The Washington Times reports:

This year’s Democratic commencement speakers outnumber their Republicans counterparts by more than 2 to 1, according to a survey by Campus Reform.

In what critics describe as another example of liberal bias on campus, 56 Democratic officeholders, appointees and operatives are slated to speak this spring at university graduation ceremonies.

White liberals looooooove diversity. We all know that because they tell us all the time. They are 100% dedicated to defeating racial inequality–they tell us that all the time too.

Therefore one assumes that when a highly accomplished black woman is invited to address students, the white liberals’ dedication to racial justice would cause them to rejoice.

Therefore when an extremely intelligent black woman with a PhD, who speaks Russian, is a professor at Stanford, and has held one of the highest political offices in the nation is invited to be a guest speaker on campus, one would assume that all of the white liberals on campus would be lining up on the front row to hear her speak.

Therefore when Condoleezza Rice visits the university, one assumes the white liberals would welcome her warmly and respectfully, despite the fact that she is a Republican.

Well, that’s a lot of assumptions we just made. Let’s take a look at what really happened. Eric Owens of the Daily Caller reports a few details:

A small group of angry white liberals is trying to force the administration at the University of Minnesota to revoke a speaking invitation extended to Condoleezza Rice because she played a role in the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan…

She is slated to deliver a speech on April 17 on civil rights as part of the “Distinguished Carlson Lecture Series” at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs.

The two white people attempting to block Rice’s appearance at the University of Minnesota are math professor William Messing and undergraduate student Nick Theis.

Read more.

Ah, yes. Diversity.

Do you believe for a second that this has to do with Rice’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan? After all, as you may recall, former Senator Hillary Clinton and just about every other Democrat in Congress voted to authorize those wars. Do you believe that professor William Messing would be running around trying to boot Hillary off campus because of her vote if it had been her who was invited to give a speech?

No, no. This is about one thing–Rice’s affiliation with the Republican party.

You see, liberals hate Republicans, especially black Republicans. And black people who dare to venture away from the Democratic party are targets for liberals’ most bitter political vitriol. (See Clarence Thomas, Allen West, Ben Carson, Janice Rogers Brown, etc.)

In a a reversal of literal meaning reminiscent of the worst Soviet agitprop, the word “diversity” on the left today means precisely the opposite. If you are a black person, they consider you diverse only if you hold political views in line with the liberal/Democratic masses. You cannot think differently, or else they cast you aside or, as is happening up at the University of Minnesota, they try to demonize you and silence you.

Thankfully, the University of Minnesota rejected the effort to block Condi Rice’s speech, and she is expected to appear as scheduled later this week.

Unfortunately, the damage is done at UM. Outpourings of liberal bias against black conservatives such as this latest example do have a stiffing effect on political speech. And, perhaps worst of all, it reveals just how shallow the left’s commitment to “diversity” really is–since that commitment only seems to remain in effect so long as black people agree to loyally support the Democratic party.

Nathan Harden is editor of The College Fix and author of the book SEX & GOD AT YALE: Porn, Political Correctness, and a Good Education Gone Bad.

Follow Nathan on Twitter @NathanHarden

(Image: USEmbassyNewDehli.Flickr)

Estimates have it that over one thousand people came from multiple continents to attend this year’s International Students For Liberty Conference at the Grand Hyatt in downtown Washington, D.C. on Valentine’s Day weekend.

This year’s gathering was the largest yet for the student-based libertarian organization. Growth has continued since the first conference, which had 100 attendees in 2008.

Alexander McCobin, an alumnus of the University of Pennsylvania and the founder of Students For Liberty, announced in closing remarks that his organization would establish two new regional executive boards in the coming year, one for Africa and the other in India-Nepal. “We are not done growing,” he said.

Indeed, panel lineups for this and last year’s conferences reflect an effort to expand in reach with demographic minorities within — and not within — the libertarian movement. A panel on national security policy, held midday Saturday, featured journalist Jeremy Scahill, director Oliver Stone, and Peter Kuznick. Discussion between the left-leaning speakers and their audience grew tense when students from Latin American SFL chapters criticized Stone for praising Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. One of last year’s most popular panels, meanwhile, focused exclusively on women’s rights and strategies for drawing women into the liberty movement.

Students For Liberty advertises its annual conference as the largest gathering of pro-liberty students in the world, and it certainly must rank high among the most diverse of such gatherings. Café conversation among attendees this weekend focused on the varied ideologies within the movement, quibbling at times over the differences among anarcho-capitalism, left libertarianism, and the like.

