VOLUME 3 NUMBER 1 Common Se The News and Opinion Forum... for Swarthmore College's Ideologically Diverse “In the following pages I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and...” liS€ —Thomas Paine, 1776 October. 1995 ‘*The Question” forces truth about socialism Eugene D. Genovese, a lifelong socialist, writes of his ignorant refusal to see socialism’s failures by William F. Buckley Reprinted with permission of author A student at Swarthmore College sends around a notice from the college bulle- tin board. It serves as a stake in the heart of memory, reminding us that the philosopher was right when he said that just as there are no permanent defeats, so there are no permanent victories. The student notice reminded us that it time to reread the galvanizing essay by Professor Eugene D. Genovese, published last summer in the socialist quarterly, Dis- Sent. He called the essay, “The Question.” It was the same question that Senator Howard Baker had hauntingly enunciated about Rich- ard Nixon: “What did he know, and when did he know it?” Professor Genovese was very early ona Communist. At age 15, he tells us. He remained so conspicuously pro-Communist that candidate Richard Nixon in 1968 pub- licly demanded of the state of New Jersey that he be expelled from the state university sys- tem. Mr. Genovese would not now deny any charge leveled against him by Nixon, even while rejecting Nixon’s recommenda- tion. Genovese did indeed follow the Commu- nist Party line. He did indeed excuse the mas- sive killings undertaken by Stalin, his prede-- cessors, and his successors. He excused the Soviet foreign-policy line....And then, one day, itstopped. Heread widely, of course; he always did and does; but than ignorance. He is telling us that he had every reason to suspect that all the talk about torture and death under socialism was true; but that he could not demand the moral cour- age to face the problem when he had every empirical reason to do so, and what he now asks the social- one =day..~ he stumbled on Roy Medvedev’s charge that the So- viet Union had ex- ecuted more human beings than the Nazi and Fascistre- ...he could not demand the moral courage to face the problem when he had every empirical reason to do so ist fraternity to do is to ask the same question, and to make the going tough for themselves by acknowledging that what was gimes combined. wrong’ with Mr. Genovese con- cedes that he thought the brave Medvedev had probably taken to drink, andso, howeverclumsy his own arithmetic, he undertook a personally researched calculation. He learned that it was true, yes. But what most deeply upset him, and moves us, is his acknowledgment that he really did know it beforehe launched his systematic inquiry. When did he know it? How much of it did he know? That is what Genovese calls The Question. Because he wishes to confront something other Communism wasn’t aberrant leadership, it was Commu- nism. There is no such thing as democratic socialism. To the extent that it is democratic, itis less than socialist. Socialism attempts to refigure the human soul and brain, and ends by disfiguring it. And all the norms so carefully accumulated over centuries pointing to right conduct are lost, most decisively with the See “Socialist question” on page 3 Reflecting on disturbing years at Swarthmore by Matthew Schenk ‘95 U.S. News and World Report has just issued its annual survey to tell the American public which are the “best” colleges and univer- sities in the country. High school Students and parents will among students at colleges and universities across the country. At this time four years ago I was an incoming freshman at Swarthmore College. Icame from a small, conservative, rural town in Oregon, a sharp departure from and politically sensitive alterna- tive to the phallocentric “fresh- man.” Group discussions during the first week of orientation occasion- ally touched on subjects such as choosing classes and how to use “racismsexismhomophobia.” During one such discussion, in which the “subjugation and domination of women” was the subject, my campus advisor des- perately exclaimed that she could not figure out what inspired the “anti-choice” movement likely use the report as refer- other than the desire to encé material for research- ing prospective schools, while highly rated colleges can use the numbers as - “bragging rights” in college guides and admissions lit- erature. After reading the report, No one came to my side or even argued for a civilized discussion. There was ob- viously no excuse for my insensitivity; I was a blasphemer amongst the holy oppress women. Hav- ing always considered myself to be against abortion, I was a little taken aback to be labeled an oppressor of women and it genuinely sur- prised me that someone we know what colleges are “best,” but does this really tell us anything about the educa- tion or experience students are being offered at these acclaimed institutions? For example, U.S. News tells us that Swarthmore College, my alma mater, ranks second among liberal artscolleges. But what does that tell us about the school? The survey uses test scores, faculty-student ratios and other statistics to arrive at their conclusions, but do these