Hendricks: Unemployed writer (of one self-published novel) and blogger who attended a “private liberal arts college” (did he actually graduate from Bethel University?) and has the debt equivalent to the cost of a small home (if it’s a small Orange County, California home then I really pity him). He also has a dog named Speak (my, how clever).
Do you really expect us to take monkey-boy’s critique of Dr. Dobson seriously? Now if monkey-guy wants to talk about being a bag-boy at Krogers, I think we’ll listen.
I have a feeling that monkey-guy and JamesK got really upset when Gov. Schwarzenegger used the term “girlie men”. 😉
I was not aware that opinions were only valid when one has received a doctoral degree or if they hold a prestigious position as an attorney or physician (of course in which case they’d be guilty of “cultural elitism” derived from liberal academic training).
By these standards, I should revere the opinions of billionaires Ted Turner (who called FOX “a propaganda tool of the Bush administration”) and George Soros more valid than the members of the simple proletariat such as ourselves.
James, Missourian didn’t say you opinions were invalid. She said you skewed the central thesis of Frum’s piece and then argued against Frum using that skewed thesis. She is correct. In fact, her response indicates she took your opinion seriously, hence her correction.
Note 4. James, do you have children?
Note 8,9: Actually I was responding to Daniel who derided the one parent for questioning Dobson’s approach toward child-rearing.
As far as whether I have children: no. I am single, and while I have the financial resources for raising one, I do not believe that with my hectic schedule of my daily work, music gigs and various social causes and activities that it would be fair to the child if I were to adopt.
Certainly Dr. Dobson and FOTF have put forth many worthwhile things. However, I must question his overly simplistic and antiquated ideals of what proper activities for boys and girls are. The Church I belong to uses his “Bringing Up Boys”, and I truly could not believe how it encourages such a narrow interpretation of how fathers are to deal with their sons: as if “roughing it up”, giving the boy a football and avoiding anything remotely “girly” will prevent them from becoming gay.
Nonsense. Some of the best chefs in the country are male (heterosexual ones, to boot). Yet, I’m willing to bet that had a parent come to Dr. Dobson complaining that little Billy liked to bake muffins instead of playing hockey, they would have sent him straight to reorientation therapy. I find this mentality not only offensive but also Christian only in name.
Many of our greatest contributors to the arts and society are people who don’t tightly fit into these rigid gender roles. This topic seems to be a prominent side issue in the gay marriage debate, and I don’t think it should be.
As ususal much of the talk on the issue of gay marriage is side-tracked into irrelavencies. Mr. Frum is correct, but it goes even deeper. The whole homosexual agenda is driven by the corrupt idea that a person is defined only by their sexual identity, not even gender identity, but sexual identity (as a post in a different thread stated, we have at least 5 genders now). Such corrupt, reductionist, materialist anthropology is atomizing to society, culture and personhood. With such an anthropology, marriage and family mean nothing, in fact as the actions of Canada indicate, they will soon be illegal. Once such an horrendous idea becomes law, the revealed Christian truth that marriage is reflective of the Incarnation will be viewed societally and legally as hate. Churches may be forced to ordain people who flount the fundamental teachings of the faith or face governmental discipline of various kinds from revoking of tax-exempt status to imprisonment.
One only need look at the activities of the ACLU in support of NAMBLA to begin to see some of the other dangers we face. Children will become even more sexualized than they are now.
It is not just about sex or gender identities, but the fundamental understanding of who we are as human beings.
Note 10. The reason I ask is because I’ve found that the people who argue the strongest that male and female identity is due primarily to socialization are often the ones who have no experience raising children.
Also, the psychological roots of homosexuality are lodged in the relationship between the child and same-sex parent.
Missourian writes: “Society can respond to homosexual conduct in at least three ways. First, it can criminalize it. Second, it can decriminalize the conduct but refrain from giving the conduct the honor of a Constitutionally protected activity. Third it can elevate homosexual conduct to a Constitutionally protected activity and honor it to the same degree that real marriage is honored. The third alternative is a true cultural and civilizational revolution. The second is not.”
