Phyllis Schlafly Honorary Doctorate

Phyllis Schlafly is absolutely and without question worthy of an honorary doctorate degree. She is a great American! She is well deserving of the honor. Washington University has made the right decision to grant her this honor; and surely they would not now back down because of the complaints of some liberal students. Please, University, hang in there with your convictions; do the right thing. Award her the doctorate.

Gregg Schulte, CFO at Jefferson Comm. & Tech Coll, at 8:20 am EDT on May 5, 2008

Poor Phyllis

That she should be attacked for unanimous nomination by a representative Board and its committee is shocking in today’s America. That unanimity says everything about Washington University, its compassion and its commitment to graduates and to diversity of opinion. Were this the 1930’s, I’m sure they would have similarly honored Father Feeney and Huey Long. Were Washington University as international as it pretends, those honors might have gone to Hitler and Mussolini. Too bad we’re not there and then, because that might have shortcut World War II.

Joe Beckmann, at 9:20 am EDT on May 5, 2008

worthy?

What a vile and disgusting person. She is the antithesis of all things academic. Shame on Washington U.

A woman with a real PhD, at 9:35 am EDT on May 5, 2008

Free speech at Wash U

How dare the Board of Trustees honor someone whose views differ so radically from Professor Dzuback’s! Why, such a thing might even get some of Dzuback’s students to begin asking the professor some embarassing questions. We can’t have that! What do they think they are runnning, a university??

Armando, at 9:38 am EDT on May 5, 2008

Chris B is wrong.

Schlafly absolutely believes a woman cannot be raped by her husband, as is evidence by this link to her own site, “Twenty Years In Prison For Having Sex With His Wife.”

LarryJ, at 9:45 am EDT on May 5, 2008

Not unless the degree is a Doctor of Hipocracy ... this woman has made a career out of denigrating the rights of other women. I was apalled that, in 2008, she could even be considered for this.

Chris Leogrande, at 9:50 am EDT on May 5, 2008

More evidence that sexism is still okay...

Schlafly has made many statements that women, because of inherent physical limitations, should not be allowed to participate in specific jobs, ranging from construction to fire-fighting to the military. She has also argued that if is morally wrong for a mother to work outside the home.

Can you imagine if analogous statements were made about non-whites? Would WU be offering that person an honorary doctorate? My guess is no.

Morphew, at 10:00 am EDT on May 5, 2008

NO LARRYJ

I read the article you pointed out, Larry. It casts doubt that IN A SPECIFIC CASE a man who was convicted of raping his wife was justly convicted. It also points out what she contends are problematic aspects of Michigan’s spousal rape law. Her viewpoints on this issue may not convince you, and they don’t convince me, either. But if you think that a fair summary of her position is that “a woman cannot be raped by her husband” then I suspect that you are impervious to reasoned discourse.

chris b, at 10:10 am EDT on May 5, 2008

Honorary Degree to P. Schafly

What an outrage. This woman has opposed nearly everything that a liberal arts education represents and fosters. As her next door neighbor said to my father, “While this woman roamed the globe defending what she called ‘Family Values,’ her own children were being raised by nannies.

By all means invite her to speak. But to bestow honor on this woman — hypocrite andanti-humanist — is fatuous.

B. A. Washington University (1960) Phi Beta KappaProfessor of European History (retired)

John David Ober, Doctor at Retired, at 10:25 am EDT on May 5, 2008

Intolerance by Fascist liberals

The hypocrisy of the “educated” liberal education elite shows up again to quiet dissent by respected leaders who try to protect women’s rights. Dr. Phyllis Schlafly is more than Worthy of an Honorary Doctorate of her alumnus institution. All graduates and students should be proud of this lady who worked hard during her lifetime to protect the traditional rights of women. The deterioration of these rights by “liberated” women have seen their children grow up unprepared for the new world and their education drop in the USA below so many countries in the world. Thanks to Dr. Schlafly this trend has been slowed. She is a bedrock for women’s rights as those liberal educated institutions noted so well for blocking free speech continue to lessen the quality of life for women. Wake up young ladies and listen to your Dr. Schafly!

sgtsavage, Dr, at 10:50 am EDT on May 5, 2008

Who’s ‘worthy?’

But surely the university has other more worthy and less divisive persons they could honor, particularly in this election year.

Well .. Northwestern University just “released” The Rev. Dr. Wright of Chicago from his obligation to speak at their graduation.