num- bers answer important questions such as: “What lessons are the country’s top colleges teaching their students?” and “Are these lessons adequately preparing stu- dents for life outside of college?” As arecent graduate of one of America’s top colleges, I am still asking myself these questions, and my experience is not unique the cosmopolitan, Eastern, subur- ban setting of Swarthmore. I had to learn to quickly adapt to this new environment lest I give the impression of being an ignorant bumpkin. The first thing I real- ized: everything that I had learned or come to know as “common sense” in my previous eighteen years of life was wrong, back- wards, and altogether incorrect. Since I came from a back- ground where acceptance of “tra- ditional American values” was a given, I would have to be sub- jected to a certain measure of re- education at Swarthmore. My campus advisor during orienta- tion was a nineteen year-old, self- avowed “radical feminist,” who informed me at once that I was a “freshperson,” the enlightened campus resources, but the conver- sation most frequently turned to lamenting the plight of “oppressed persons” and the evils of Aiea ae so involved in the issue could not at least com- prehend the general argument of the “other side.” Realizing the sensitivity of the issue, however, I decided to take extra care in phras- bao le ae Common Sense = tWO = October 1995 HE Peeler hla Bld dS LSC controversy rethought The Legal Services Cor- poration (LSC) is a nonprofit or- ganization established by Con- gress in 1974 to distribute fed- eral grants to poverty law cen- ters across the nation. LSC funded lawyers typically handle landlord-tenant disputes, di- vorce/child custody, and other civil work for people who can- not afford to pay their own law- er. Because of certain LSC unded litigation, conservatives have had their sights trained on the LSC almost since its incep- tion, and the Republican Con- gress finally has the license to shoot it down. However that may not occur if certain Republi- cans can persuade their col- leagues that the LSC is not neces- ‘sarily evil. Whatever the case, though, the LSC will not receive the money it wants and requires because according to legislators, the money just does not exist. The LSC gives federally appropriated money to over 300 pe ams across the country. In 995 itreceived $415 million, and another $240 million came from state and other sources. In addi- tion, pro bono work takes up some of the workload. Yet, the American Bar Association re- ports, only 20% of the poor’s le- ae needs are being met. In the 980’s, Republicans managed to curb appropriations to the LSC; private groups were able to fund the loss. However, in the reces- sion that is the 90’s, private sources of money dried up, and federal money became increas- ingly scarce. The Republican party may seem like vicious characters for attacking an apparently al- truistic purpose, but their moti- vation a political response to a highly political LSC. In the 80's, the LSC began channeling funds into what conservatives identify as liberal think tanks. LSC law- yers began filing class action law- suits over such issues as federal and state welfare reform. Other cases included public fundin for abortion and gay rights. Suc cases were clearly ideological and distasteful to conservatives. One outcry came from farmers. A farmer’s group approached Congress in the late 80’s, com- plaining that LSC lawyers were severely disturbing their busi- ness. The lawyers, they said, meaning to represent the immi- grant seasona farmwork, took a ‘shoot and ask questions later” mentality; ifa sign or license was not properly posted, then a suit would quickly follow. (We can see how fede regulations would appear rather distasteful to anyone trying to run a small business or farm.) Additionally, migrant workers themselves would often resent LSC funded lawyers because farmers, legally and financially embattled, would be unable to hire. Thus conservative mem- bers of Congress, such as Phil Gramm, would want to quash the LSC; if they identified the LSC with liberal issues such as ay rights and abortion rights, en their attempts to reduce the LSC’s budget makes perfect sense. But now some Republi- cans, led by Rep. Bill McCollum, FL., and Sen. Nancy Landon Kassebaum, KS.., are taking an- other look at what they deem the ood work doneby the LSC. The ill HR 1806 is an attempt to save those altruistic functions and re- strict the ideological litigation which many view as a mishan- dling of funds. The new bill requires strict timekeeping/ac- counting procedures, competi- tive bidding for LSC funds. In addition, the bill restricts public funding for “bread-and-butter” cases, such as landlord-tenant disputes and child custody cases. © The bill also gives the president the power to appoint the LSC president, pending Senate ap- proval. The LSC’s budget will almost certainly be reduced, though. According to Republi- can Harold Rogers, “Iknow first- hand the good work the LSC has done, ... But we no longer have the luxury of being able to spend unlimited amounts of the tax- payers’ money.” This legisla- tion attempts to restrict LSC law- yers tonon-ideological cases, and to keep the organization