I’m not sure what you mean by “Constitutionally protected activity.” The Constitution doesn’t mention marriage. (Not that I recall, anyway.) In the cases decided by the Supreme Court, the principles invoked were right of privacy (Georgia), equal protection (Colorado), and equal protection (Texas). In that context I don’t know how marriage would be a constitutionally protected activity over and above homosexual activity that is already seen as protected under the Constitution.
Missourian: “The cultural revolution, by the way, involves much much more than the private conduct of some consenting adults, it involves inevitably a grand experiment affecting all of our children in ways we cannot predict with certainty and in way that we have some good reasons to fear would harm them.”
My understanding is that there are already several hundred thousand children living with homosexual parents. This includes natural, foster, and adopted children. So this is an “experiment,” if you will, that has been going on for some years. The studies done to date don’t show any particular harm to children. As Fr. Hans has noted, these studies are rather preliminary in nature, and neither comprehensive nor definitive. But I don’t think we can ignore them either.
Missourian: “The gay marriage movement is part of a mind set which make a God of sexual freedom and gratification regardless of the long-term effects on the individuals involvle, regardless of the impact on children, regardless of the long-term impact on society.”
I think this is a rather reductionist view of marriage, whether gay or heterosexual. In fact in Lawrence v. Texas the Supreme Court, commenting on Bowers v. Hardwick, said that “To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse. The laws involved in Bowers and here are, to be sure, statutes that purport to do no more than prohibit a particular sexual act. Their penalties and purposes, though, have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home.
The court goes on to note that “When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring.” Citing another case, the Court says that “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” The Court refers to such things as “the attributes of personhood.”
I think the Court is completely correct in it’s view that sex is not just an isolated, selfish act of gratification, but something that is organically connected to one’s self-perception and understanding of what it means to be a person. You call homosexual marriage an “experiment” conducted regardless of the consequences to children and society. But in reality, *every* marriage is such an experiment. We do not know the outcome of a marriage in advance of the marriage. Will the couple be good parents? Will the marriage last? Will children be produced? Will the family succeed financially or be a burden to society? Who can know these things with certainty?
Marriage and procreation are seen as such fundamental rights that we do not forbid them even to those who have slim chance of succeeding. Thus active drug users and alcoholics can marry and bear children — once, twice, ten times. People unemployed, uneducated, and broke can marry and have children. Serial killers can marry and have conjugal visits in prison. Convicted felons can marry.
But when it comes to homosexuals, the rules change. A lesbian couple, having already lived together for 30 years and paid their own way through life, cannot marry. An award-winning gay foster parent cannot adopt a 12 year old child whom he has cared for since infancy. No, these things would be the end of civilization as we know it. I don’t think so.
Note 12: So if I understand you correctly, male and female identities are not caused by “socialization” but by some intrinsic qualities they are born with, like the “aggressive gene” or the “football gene” for boys or the natural gravitation towards all things pink for girls (a color which I must admit sends me impulsively fleeing in the other direction).
My question is: if aggression and competitiveness are a “male” hereditary characteristic, are they also necessarily Christian spiritual attributes and something to be encouraged or are they the result of original sin?
I actually tend to believe that we are in fact, born with a natural inclination towards certain things: what disturbed me was Dr. Dobson’s desire to “socialize out” these characteristics when they don’t fit the mold of an ideal male (whatever that is).
James, I’m did not say that monkey-guy’s opinions are invalid. I simply pointed out some facts one should take into concideration when evaluating how informed one opinion is over another. Everyone and their mother is full of opinions. Some opinions are much more informed than others. I would not have taken the tact I did if you had started the discussion by referencing some Lefty academic who thinks boys should be given Barbie dolls and taught to bake cookies while girls should be given footballs and Bob the Builder toys to make your point (There are plenty of academics who agree with you and Mr. Hendricks and who despise Dr. Dobson’s opinions on child rearing. Instead of doing your “research” in online blogs, go to a library and read a book.).