He’s available — would he be “more worthy?” Don’t be evil — don’t be sexist, don’t be racist. Just don’t .. “don’t.”

Russ, at 11:10 am EDT on May 5, 2008

Phyllis Schlafly speaks for many, many women in this country.

justaguy, at 11:55 am EDT on May 5, 2008

Fascist Liberals?!?

As defined by the American Heritage Dictionary — fascism is defined as “a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with beligerent nationalism.”

Liberal is defined as “1. Generous in amount or in giving. 2. Approximate, loose. 3. Of or relating to the cultivation of general knowledge and the humanities: the liberal arts. 4. Broad-minded, tolerant. 5. Favoring civil liberties, democratic reforms, and the use of public resources to promote social progress n. one holding liberal political or cultural views.So, Fascist Liberals is an excellent example of an oxymoron. If anyone fits the facist label in this story it would be Ms. Schlafly. She only came to prominence, in my opinion, because she was the only female lawyer voice speaking against the ERA and Phil Donahue and others were required by then FCC standards to provide equal time for opposing viewpoints on each program on the ERA. As I recall she was the pretty much the sole voice against ERA and one of her main arguments was we would all be forced to use unisex toilets. Been on an airplane lately?

SusanB, AVP/Director of the library at Dakota State University, at 12:25 pm EDT on May 5, 2008

While I’ve never been a Schlafly admirer, her life-long articulation of conservative philosophy shouldn’t be reduced to slogans and a bullet-point list of politically incorrect taboos. One might even read her works and examine the context! I remember my days in academia surrounded by men and women who were more concerned with how one comes to a conclusion. Now a simple litmus test allows the complete dismissal of a person’s corpus.

Let’s wait until they give an honorary degree to Jeremiah Wright … or Ward Churchill. We’ll surely hear about the closed-minded critics who reject the Black Church or Native Culture because of an out-of-context quote. Oh, that’s right I forgot; diversity doesn’t include social conservatives.

Jason, at 12:50 pm EDT on May 5, 2008

What if?

Seems odd that Schlafy would so vigorously defend traditional roles for women and yet find so little to criticize about the effects of women’s suffrage. Doesn’t feminism owe a large debt to women’s suffrage? (It seems likely that Schlafy would believe it has ‘exacerbated’ it, so to speak, fueling issues like the ERA.) If Schlafy had been an inhabitant of the 19th century, not the 20th, what would she have had to say about the agenda of Susan B. Anthony & her allies?

An Old Goat, at 2:00 pm EDT on May 5, 2008

Is Phyllis Schlafly. . . worthy.. . . .?

Yes,she is. ...and the title of this article belies Inside Higher Ed’s negative bias. Unfortunate.

Amy De Rosa, at 4:35 pm EDT on May 5, 2008

It’s not so hard to figure out why Wash U chose to give her an honorary degree. One comment said that the Board of Wash U is “diverse", but doesn’t it stand to reason that Danforth might have either suggested or condoned it? And if so, wouldn’t the Board give its consent? Who in the current Bush administration would have openly challenged any of the “leader’s” policies, especially since Republicans have “esprit de corps” and value consensus? Speaking of “leader", the comment on “liberal fascism” was right on the button: the concept is an oxymoron. Its use shows that the reactionary ideology of Phyllis is not only self-contradictory, but an insult to the democratic aspirations of the women’s movement. Should we now turn around and fulminate against “conservative fascism"? I agree that Wash U did not help itself in the eyes of potential students and the academic public by giving this honorary degree. I think it should have gone not to a reactionary critic, but an enlightened critic like Barbara Ehrenreich or Katha Pollitt. An ex-professor of sociology at Washington U.Cinco de Mayo, 2008

Wolf Heydebrand, Prof Emeritus of Sociology at NYU, at 5:05 pm EDT on May 5, 2008

I especially enjoyed when Mary Ann Dzuback, director of women’s and gender studies at Washington University “said that professors were stunned and angered to learn of the planned honor last week.” It reminds me of Maureen Stanton, a Professor at UC Davis, who was “stunned and appalled” when she heard that Larry Summers was going to give a speech there. It also reminded me of the female biologist from MIT who walked out of Summers’s talk, “later saying that she felt she was either going to faint or throw up.”

You can read my reaction to the controversy at http://media.www.studlife.com/med...fense.Of.Larry.Summers-1642028.shtml

One wonders if Dzuback is planning on installing fainting couches in the faculty lounges of her department for all the stunned, appalled, angry, fainting, and vomiting professors who are of such weak disposition.