Quantitatively, the nuances were there, too: in this year’s round of the straw poll held at every conference, 52 percent of participants described themselves as libertarian; 17 percent as classical liberal, 15 percent anarchist, 10 percent pro-liberty, and a spattering called themselves progressives, tea party conservatives, and other. A bewildering 11 percent of respondents said they preferred total government control of markets and civil life in a society, but SFL pollster Kyle Hartz said playfully that he attributed the prevalence of this very un-libertarian view to survey error. “Trolling,” some in attendance said.

When the straw poll asked respondents about their choices in the 2016 presidential primary, the ‘no vote’ won in the Democratic category with 57 percent of the vote, beating out Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and others. Meanwhile, Gary Johnson won the Libertarian ticket and Rand Paul won the Republican race, though the ‘no vote’ option came in high in these categories as well.

Megan Wood, a 19-year-old sophomore at Salem College in North Carolina, said the conference afforded her the chance to build her interest in becoming even more active in the libertarian movement, including reaching out to its rivals among conservatives. “Granted, we may not be able to get the older generation to agree with us,” she said. “But once they’re out doing their own thing, we have the power to make a difference.”

Julie Ershadi is a graduate of Bryn Mawr College.

For years, academic liberals have had a favorite “D” word–diversity. They’ve used it to justify a wide range of political projects on campus, from racial quotas to porn-fueled sex education.

But there’s a new favorite buzzword on campus–dignity. Peter Wood writes for Minding the Campus, about the academic left’s new weapon of verbal warfare:

The latest entry in the topsy-turvy world of inverse semantics is the benign-sounding word, “dignity.”  Attorney General Eric Holder took the new buzzword out for a spin in a speech to the Swedish Parliament on February 4, in which he touted the United States’ commitment to the “dignity” of “every human being.”

The speech was in fact an enunciation of the Obama administration’s evolving position on the rights of “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender–LGBT–citizens.”  “Dignity” has been a key word in the gay rights movement, as in Dignity USA, a gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Catholic organization.  But I’d like to follow a different thread in the Attorney General’s emphatic use of the term. Holder told the Swedes, “We share a belief in the dignity and equality of every human being.”  He said that the “values that define our nations–values that give rise to dignity, equal opportunity, and justice for every segment of our people–are anything but a novel concept.”

There are, to be sure, theological and philosophical arguments for the dignity of mankind.  The topic comes up in some debates about the foundations of morality.  If we are created in the image of God, human beings have inherent dignity.  Our capacity for rational thought also sets us apart as having dignity.  And among the philosophers, Kant made special use of the idea of dignity, arguing that it is our ability to choose between right and wrong that raises us above the animals.

But the word “dignity” is essentially foreign to the American legal and Constitution system.  And not just the word, but the underlying idea. The Declaration of Independence enunciates our values as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”  Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights mentions “dignity,” and it remained virtually unmentioned in U.S. Constitutional law down to 1944, when it appeared as part of a concurring opinion by Justice Frankfurter, and thereafter in a handful of other opinions, such as Justice Murphy’s 1946 dissenting opinion in which he opposed the execution of a Japanese war criminal.  An interesting summary of this history can be found in a Montana Law Review article in 2004 by a Georgetown professor of law, Vicki Jackson.

The main point that Professor Jackson argued ten years ago was that, precisely because the claims of “human dignity” were so small a part of our legal heritage that  U.S. courts would have to look abroad for precedents.  “Human dignity” is not our way of talking about fundamental rights, but it is very much “part of the transnational vocabulary of constitutionalism.”  The UN Charter upholds it and various European nations make much of it in their post-World War II constitutions.  In the U.S. “the concept of ‘human dignity’ in the Court’s jurisprudence is episodic and underdeveloped,” but that need not hold us back.  Jackson called on Americans to look to “international, transnational and national sources” for the idea, as well as “subnational entities that function with sufficient independence to develop their own lines of authority and reasoning.”

“Subnational entities”?  A footnote makes clear that Jackson meant state courts, which she imagined could import foreign legal principles even if our higher courts declined to go shopping in more enlightened places.

Those arguing the case for LGBT rights, including gay marriage, have picked up this theme of “dignity” as a fundamental right and run with it.  I don’t know that this tactic was necessary to their campaign but it has produced some unsettling results.  Among other things, we are seeing the Attorney General of the United States declare before the parliament of another country that we have elevated the transnational norm of “dignity” over our own Constitution.

Read Wood’s full essay at Minding the Campus.

(Image: WehoCity.Flickr)

It’s been a banner week for outrageousness and dumbness on America’s college campuses. For some reason all the liberal extremists must have gotten together and planned an entire week dedicated to teaching students bizarre sexual practices. From genderqueer mind control to a “SexEd Warrior Queen”–campuses pulled out all the stops in their effort to undermine the moral sanity of our nation’s college students.