in check. As more new congress- ‘men learn about the theoretical mission of the LSC, it receives increasing support. Even Phil Gramm appears to be reconsid- ering. But at least one group has sided against the LSC; the Chris- tian Coalition has decided against divorce, and assuch, they do not support any policy that facilitates divorce. Other conservatives maintain that the publicneed not pay law- ers for the indigentin civil cases. stead, they say, a tax break in return for pro-bono work would rovide representation for the indigent. But in terms of eco- nomics this is equivalent to pub- licly funded lawyers. The problem is whether the federal government should be providing for the ee repre- sentation of poor people. Gideon v. Wainwright thirty years ago established that defendants charged with a felony have the right to an attorney; the United States will pay for the attorney if the defendant is unable to afford her own. That right, however, does not apply to civil cases. I would imagine that many in Congress agree with the LSC’s theoretical mission not because of any political ideology, but be- ‘causesomany are lawyers them- selves; they view the law and legal representation as Oey important because itis their field. Whether the LSC’s mission is actually a federal issue is ques- a POG Aconservative friend of mine was talking the other day about the federal funding of AIDS research and helaunched into a little diatribe about misallocation of resources based on the “myth of heterosexual AIDS.” He decried the fact that so much was being spent on a disease that really wasn’t “unbiased” and doesn’t really affect that much of the U.S. popula- tion. He muttered aloud: “They should really spend taxpayer money on things that kill more people.” Like the military, I guess. More seriously, however, people have to begin to realize that the government borrows hundreds of millions of dollars a year to pay for all the stuff it does. Perhaps we _Shouldn’t be arguing over which dis- ease research to fund, but whether the government should be funding disease research at all. eco30e Asad, but fond farewell goes out to the late Dean Carl Wartenburg. linterviewed the wonderful man last year, and besides displaying a wide breadth of knowledge, he displayed an unbelievable interest in students. His compassion for the youth of America and their struggle to learn, especially those students in the in- ner cities of our country, was re- markable. In true Swarthmore style, Dean Wartenburg loved to talk, loved to converse with those who were concerned with school policy. But he was also a man of action, a person devoted to education and devoted to making it better for all those who desired to learn. I am glad I had the opportu- nity to discuss educational issues with him one afternoon last spring. I only wish that I had taken him up on his offer for a pizza dinner for myself and my associates who were ques- tioning Swarthmore’s admissions policies. He will be greatly missed. eeo0e On Friday, the concert yesterday afternoon on Par- - rish beach. eeoee I hope all Swatties are appre- ciative of the extra 25 cents credit that we get at Tarble. This means three big Snapples and a bag of chips for dinner. The secret to getting your fill? Develop a taste for veggie- _Soy-green stuff burgers or fal-awful bar and eat at Sharples. ecoe Nomore 0.J. coverage? What- soever will we do? I think the trial should be made a permanent televi- sion program. Hell, the networks could use the ratings. Maybe Foxcan run it opposite Seinfeld. eee0e I see the liberals are all con- cerned about the Smith Bill. They have this insane fear that there will soon be a national I.D. card here in Fortress America. Well, maybe they are right. Actually, when I was in Chinatown a few years ago (in Phila- delphia), I was handed this flyer as I was walking down the street. At the top was the news that Jesus was com- ing in October, but apparently he didn’t. Still, the important informa- tion was at the bottom of the-paper, where I was told that soon we would all be barcoded with tattoos on. our foreheads and hands for national identification. In fact, the barcodes would all have the sign of the devil, “666,” inscribed below the barcode. Rather than foster false fears, the liberals should debate the issue with the truth. However, the liberals know that the truth is embarrassing for them. They defend the “rights” of those who are here in this country illegally. I don’t see how depriving someone who is breaking the lawofa job (or education for that matter) is wrong. I don’t see why the criminal trespassers are not simply deported when found out. Cheers, . _ Thomas R. Makin Capitol Steps play the LPAC here on campus. See them. They are funny as hell. And don’t worry, they mock Newt just as often as Clinton. ecoee So Swarthmore College now ranks 6th in U.S. News & World Report’s “Best College Values List.” I have trouble saying “27 grand” and “value” in the same sentence. I have this mental image of ordering the “Swarth- more extra value deal #4.” (You get 32 courses, plus free beer, a room, and 2240 Sharples meals all for a low $27,165.) I wonder what you get when you “supersize it.” eeee I hope all the Jewish students had a