If Mr. Hendricks wants to ignore Dr. Dobson in the raising of his own children, fine. However, when it comes to the subject of Child Development I have absolutely no doubt that Dr. Dobson has a bit more information at his disposal than Mr. Hendricks. Just because someone is raising children doesn’t make that person an expert on child development.
“Studies Show” We have been around this block before
Jim Holman types:
Missourian: ?The cultural revolution, by the way, involves much much more than the private conduct of some consenting adults, it involves inevitably a grand experiment affecting all of our children in ways we cannot predict with certainty and in way that we have some good reasons to fear would harm them.?
My understanding is that there are already several hundred thousand children living with homosexual parents. This includes natural, foster, and adopted children. So this is an ?experiment,? if you will, that has been going on for some years. The studies done to date don?t show any particular harm to children. As Fr. Hans has noted, these studies are rather preliminary in nature, and neither comprehensive nor definitive. But I don?t think we can ignore them either.
***************
Probably the most frequently used phrase is the pro-gay revolution arsenal is “studies show that children raised in “gay homes”” do just fine. The studies are not cited. Fact is there are no, repeat no, longitudinal comparative studies of children raised in “gay homes” compared to those raised in normal homes. To even engage in such an experiment is immoral. It is immoral to experiment with children’s lives which is just what Mr. Holman wants us to do. There are also studies collected by Stanely Kurtz which show damage to children raised by a gay parent.
No one has a constitutional right to adopt a child. A child is not a pet, a fashion accessory or a hobby. The Common Law of the United States has always properly put the interests and rights of the child first. Adoption does not exist to entertain, amuse or satisfy the wishes of the proposed adoptive parents. It is truly disgusting to listen to arguments in which the reader is supposed to feel sympathy for adults who are denied the opportunity to adopt a child.
Why are we experimenting with children’s lives? Because some adults have a sexual preference for member’s of their own sex. They want this sexual preference enshrined as legitimate and socially equivalent to reproductive sex. They want this more than anything and they don’t care who pays for it.
Note 14. Ever hear the phrase “boys will be boys?” Well, its true. Yes, boys like trucks, girls like Barbies. It’s innate but not universal of course, but close enough to be true.
My reason for asking if you had children is that this point is self-evident to anyone raising children. People without children are usually the only ones (apart from some gender-bending types) disputing it.
Dobson’s point as I understand is that children’s play should reflect this innate gender differentiation. I agree.
Note 13. “Studies show” our experimentation with children is taking a terrible turn: Study finds disproportionate abuse by ‘gays’: 34% of sexual molestations of foster children were same-sex.
Note 18:
This is indeed possibly very disturbing news … but hold on.
I make no allegations, simply am questioning the following:
a) Dr. Cameron forced dismissal from the APA (copy available here) for his “lack of cooperation with the Committee on Scientific and Professional Ethics and Conduct”.
b) Regarding his testimony in Baker v. Wade: the court found “there has been no fraud or misrepresentations except by Dr. Cameron, the supposed ‘expert’ for District Attorney Hill” (available here).
Perhaps we need to see the details of the study without the intermediate “analysis” of Dr. Cameron at the very least.
I’m sure if this study gets enough exposure someone will do the analysis.
Only an Anecdote
My sister …. Jane… (not her real name) is a devout Christian woman who gave up a large professional income to stay home and raise her two children. She was a dedicted mother and carefully monitored her boys’ activities at all times. Both Jane and her husband Bob refused to give the boys war toys or games. They also closely monitored the boys’ TV and movie consumption as well as their playmates.
Well, guess what, Jane eventually found the boys playing “cowboy and indians” and “U.S. Marines and Japanese” in the backyard. The boys were avid readers and they read history. They would make the games up and engage in imaginative play running around the yard. So, eventually Jane found herself using the phrase ….”boys will be boys.” The boys have since grown up to be succesful, pleasant and well-adjusted young men.