Number 3) We start this week’s outrageously dumb moments at Barnard College in New York City. At Barnard, we’re pretty sure they have been performing the Vagina Monologues pretty much without a break since the play was written 17 years ago. Only this time around, they decided to shake things up. So vaginas of a particular color were not allowed to participate. White girls, to be specific, were not allowed to perform in the play.

I’m not making this up. In case you aren’t familiar with the Vagina Monologues, it consists of a series of women talking about anything that has to do with their delicate lady parts, including sex, masturbation, menstruation, and abortion.

“Barnard-Columbia V-Day is excited to announce that our annual production of The Vagina Monologues will feature an all self-identified women of color cast this year,” producers said. “The Vagina Monologues has historically overlooked the empowerment of women of color, queer women, and trans* folk, among others—often replicating and perpetuating the same systems of power and privilege that prompted the playwright, Eve Ensler, to write The Vagina Monologues in the first place.”

There you have it–the world’s very first production of the new, improved racially segregated version of the Vagina Monologues. What a legacy for Barnard College!

Number 2) If there’s one thing worse than vagina discrimination, then it has got to be the experience of going to work everyday and paying taxes and knowing that all that money is going to pay for butt plugs, vibrators, and bondage toys at your local state university. But that’s just the experience residents of New Hampshire have had, since the University of New Hampshire held it’s “Orchestrating Orgasms” sex workshop this week.

According to reports, the event was led by one Megan Andelloux who calls herself a “SexEd Warrior Queen.” The workshop kicked off with a video of two turtles having sex, followed by a discussion on orgasms, a clitoris demonstration with a vulva puppet, audience-wide Kegel exercises, and sex toy how-to display,” according toThe New Hampshire student newspaper.

“People who participated received vibrators, restraint systems, butt-plugs and other assorted sexual toys,” the newspaper reported. If you live in New Hampshire, now you have one more reason to be disgusted whenever you think about how your hard-earned tax dollars are being spent. Every dollar you pay into the state coffer gets the Warrior Queen Andelloux that much closer to her next vibrator giveaway (Batteries not included.)

I feel the need to say this again: I’M NOT MAKING THIS UP!

Number 1) Finally, we have the case of Jason Morgan, the University of Wisconsin grad student who was hailed by sensible people all over the country because he had the guts to stand up to the extremist left-wing indoctrination program at his university. He was forced to attend a mandatory session on diversity, where he and everyone else in the room were made to understand, very plainly, that they were racists and all around bad people. Then they were told that it was their responsibility to “encourage students in their sexual experimentation,” especially trans-sexual and genderqueer students.

Morgan responded by pointing out that meddling in his students’ sex lives has nothing to do with teaching Japanese History–his field of choice. “I am not in graduate school to learn how to encourage poor souls in their sexual experimentation, nor am I receiving generous stipends of taxpayer monies from the good people of the Great State of Wisconsin to play along with fantasies or accommodate public cross-dressing,” he wrote.

But you should really read Jason’s entire letter because it’s very well written, so well written that it was even partly reprinted in the Wall Street Journal this week.

After reading all this, you may be wondering why our nation’s colleges are so obsessed with sex, and especially teaching students strange and unusual sexual practices. For a long and thoughtful answer to that question, I suggest you read Rod Dreher’s sobering essay, “Sex After Christianity.”

One thing is certain, you don’t have to look hard at our culture to see that the decades-long project of moral upheaval that began with the sexual revolution has been nothing if not successful. Our colleges and universities have long been a primary battle ground in that ongoing struggle.

Nathan Harden is editor of The College Fix and author of the book SEX & GOD AT YALE: Porn, Political Correctness, and a Good Education Gone Bad.

Like The College Fix on Facebook. / Follow Nathan on Twitter @NathanHarden

(Image by: davecobb/Flickr)

Republican, African-American sociology professor Marvin Scott has felt the need to lead a double life because of his experiences at Butler University.

Many people know Scott for his failed bids as Indiana’s Republican candidate for the Senate and House of Representatives, but those at Butler hardly know him at all or else seem willing to diminish his presence on campus.

“I live a chameleon life. I live one here and I live one for the outside world,” Scott said. “That’s the only way you can survive here.”

Scott said that he counts himself as one of only five Republican faculty members on campus, and noted the stigma attached to his beliefs.

“I guess it’s like someone coming out of the closet,” Scott said. “I came out for what I was all the time: a Republican.”

Scott, an African-American, said he has worked in higher education for 42 years and held many positions including time as the president of historically black Saint Paul’s College in Virginia and vice-chancellor at the Board of Regents of Higher Education for Massachusetts. Scott has taught at Butler for more than two decades in various roles, such as chair of the sociology and criminology department and special assistant to the president.