happy and enjoyable religious day yesterday. (It was Yom Kippur for all of you who didn’t know.) Sorry you had to miss the Sting, Pearl Jam, and Neil Young Common Sense =thre€ = October 1995 John P. Walters’ memorandum to conservative reformers Reprinted with permission of New Citizenship Project Washington is increasingly focused on “the battle of the budget,” and AmeriCorps, President Clinton’s na- tional service program, has been sucked into the struggle. _ Conservatives eliminated future funding for national ser- vice in House and Senate spending bills, but the White House has declared saving AmeriCorpsatop priority. This week, Democrats are expected to introduce an amendment in the Senate to restore funds for national service. The conventional wisdom in Washington is that Republicans have “zeroed out” AmeriCorps simply to get a valuable bargaining chip in the coming budget negotiations with the President. Such posturing may be entertaining political theater, but it obscures the important fact: over the past year, AmeriCorps has proven itself a caricature of virtually everything conservatives claim is wrong with the welfare State. It deserves to be eliminated. One example of AmeriCorps as a big-govern- ment farce is a project it created in conjuction with the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). WritersCorps pays “instructors” in New York, Washington, D.C. and San Francisco to “enter their students’ creative space by engaging their sense of street violence and popular cul- ture,” reports the Village Voice. In the Bronx, one “in- structor” used a soft-core porn novel to teach “character development” to his students. Other AmeriCorps pro- grams teach condom education for youngsters and attempt to foster multicultural pride. AmeriCorps has also funded advocacy groups and their affiliates — almost invariably of the left-wing variety. Grants were given to such organizations as the ASIPRA ($839,000), the National Council of LaRaza ($168,629), and the Council of Great City Schools ($200,000), the lobbying arm of the big-city school admin- istrators. AmeriCorps’ $1,143,411 grant to an affiliate of the group ACORN was terminated after ACORN. dis- Tupted a speech by House Speaker Newt Gingrich last spring. An investigation revealed that the grantee had Close ties to ACORN. Less well known is the $1.2 million AmeriCorps grant awarded to a community association in Denver. It was used to coerce AmeriCorps members into distributing campaign leaflets attacking a city councilman who was running for re-election. One participant de- scribed the requirement to hand out leaflets as “an implied ultimatum — doitor you’re out.” Again, reports prompted withdrawal of the grant. If AmeriCorps resembles the NEA and the Legal Services Corporation (a $959,000 grantee) in its grantmaking, it looks like the Pentagon with respect to cost. A devastating audit of AmeriCorps by the General Accounting Office (GAO) revealed that project expendi- tures per AmeriCorps “volunteer” to be about $27,000. Of that, about $21,000 comes from federal sources and $4,000 from state and local governments. Although the program advocates promised that a “partnership” with the private sector would reduce 50 percent of the expenses, GAO found that less than seven percent of the costs per volun- teer, about $1,800, were from private sources. But it was in examining individual AmeriCorps projects that GAO found what must stand out as some of the most excessive spending in the history of “voluntary community service.” One program, the Seaborne Conser- vation Corps, combines AmeriCorps and Navy funding at an astounding $66,715 per participant cost. A Baltimore- based program for teaching people how to volunteer bills out at $49,652 per AmeriCorps member; a Vermont pro- gram funded through the Agriculture Department costs $42,758 per participant. When individuals turn to the government for funding, it’s generally because their programs lack the grassroots support to secure community resources. This too has been a feature of AmeriCorps. The Los Angeles Times recently described the Orange County, California AmeriCorps program ($359,000) as “a bundle of good intentions that never met its mark.” This program aimed to offer English-language and other programs for 500 low- income individuals. In fact, fewer than 25 attended. Attwo health fairs, AmeriCorps volunteers expected to immunize up to 300 children; only 10 showed up. Lack of interest also plagued AmeriCorps’ fourth largest program, the Tucson, Arizona-based Border Vol- unteer Corps, funded at'$2.6 million. The program prom- ised to tackle social and environmental problems and to raise $350,000 in non-federal matching funds; in fact, it obtained only $260,000, with $249,000 of that from the Arizona legislature. Twenty-six of the program’s 114 paid volunteers quit. Last month, the Arizona Daily Star re- ported that the state agency serving as financial sponsor withdrew its support citing “mismanagement.” One vol- unteer told a reporter: “Tell me what corporation you know of that has fourteen staff to manage less than one hundred people. It was like a good-old-boy system.” Not only does AmeriCorps fund programs that meetno compelling need, but