SUBSCRIBER LOGIN

Search
First Things

Loading

RSS

Masthead

Recent Comments

  • teleologist: Thanks you for the opportunity to express our opinions with the time that we had. Tongues will cease,...
  • Orthodoxdj: As Tolkien said to Lewis as they parted on that fateful night in Oxford, “Goodbye.”
  • Livingston Dell: I didn’t always comment as frequently as I had liked to on these articles, but I always...
  • Nikolai Volk: You know, we had a hell of a run in these comment sections. I’ve had many a great discussion with...
  • David Strunk: Hey Joe, I also appreciated what you guys did here, and always had this blog on my RSS feed to see the...
  • Amy K. Hall: Thanks for starting the blog, Joe. It was an honor to be included.
  • Archives

    Categories

    Monthly


    « Previous  |Home|  Next »         

    Friday, April 29, 2011, 7:46 AM

    Bullying is being purged from college campuses, says David Hacker, in a blog post dated yesterday. At first it sounds a lot like what my parents taught me: treat others civilly. But there’s a twist there:

    As USA Today reports, “civility” policies and programs are cropping up at universities across the nation. Some seem to be bound up with efforts to purge “bullying” from campus … other efforts seem to have more affinity with the egg-shell student and the quest to eliminate “offensive” (read, Christian or pro-life) speech from campus. However, you slice it, the civility police are back.

    [From How Uncivilized: Universities Slap the First Amendment in the Face]

    In place of bullying, there is, all too frequently, intimidation. Matthew J. Franck writes in an article dated today:

    The deadly combination of unchallenged liberal presumptions and casual intimidation of dissenters is probably at its worst in the most prestigious universities, which set the tone for the rest of the country, on this issue as on many others. But in all except the most resolutely religious colleges, there is no doubting that the default position of the American academy is to dismantle the institution of marriage and remake it on a new basis. The result is a good deal of self-silencing—self-exile into the “new closet” on issues involving sexuality—not just by students but by faculty, too. The path of least resistance turns out to be the path of no resistance. For institutions that claim to be homes of diverse views and free inquiry in the pursuit of truth, this creeping orthodoxy is a sign of wounded institutional integrity and failed leadership.

    [From Same-Sex Marriage and the Assault on Institutional Integrity « Public Discourse]

    I used to think colleges gave up behavioral guidance, what used to be called in loco parentis, long ago. How naive of me. They are still very much in the business of telling students how to behave.

    I won’t be naive enough, though, to call it moral guidance. The mood on campus is not just to act in the parents’ place. It’s to displace prior generations’ morality and faith, and replace it with a new set of what’s now called “values.” I’ll need help on this from someone who knows Latin: it’s much less in loco parentis; much more in loco [parents' beliefs and morality].

    3 Comments

      Truth Unites... and Divides
      April 29th, 2011 | 12:06 pm | #1

      [From Same-Sex Marriage and the Assault on Institutional Integrity « Public Discourse]

      Was ist das??

      A gay agenda?!!

      Ach du liebergut!

      A gay agenda! A gay agenda! A gay agenda!

      Aaaaaaaack!

      Tom Gilson
      April 29th, 2011 | 1:19 pm | #2

      TUAD: not just a gay agenda. I don’t think that was the main point, even.

      Truth Unites... and Divides
      April 29th, 2011 | 3:19 pm | #3

      R.R. Reno, from his First Thoughts blogpost today: “I’m not in favor of an approach to university culture or the public square that rejects all standards and adopts an anything-goes mentality. But there is something very wrong with our establishment institutions when, as Franck points out, a widespread, venerable, and commonsensical view gets driven into the closet. And what could be more conventional and more normal that the view that marriage is between a man and a woman?

      Indeed!! What agenda would want to undermine the view that marriage is between one man and one woman?

    Links

    Blogs

    Find Us

    Contact