I believe that every child should be treated as an individual. I also believe that children should not be typecast by gender. I think is it good that we have male nurses and female doctors. Some boys love to cook, some girls hate cooking. Some girls love horses, camping out, mountain climbing and the great outdoors, some boys hate all those things and would rather stay inside and read.
But even very, very young children, those as young as 1 or 2 years old, still tend to gravitate towards trucks rather than dolls, or dolls rather than trucks. Why should we be surprised? Since when as the difference between the sexes recognized by every culture known to man become something we can’t acknowledge.
Fr. Hans writes: “‘Studies show’ our experimentation with children is taking a terrible turn: Study finds disproportionate abuse by �gays�: 34% of sexual molestations of foster children were same-sex.”
More Paul Cameron propaganda.
Another view of Cameron:
“Psychologist Paul Cameron has used his own studies to claim that homosexuals threaten public health, social order, and the well-being of children. His conclusions are generally at odds with other published research, and objective indices show that his work has had no apparent impact on scientific research on sexual orientation.
“Although Cameron has been criticized in the popular press, extensive scientific critiques of his group’s research have not been widely available. Those that have been published have been brief or appeared in obscure journals. This inattention by the scientific community is perhaps not surprising, given the poor quality of the Cameron group’s data and the low prestige of the journals in which they have published. Most scientists have simply ignored the Cameron studies.”
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron.html
You can find critiques of his studies at the same site.
I can’t comment on Cameron and his studies but given the problems the Catholic Church has with homosexual priests abusing boys, it would be interesting to know if the disporportionate abuse is (or is not) replicated elsewhere. This is one reason why the Boy Scouts don’t allow homosexual scoutmasters for example. I published a study on this a while back.
Interesting that so many are so quick to knock down Dr. Cameron. I haven’t dug into the controversy around him but I find these attacks very telling. One should point out that his result goes against the entire liberal orthodoxy that embraces homosexual behavior.
Also where is this outcry when it comes the “father” of sexual studies Alfred Kinsey. His groups where incredibly squewed in order to support Kinsey’s prejudice. But when this is pointed out it is poo poo’d as the complaints of a sexually repressive mind.
You don’t suppose the Dr. Cameron’s isn’t published in “significant” journals and doesn’t get a fair hearing in the larger community of sexual researchers because his results may contradict the “god” of sexual research Kinsey, do you? Naah, couldn’t be.
BTW, Jim, thanks for that incredibly unbiased source on Dr. Cameron. Why am I not surprised that a group that “features work by Dr. Gregory Herek, [whose research focuses on] sexual prejudice (also called homophobia), hate crimes, and AIDS stigma.” Check out this group’s links page. We who do not look favorably on homosexual behavior are lumped together under “The Religious Right and Related Anti-Gay Links.” And who is the “Religious Right” related to? Why “White Nationalists, etc”, i.e., neo-Nazis, of course. So I’m supposed to believe that a group that relates the “Religious Right” with Neo-Nazis is going to give Dr. Cameron a fair hearing? Puhleese.
I’ll tell you what really gets my blood boiling about the link Jim provided is that it is at the website for the University of California at Davis. So my tax dollars are being used to characterize me (and every Orthodox Christian who doesn’t embrace the homosexual agenda) as a neo-Nazi.
I am interested in getting to the facts of this study, if for the very least because it relates to other discussions regarding bias. Now, it is a fact that Dr. Cameron was dismissed from the APA and was found to have misrepresented various facts in courtroom testimony. Still, his analysis may be completely factual.
I will make the effort of finding the set of raw data that Dr. Cameron analyzed and put it forth for our own analysis, if possible. In the mean time, we need to careful of the conclusions and generalizations we draw from that data. It’s worth mentioning that 1 of 3 females are molested by adult men, many within their own family. This is a staggering number. Still, we do not make crass generalizations about adult married men as a result.