My favorite gesture was her comment “that is deeply troubling,” a worthless remark that I have discussed in depth here:http://media.www.studlife.com/med...Semantics.Or.Substance-1478742.shtml

It’s always the same, lame story with these people. I liked Harvey Mansfield’s quote. He is a professor of government at Harvard: “these people are mostly the feminist left and its sympathizers. They fear that affirmative action will be abolished and diminished. They want more diversity, which means, paradoxically, more people like themselves. They want to run the university.”

We don’t need any more people like Dzuback or Schlafly.

Steven S. Hoffmann Washington UniversityClass of 2008

Steven S. Hoffmann, Undergraduate Student at Washington University, at 7:45 pm EDT on May 5, 2008

ChrisB vs LarryJ vs Phyllis Schlafly

LarryJ, thank you for allowing Ms. Schlafly the courtesy of speaking for herself (http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/feb06/06-02-08.html).

That said, the link shows her to be a passionate defender of justice and common sense, even when she personally might benefit by exploiting victimization cant. Would that everyone were as honorable — few are. ChrisB is right.

DaveF, at 7:45 pm EDT on May 5, 2008

So what

“No one is suggesting that honorary degree recipients must be politically popular, Dzuback said.”

Maybe the article should have added, “As long as I agree with the view.”

Personally,I agree generally with the comment that opposed honorary degrees in general although I can swollow them for big donors: hey, they mean nothing and if they help generate a new lab for me, great.

However, Dzuback should be upfront and say that she opposes this one because she doesn’t agree with the recipient’s point of view. That’s fine, but pluuueeeezzzzeeee, keep the theatrics down.

Sam Koneig, at 4:15 am EDT on May 6, 2008

Dennis says:"It’s an honorary doctorate folks. It’s not as if it’s anything meaningful. At least she never had to pay for it with a million dollar donation.”

Don’t you think the University is going to want something of the kind? Prominent St. Louis university, presenting its third degree to a prominent member of a prominent St. Louis family (which has plenty of money from having a not-so-prominent St. Louis beer, and more from the prominent attention the one has gotten from the media and her intolerant supporters all over the country for 40 years)... come on. Easy choice. It’s kind of like conscription in the early Roman Empire, only this time you don’t kill the patricians with whom you disagree for their money, you kiss it right out of their pockets. I hope the Board is employing that sort of attrition as a justification among themselves for such an unjustifiable action.

Sadly Cynical About Academia, Washington University in St. Louis, at 4:15 am EDT on May 6, 2008

Imagine exactly how everyone would respond if this was a race issue—someone advocating that people of color take a backseat as far as rights and that any discrimination they face be deemed a “consent” to such behavior since they’ve applied for a job, or education, or any other myriad of things.This is absurd!

Jessie B, at 10:15 am EDT on May 6, 2008

Phyllis Schlafly Spousal rape in context

I can understand that some don’t likek Schlafly. I’m one of those rare birds that gets hit from both sides because I like her on some issues and disagree on style and sometimes substance on other issues.

The issue of quoting her on spousal rape DOES (not surprisingly) have Context and for those with a desire for more truth and less heat, check out this link http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/feb06/06-02-08.html or do a google search on ‘Phyllis Schlafly wife rape and read the article on the Eagle Forum web site. Context is Everything. Web blog raves..not so much.

J. Whitchurch, at 11:50 am EDT on May 6, 2008

Phyllis Schafly

Phyllis Schafly has a right to her opinion but to make a broad declaration about marital rape which she knows nothing about is over the top. She obviously has never aquainted herself with battered women’s issues and is still living in her 1950’s bubble. Just what is it she thinks women are actually supposed to do in their lives according to her? Be very careful Phyllis, you are dangerously close to keeping women subjacated to men as in the Taliban — these people are our enemies..remember? Our precious freedoms are what over 4000 men have died in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last five plus years to defend. Would she so easily give this up? Sounds oxymoronical to me.

E. Farleigh, at 12:30 pm EDT on May 6, 2008

column on martial rape

E. Farleigh, I would suggest you read the column that Ms. Schlafly wrote on a PARTICULAR case of alleged martial rape. JLarry is wrong when he and others interpret it to say that Schlafly says a wife cannot be raped by her husband. Anyone reading the article with an open mind will see that. (sorry, I don’t have the link handy but it has been mentioned several times in these postings) I don’t agree with everything this woman stands for but unlike so called liberals with their supposed open minds, I am willing to try to see both sides.