it also transforms philanthro- pies and businesses into another special-interest lobby for federal tax dollars. Earlier this month, AmeriCorps orga- nized a Capitol Hill media event to celebrate its first See ““AmeriWaste” on page 4 Frosh look Continued from page 1 ized that the group was bound to exist. I think that at a school of this caliber, stu- dents have enough social conscience to know that gays, bisexuals, and lesbians exist, and to continually maintain that stu- dents aren’t aware of these groups is both redundant and insulting to one’s intelli- gence. Second, there’s the SCLU. These guys are your friends. They believe in Constitutional rights. In fact, these acade- micians have even discovered rights that the founding fathers forgot to include in their quaint little document—rights like, “If you are black (oops—African Ameri- - can) and you kill a civic defender (police- man) (oh—policeperson), you should’ go free because your trial was biased.” An- other one of the mysteriously-omitted rights which the SCLU has unearthed is the one about, “If you are a foreigner studying at an American college or university, you have the right to remain in the United States after graduation rather than apply for national- ization like other immigrants.” The SCLU is always in hysterics over the violation of the rights of immigrants and such. If they were as into Constitutional rights as much as they claim to be, they would realize that the enumerated rights apply only to citizens of the United States. But, of course, the SCLU knows this. They just think that people will ignore this little contradiction. A third group which meets regu- larly to engage in group pity is the Feminist “Majority.” Apparently, someone (Har- ris?) did a poll in which 60 some-odd per- centage of those polled (women between 18 and 30) described themselves as femi- nist. Before I place too much stock in these polls, I’d like to have an additional survey of exactly what people think feminism is. If feminism is “The radical notion that women are equal to men” (the word radical is needless hyperbolic rhetoric, but they’re good at that), then I’d like a definition of equality. If equality means getting the same pay for the same work, sure. If it means having the same share of income and land distribution, I’d say heck no. The government’s policy (except for that whole affirmative action quagmire) has always been to guarantee equal rights and equal opportunity. It nowhere guarantees equal outcome. Whenever I ask someone in this group why she is a member, the answer is more often than not something along the lines of, “Women have been oppressed throughout the history of the world and should be given the opportunity to do what- ever men can do.” There’s only one prob- lem with this logic: there are fundamental biological differences which make men better suited for certain tasks and women better suited for others. \f women are upset about being women, then my re- sponse is: life’s tough. As the Eagles so aptly put it: “Get over it.” It’s a problem with our evil, corrupt and grossly unfair capitalist market system—the market pays for services provided, not for sentimental thinking. Feministarguments are just that— sentimental thinking. They say that women own a tiny fraction of the world’s land, despite the fact that they work many more hours than men. Two problems: first, we don’t have much control over the distribu- tion of land, especially in other countries (though maybe Amnesty could write some letters and change that). Secondly, though women may own a minute fraction of the world’s land, men win an equally minute fraction of child-custody cases. I’m not proposing that women are inferior to men-- I’m simply saying that they are different. It’s undeniable. If, from the beginning of time, women have been in charge of raising children, there’s probably a reason beyond a simple lottery. This difference was reflected in the time of Homer’s Iliad: toidentify the in-drag Achil- les, seekers put forth a test: among the group of women, who found interest in the dolls and like, only Achilles took interest in the sword. Other, more recent studies have been done to show that men are, by nature, more aggressive and less nurturing than women. Does this make women inferior? No, far from it. Women have long been seen as the keepers of society’s morals, and they have been charged with imbuing them to the young. All this does have a point: it seems that the goal of feminism is complete equality and representation with men. This implies that the group of feminists is bitter and discontent with their domestic roles. Anyone has a right to be discontent; my point is that there is an underlying reason for society’s structure, and maybe femi- nists should consider why ithas transcended boundaries of culture and time if it is so unfair and oppressive—they should con- sider the system’s merits before trying to overthrow it. As an aside: a poll, taken of women 18 to 30, in which 63% described themselves as feminist, hardly constitutes a majority of American women. These groups, especially the SCLU, have been in an uproar about the Smith Bill, which is a measure designed to put teeth into the 1986 law forbidding