Common Sense, October 1995, volume 3 number 1

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.