Martha, at 12:55 pm EDT on May 6, 2008

E Farleigh said that Schlafly makes “a broad declaration about marital rape.”

Can you point out this “broad declaration” to which you refer? Not a statement by someone else purporting to represent what she said, but a statement or a writing of HERS that qualifies as such “a broad declaration?”

If you read the comments above, I think you’ll conclude that the sources asserting that she believes “a woman connot be raped by her husband” are simply lying or distorting her views. Why IHE won’t retract this smear in their article when there’s no evidence of it other than to link to an article that a cursory amount of research discredits is a puzzle to me, given their usual regard for fairness and accuracy.

chris b, at 1:56 pm EDT on May 6, 2008

TRUTH STILL LACING UP ITS SHOES

Really impressed with your research skills, Mr. Murphy. You pass on the same smear piece cited by IHE from The Lewiston Sun Journal written by someone who is not a staffer for the paper. So you’ve proven that someone (you think he or she was objective?) said that Schlafly said something, but you haven’t shown me anywhere in her writings where she says anything resembling the proposition that “a woman cannot be raped by her husband.”

I guess I shouldn’t make fun of your research skills, because I’m unable to find out the background and history of the JT Leonard identified by the Sun Journal as the author of this blatant falsehood. My guess would be that it was authored by a student at the Bates speech. I conclude it was written by someone intensely interested in discrediting Schlafly. I could be wrong about that, and if you have evidence to counter that view, I’d benefit from hearing it.

What’s beyond dispute is that Schlafly’s article entitled “Twenty Years For Having Sex With His Wife” (linked above)does not support the conclusion that Schlafly believes that a man cannot rape his wife. See the comment string above. So show me the “other examples” you assert exist in her Eagle Forum newsletters.

You may be a Dr. at Wash. U, but I wonder if like LarryJ, you too are impervious to rational discourse.

chris b, at 9:05 am EDT on May 7, 2008

Who’s next?

Louis Farrakhan, David Duke? Too bad Strom Thurmond is dead.

Julie, at 11:05 am EDT on May 8, 2008

Horrible choice

As the parent of a rising junior at Washington University, I am appalled at the choice of Ms. Schlafly to earn an honorary degree. The 50+% of the student body that are female should have been considered when making this decision. I agree that she is certainly worthy of being heard as a campus speaker, but not as a recipient of an honorary degree.

Kaye, at 5:05 pm EDT on May 10, 2008

As a Wash U alumni I am deeply disturbed and they will not receive any financial support from me in the future.

PD, at 12:30 pm EDT on May 12, 2008

Another Dogged Bullet

As my own undergraduate Commencement is coming up soon, I think about whether or not I made the right decision in attending my institution. However, the more I read about the decisions of Wash U administration the more I am feel luck to have not attend Wash U. Four years ago, I visited the campus and feel in love with Wash U. As the most recent statement said, it has a generally activist and inclusive student body. To honor Phyllis Schlafly now is to present her as a model graduate and has divided the Wash U community again. While I agree that there should not be a political litmus test for giving honorary degrees, this incident will simply increase the divide between the administration and students at the university.

Also, I take offense to Jason even mentioning Jeremiah Wright and Ward Churchill in the same sentence. Ward Churchill is disturbed and dishonest man, and any institution that honors him to should never open it doors again. As to Jason’s point about her contributions to conservative philosophy, I think that was covered in the quote from the Women Studies professor in the article. It is one thing to have a person speak on campus and share their view. Even allowing her to teach a class or two would not be amiss, but honoring someone as an institution means that person embodies positions or traits that the find exemplary. When people position which are not only inflammatory but run counter to the lives of a large majority of the students being honored at Commencement, it ruins the celebratory nature of the event and may cause lasting damage in alumni and student relations.

Jarod HM, Graduating Senior at Claremont McKenna College, at 11:10 am EDT on May 15, 2008

This is not a very helpful article. Like a lot of journalism today, it leaves the reader with obvious unanswered questions. Here is the primary one: Why would the school offer an honorary degree in the first place to someone who advocates the vile views attributed to her in this piece? The answer can only be that there is an aspect to her life’s work that doesn’t make it into the article. The next unanswered question is: Why is that? Could it be that the writer’s own views have infected the article? Probably.

roger rainey, at 1:10 pm EDT on May 17, 2008