busi- nesses from hiring illegal immigrants. Of course, the businesses have had no way to verify nationality, so the law has become all but defunct. The Smith Bill’s main plank is the creation of a national database of social security numbers so that papers can be verified through a simple 1-800 call. Lib- eral groups have jumped all over this, claim- ing that soon everyone will be stopped in the streets and have to show a National ID or be deported (the fact that no mention of a national ID appears in the bill doesn’t bother them). They’ve spangled Parrish Parlors with posters about “Fortress America” and “Alfrado, Renato—Immi- grants?” These posters make it sound like anyone who looks foreign is soon going to be chased by dogs while being hunted in “The Most Dangerous Game” fashion. It’s ridiculous. Don’t getme wrong—the Smith Bill definitely isn’t perfect. It certainly, however, doesn’t merit the frenzy of whin- ing that it has elicited from liberal groups. Forinstance: allowing 333,000 immigrants a year is by no means “Fortress America.” The bill seeks to remedy a serious problem which perhaps liberals should consider: it seems that ILLEGAL immigrants (the ones the Smith Bill is designed to combat) take vast numbers of low-skill positions in the American economy. Simultaneously, hu- man rights activists and such bemoan the fact that the homeless just can’t find work. Given this, itseems that the homeless would be the ones most likely to benefit from the enacting of the Smith Bill. Letme reiterate: I’m not proposing mass deportation of any- one with a skin color different from mine. I’m saying that the Smith Bill is a serious effort to combat a serious problem, and it doesn’t deserve the sarcastic contempt that it’s receiving. As a general reproach to all the liberal groups out there: before you go. screaming about Republicans trying to start concentration camps for the homeless or trying to poison the air and sea, use that which lies between most of your ears. Re- publicans, Democrats, and all elected offi- cials are just that: elected. They are respon- sible to their electorate, and they’re not bound to do anything which would embit- ter them. For instance, the environmental- ist wackos are always trying to convince the public that conservatives don’t care if radioactive waste is dumped into the oceans and the air becomes translucent with pollu- tion. First of all, if this were true, then they probably wouldn’t be getting re-elected, which is one of their goals. So, on face value, they wouldn’t be inclined to do any- thing to try to poison and kill those who voted for them. Secondly, and’ this is the main point: conservatives have to live in the same world everyone else does. It wouldn’t be very wise to poison the very water one drinks and the air one breaths, regardless of what ideology one holds. An example of this liberal empty- headedness was the “school lunch” fiasco earlier this year. All over the media were liberal columnists whining about how Re- publicans were trying to starve all of the school children in America with deep slashes in lunch subsidizing. Considering that even if all subsidies were eliminated lunch prices would only rise about sixty cents, this would hardly be considered forced mass-starvation. The liberal argu- ments about them trying to do this, how- ever, were both intellectually insulting and See “Frosh Look” on p.4 Common Sense = fe OUP = October 1995 Paying a price for campus political correctness Universities risk alumni support by following the doctrines of political correctness, exacerbating economic woes by William Simon A few months ago, Yale University returned a $20 million gift from alumnus Lee Bass rather than honor his request that the money be used for a course of Studies in Western civilization. The incident spoke volumes about the intellectual and moral bank- ruptcy that has swept the U.S. academic community. Yale is so strapped for cash it has had to defer $1 billion in maintenance and had closed two departments. Yet the school apparently would rather turn its back on $20 million than offend the forces of “political correct- ness” and offer a course in the civilization that gave it birth. It’s important toremem- ber that the Bass proposal was invited and approved by the uni- versity itself. The gift and its purpose were clearly announced in 1991 amid a good deal of fan- fare. Then, once the check was cashed, Yale began to back away from its promises, goaded by fac- ulty who are openly hostile to a course of study celebrating the achievements of Western civili- zation. More than three years later, when a campus magazine brought to public attention the behind-the-scenes machinations conspiring to destroy the program he had funded, Mr. Bass asked to review the faculty appointments made under his gift. The univer- sity responded with cries of out- raged virtue. Mr Bass, they charges, was trying to “buy” in- fluence over the curriculum. Yale announced his gift would be re- turned, and uses the New York Times to trumpet its betrayal, which was dressed upas academic virtue. The Bass episode is symptomatic of a wider sickness that is infecting institutions of higher learning across the coun- try. The hostility toward