Allow me to do some digging …
From World Net Daily: “The Leader acquired information from DCFS through the Freedom of Information Act indicating most sexual abuse of children was by foster fathers, but that foster mothers were responsible for over three-fourths of physical abuse. ”
Not according to the Illinois DCFS: (reference here).
Relationship to victim of sexual abuse:
Foster Parent 5
Adoptive Parent 17
Babysitter 171
Other??? 693
Children indicated for sexual abuse:
Female: 2,244
Male: 562
Other: 5
Perpetrators of sexual abuse:
Female: 192
Male: 2,193
Unknown: 55
I cannot map from these charts the victim/perpetrator gender relationship, however. Clearly, the issue is not foster parents, however, based on the data as I read it.
I will evidently need to contact the DCFS through mail for more specifics on this.
Daniel writes: “Interesting that so many are so quick to knock down Dr. Cameron.”
There aren’t many. This is because the quality of his work is not considered worth responding to, nor is his work published in the most influential journals.
Daniel: “I haven’t dug into the controversy around him but I find these attacks very telling. One should point out that his result goes against the entire liberal orthodoxy that embraces homosexual behavior.”
I don’t think that matters. Conservative scholars who are good researchers and analysts are taken seriously. Conservative economists win the Nobel prize. This is not a liberal-vs-conservative thing.
Daniel: “You don’t suppose the Dr. Cameron’s isn’t published in ‘significant’ journals and doesn’t get a fair hearing in the larger community of sexual researchers because his results may contradict the ‘god’ of sexual research Kinsey, do you? Naah, couldn’t be.”
The complaint about him doesn’t concern his opinions but the quality of his analysis. People complain about liberals, e.g., Peter Singer, for the same reason. By the way, if I’m thinking of the same guy, my main ethics professor in college — a liberal atheist — thought Singer was a joke.
Daniel: “BTW, Jim, thanks for that incredibly unbiased source on Dr. Cameron.”
To paraphrase Fox News: I report, you decide. I think it’s important to know that other professionals in the field do not respect his work.
In the course of promoting homosexual behavior as normative, a California public university website, subsidized by tax payer money, equates religious conservatives with neo-nazis and Jim incredulously writes, “This is not a liberal-vs-conservative thing.”
I read an article some time ago by Theodore Dalrymple in which he describes a moment walking with an Indian government official. As the two men pass by a shanty town of untouchables Dalrymple points out the incredible poverty these people are living in and wonders why the people of India don’t do something for these unfortunate individuals. The official stares for a few momemts at people moving about in filth and rags, begging for their existence. He then looks back at Mr. Dalrymple and says, “I see nothing.” (I’m afraid at this moment I can’t find it online, but if I do I will certainly post it.)
It is enough to drive one insane discussing issues with people who look at the patently obvious and say, “I see nothing.”
Daniel writes: “In the course of promoting homosexual behavior as normative, a California public university website, subsidized by tax payer money, equates religious conservatives with neo-nazis and Jim incredulously writes, ‘This is not a liberal-vs-conservative thing.'”
A reference to a web page, or a description of how to get there would be helpful. At this point I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Note 28: It is well known that in some of today’s universities, liberal professors outnumber conservative professors by a wide margin, as do the nature of some of the courses. (Perhaps this is because “conservative course” titles would be so self-parodying: maybe a “How Native Americans Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the White Man” course or “How to Make Any War a ‘Holy’ War”? ;-))
Personally, I would also like to see greater dialogue and openness to both sides in higher education. It’s good for students to be presented a free range of ideas. Nevertheless, we must not complain about this all being at the “taxpayer’s expense”. There is no reason why art or university classes need to be representative of popular opinion, especially if popular taste or opinion is bad. Art, especially, can excel when it provokes thought or discussion, even if it makes us uncomfortable.
For goodness sake! This is getting just stupid! Now Jim doesn’t even remember what he himself linked. Go back to your own post and see what I’m talking about.
Let me try and spell it out for you: This website: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/index.html, is the home webpage for Dr. Gregory Herek and it is maintained on the server of the Psychology Department of the University of California at Davis on behalf of Dr. Herek. Now this education institution, Jim, is a public university supported, in part, by California taxpayers (have I lost you yet?).
The Dr. Herek’s website purports to teach everyone that homosexual behavior is normal and anyone who speaks out against homosexual behavior suffers from homophobia, and hates and stigmatizes homosexuals. And here, again, is Dr. Herek’s links page, http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/useful_links.html. I will point out, for Jim’s benefit (since I’m sure most other readers understand) that this page is housed on the University of California at Davis server. Now you will all see (if you cut and paste that link into a your browser) the heading “The Religious Right and Related Anti-Gay Links”. And where do the Anti-Gay links lead? Why to White Nationalist hate groups, i.e., Neo-Nazis, like Stormfront.org, of course.
Allow me to connect the dots: Dr. Herek’s website, which clearly promotes a pro-homosexual agenda informs us that groups that oppose this agenda like Concerned Women for America, Phyllis Shafly’s Eagle Forum and many others are “related” to Neo-Nazi hate groups.
Therefore, my tax dollars are being used to tell me and anyone who sees homosexual behavior as deviant that we are equivalent to a Neo-Nazis.
The effect of what I am describing above is being played out, again for those with eyes to see and ears to hear, at Harvard where the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance (BGLTSA) is condemning Jada Pinkett Smith for comments they call “heteronormative”. “BGLTSA Co-Chair Jordan B. Woods ?06 … said ?Some of the content was extremely heteronormative, and made BGLTSA members feel uncomfortable.?
What were the horrible comments that Jada Pinkett Smith uttered? She said, “”Women, you can have it all – a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career. They say you gotta choose. Nah, nah, nah. We are a new generation of women. We got to set a new standard of rules around here. You can do whatever it is you want. All you have to do is want it.”
So when you start with the idea that homosexual behavior is normal and any criticism of homosexual behavior is equivalent to being a neo-Nazi then anything that is said that actually promotes a normal male – female relationship must be condemned.
Does all this sound crazy? You would be right this is insane. And it is a “conservative vs. liberal issue” because the liberals do not stand up against the initial meme created by folks like Dr. Herek that says (I know I’m repeating myself, but some folks here don’t seem to get it) homosexual behavior is normal and those who think otherwise are “related” to Neo-Nazis.
Universities as Havens for Political Movements
I think that Ward Churchill will be a turning point in the history of American higher education. Taxpayers of public institutions have every right to control the content of higher public education and the official activities of the teachers.
There is no constitutional right to tenure. Tenure is a custom, not a legal right and it is not required by the First Amendment. True academic freedom is the freedom to do research unfettered by pre-conceived ideas and to publish that research.
There does not exist a right to use a professorship to preach a political viewpoint to students. Professors may be legitimately directed to teaching a substantive subject. Academic freedom does not mean that professors may use the University as the base of a political movement. Professors may be legitimately directed to confine their professional activities to bona fide research and teaching of information gleaned from professional research.
Ward Churchill is subject to legitimate criticism for the following:
a) lying on his resume and claiming to be an ethnic American Indian
b) engaging in copyright violations and fraud by copying and selling someone else’s artwork
c) falsifying and mistating research data on Mandan Indians
d) advocating political violence
Public taxpayers have every right to supervise use of their tax dollars. It is time for alumni and public taxpayers in general to exert pressure on public universities to shut down “peace studies,” and “LGBT” programs for starters.
Private Universities are run by their trustees and if those trustees want to allow their campus to be used as political bases, that is fine. However, parents are free to refrain from sending their children there. American parents need to exert their considerable clout as the check writer and refuse to further subsidize Leftist indoctrination.