Western civilization, the contempt for do- nors and standards of honesty in dealing with them, the practice of invoking the sacred cow of aca- demic freedom as a cover for hy- pocrisy and irresponsibility — all are evidence of an increasing ten- dency to subvert true learning by replacing intellectual goals with political ones. radical faculty members are out- raged at the prospect of having conservative columnist George Will teach a class as a visiting professor of government this fall. Mr. Will earned a Ph.D. in politi- cal philosophy from Princeton, previously held teaching posts at Michigan State University and the University of Toronto, and, as winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary, is one of America’s most respected columnists, left or right. Yet, his credentials are be- ing called into question by the very same professors who ap- plauded when filmmaker Spike Lee taughta Harvardclass in 1992. Apparently, there are some kinds of “diversity” the apostles of “tol- When professors speak of “tolerance,” they mean courses like “Introduction to gay and Les- bian Studies,” to be offered next spring to undergraduates at Dartmouth College. As conserva- tive professor Jeffrey Hart noted, we should pay close attention to the word “introduction.” “Clearly itis only the beginning. Anunder- graduate soon might be able to take a whole menu of courses in homosexual studies.” In fact, says Mr. Hart, Dartmouth is planning to hire a dean for gay students. “Students 18-22 years old know little as it is,” says Mr. Hart, a professor of English at Dartmouth. Shouldn’t “basic subject matter have the highest priority in their AtHarvard,forexample, erance” find intolerable. curriculum?” ‘Frosh look” continued... blatantly dishonest. Why were they insult- ing? The problem is that Republicans have children attending schools just as liberals do. Would it make much sense to starve their own kids? No. So, obviously, the whole “starvation” gambit is just that. Sec- ondly, the Continued from page 3 they’ll try emotional rhetoric and occasion- ally even directly lie about the objective of the bill. This is a plea for honest, academic debate—no more hyperbolic posters and recruiting slogans. No more lying about what bills are designed to do. No more sarcastic SCLU claims claims of deep budget slashes were lies. Un- der the Demo- cratic budget in previous years, spend- ing on school lunch subsi- dies was ad- . justed upwards at a rate of three percent per year; under the proposed ...when Democrats make a proposal, Republicans debate its merits on what the bill contains. When Republicans do something which in some way could affect the Democrats’ constituencies, they go into a knee-jerk frenzy. of Republi- cans making the 29th Amendment “Oh, what the heck—just do whatever we tell you to.” Let’s try to be constructive rather than go- ing into emo- tional psychobabble. Republican block grant plan, it was to be adjust upward more than four percent per year. That doesn’t sound like a crippling slash. The point I’m making is that when Democrats make a proposal, Republicans debate its merits based on what the bill contains. When Republicans do something which in some way could effect the Democrats’ con- Stituencies, they go into a knee-jerk frenzy. If they can’t defeat the idea with logic, At a school like this at least we should have honest discussion instead of bleeding-heart liberal rhetoric. Well, I’ve got to go back to being conservative. Hmmm... maybe I'll go steal lunches from children, then dump some nuclear waste in Crum Creek, then, after dinner, I figure I’1l go perpetuate the subju- gation of few minorities. Such a wonder- fully busy day! ‘*AmeriWaste’’ continued... Continued from page 3 anniversary. It provided a graphic demon- Stration of the program’s perverse effects on genuine philanthropy. Prominently fea- tured at the press conference was the head of Habitat for Humanity — not building houses but imploring members not to end AmeriCorps funding. Senator Barbara Mikulski, an AmeriCorps champion, de- scribed the program as ‘government giving help to those who practice self-help.” Other prominent national chari- ties, including the Red Cross, the United Way and the YMCA have signaled support for AmeriCorps funding. And why not? The program is a source of large federal grants to many of these groups. Even corporate executives — from American Express, BellSouth, Proctor & Gamble and U.S. Health Corp., among others — have joined the lobbying effort for this new fed- eral welfare program for local charities. Perhaps taking their cue form Senator Mikulski, they seem to be concentrating on getting government help rather than prac- ticing “self-help.” After nearly a year, the record is clear: Americorps suffers from the inflex- ibility, waste, and misguided priorities all too typical of federal domestic programs. No one denies that some of AmeriCorps’ paid volunteers are doing good things, but this centralized approach runs counter to the real genius of American volunteerism: the spontaneous spark that draws citizens together to meet genuine needs. Eliminat- ing this boondogglé would signal that Con- gress is serious about entering the era of re- limiting government.