Universities as Leftist Power Bases
From Rocky Mountain News by Mike Rosen
Thank you Ward Churchill! As the poster child for so much of what’s wrong with higher education today, you moved this issue from the back burner to the front burner of public policy. Whether you stay or go is merely another battle. This is about the war of ideas.
Richard Rorty is a philosophy professor at the University of Virginia. He’s also editor of an unabashedly socialist magazine, Dissent, and a hero of the academic left. Here’s his political assessment of academe: “The power base of the Left in America is now in the universities, since the trade unions have largely been killed off. The universities have done a lot of good work by setting up, for example, African-American studies programs, Women’s Studies programs, and Gay and Lesbian Studies programs. They have created power bases for these movements.”
Movements? If you had any illusions that these programs were simply “studying” these areas, now you know better. Like Churchill’s Ethnic Studies program, they’re all “movements.” And American universities have become “the power base of the Left.”
The debate stimulated by the Churchill affair has escalated into a long overdue exploration into the politics and processes of higher education. The sacred cow of tenure is under review, along with the limits of academic freedom and the shameful lack of ideological balance within college faculties. It’s like peeling off the outer layers of an artichoke to get to the heart of the issue.
And this is it: 1) Ideology and politics. As Rorty proudly proclaims, the Left has taken over academe. We want it back. 2) Accountability. Self-important academics believe themselves to be beyond reproach, sitting as philosopher-kings, dispensing their wisdom to the ignorant masses. Nonsense. They’re ordinary people, government employees dependent on their customers and the taxpayers for their income, and ultimately accountable to their bosses and the citizens who elect the Board of Regents. Academic freedom is not absolute.
One hundred ninety-nine CU faculty members, in an ad in the Boulder Daily Camera, have “demanded” that the investigation of Churchill be “stopped immediately.” They argue that inquiries into his alleged plagiarism, misrepresentation of sources cited in his “scholarly” writings, false claims of Indian status in his affirmative action job application, and incitements to commit violence should be inadmissible because he had originally been criticized only for his ideas. Please. This is like saying a fugitive serial killer should be released because he was originally stopped by the police for making an illegal left turn. Churchill’s potty mouth is what got him noticed.
Some of his apologists have resorted to playing the “McCarthyism” card. Nonsense. This implies that Churchill is being unjustly hounded for things he has not done or things that cause no harm.
On the contrary, Churchill’s misdeeds appear to be quite tangible, deadly serious and extremely harmful. That’s why there’s an investigation. Let’s see what it concludes.
Professor Charles Braider, director of the Center for Humanities and Arts, says the Churchill investigation has caused a “chilling effect” on curriculum and is “affecting the very life of the university.” Good. It’s about time. I’d prefer to call it a remedial, correcting effect.
Whatever the outcome for Churchill, the battle lines have formed and are hardening. Here’s what many of us, I hope most, would like to see: substantive change, a revolution even, at the University of Colorado. It must start with electing regents who have a commitment to restoring real, intellectual diversity and an evenhanded exchange of ideas. That means hiring conservative professors to balance the now left-lopsided scales.
It means ending politically correct speech codes for students and the “diversity” and “sensitivity” re-education camps freshmen are forced to attend. It means a housecleaning of administrators, starting with President Betsy Hoffman. It means hiring new administrators with sufficient backbone to take on the entrenched, leftist faculty with knowledge that the regents will stand behind those administrators. If the changing culture disturbs some in the tenured left who preferred their monopoly, let them leave, and good riddance.
We’re told that applications from out-of-state students – who subsidize Colorado students by paying six times the resident tuition – have fallen off sharply. Here’s the perfect remedy: Convert CU into a bastion of conservative thought, making it the only big-time state university in the country of that kind. The pent-up demand for such a school is overwhelming.
Multitudes of students would beat a path to our door.
Mike Rosen’s radio show airs daily from 9 a.m. to noon on 850 KOA.
MORE ROSEN COLUMNS »