Scott said that while nearly every liberal arts institution in America faces a vast disparity between the few right-wing faculty members and the many left-wing faculty members, Butler’s leftists stand out.

“I have never run up against such a militant liberal group in all the days of my life,” Scott said.

During his time on campus, Scott said he has faced many incidents of what he identified as “micro insults,” and noted that many leftist faculty members refuse to make eye contact with him.  But some faculty members have acted much more aggressively.

As a prominent Hoosier Republican, Scott said he has kept a photo of himself and former President Bush stashed away in a drawer, but previously displayed it on his desk.

“One of the professors here saw it,” Scott said. “He said, “You don’t know him,” He said, “and that’s a fake picture…” He went running up and down the hall with it.”

But public displays of disrespect are not limited to the faculty.

Scott said Butler president James Danko did not invite him to serve on the newly created Diversity Commission. Danko announced the members of the commission in a campus-wide email in September.

Scott would have seemed an obvious choice for the diversity commission. He almost became the first African-American elected to the Senate from Indiana, fought in the civil rights movement and met Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as a young student returning from a year of study at the University of Allahabad in India. But Scott’s exclusion may have come as a result of his ideology and not the color of his skin.

Years ago, when a Butler faculty government group considered bringing the celebration of Martin Luther King Jr. Day to campus, Scott said he and another black professor were the only two faculty members to vote against the measure.

“I said no that we should not celebrate Martin Luther King’s birthday,” Scott said. “I said let’s call it Civil Rights Day. I said one of my heroes is John Brown. Thurgood Marshall. I said these are people I’d like to see also honored on that day.”

From Humble Beginnings

Marvin Scott is more than a simple contrarian. In order to understand and appreciate his worldview, Scott’s detractors need to understand his past.

“They think that I am not a part of the black mainstream,” Scott said, “so therefore any insult they issue to me will not be felt by the people they are trying to help. Whatever.”

Scott grew up in a poor household, as one of seven children in North Carolina. Three of those children received doctoral degrees, with Scott earning his Doctorate of Philosophy from the University of Pittsburgh.

Along the way, Scott worked two shifts a day, seven days a week in a glass factory. As a family man with four children of whom he is very proud, Scott is a Presbyterian who learned his work ethic from his parents.

Scott said his parents awoke every morning at 5 a.m., and his mother worked as a beautician and his father as an electrician and also as a chauffeur.

When Scott drove 123,000 miles crisscrossing Indiana “virtually by myself,” as the Republican candidate for the Senate opposing the incumbent Democrat Evan Bayh, people were not sure what to make of it.

“They said, “Where’s your driver? Where’s your entourage?” I said, “Here he is,” ” Scott said. “And I say, “That’s the way I’ll run government: no fat. Don’t need a driver. I’m capable of driving.”

Many Hoosiers were surprised he came alone and thought that it meant he didn’t have money and couldn’t pull off a successful campaign.

Scott said he wasn’t sanctioned by the GOP establishment and did not receive any money from the Republican Party, but raised $2.5 million and took 37 percent of the vote against the incumbent during his failed 2004 Senate campaign.

The only person who won an election against an incumbent Senator in 2004 was Republican John Thune of South Dakota, the man who followed Scott on stage at the Republican National Convention in Madison Square Garden.

“I was out in the woods somewhere in Indiana and a woman told me, she says, “I’m voting for Evan Bayh because he’s so handsome.” I said, “Well I’m not a damn duck,” Scott said laughing. “You know give me a break. How do you beat someone that’s more handsome than you are?”

Former President George W. Bush appointed Scott to serve on the National Council for the Humanities in 2008. Scott then lost another election in 2010 as the Republican candidate for Indiana’s 7th Congressional District, which includes the city of Indianapolis in Marion County.

“To get blacks to vote for me in Marion County would be like me trying to win the Powerball—it’s just not going to happen,” Scott said.

Scott said that while he has no plans to run for office in the future, “you never know.” No one has beat a path to his doorstep asking him to run again, he said, but if they do they’ll need to bring money because he thinks it’s a rich man’s game now.

“History will only remember me as the person who ran and almost won, but never won,” Scott said.

Refusing to Stay Quiet

Many Butler alumni remember Scott as a favorite teacher, and he proudly showed letters he has received each year from alumni. Scott said he loves teaching.

But exactly how many students get to meet Scott may depend upon the actions of faculty members who willfully neglect him at every turn.

Last year marked the first instance in Scott’s entire time at Butler in which a professor from the Political Science Department has asked him to speak to a class, he said. That professor has since left the university, but the Political Science Department still remains a few steps away from Scott’s office.

“Wouldn’t you think you had someone who has run for Senate, run for the House of Representatives, wouldn’t you be beating the damn door down to have me come down and at least say something?” Scott said. “That’s the whole issue right there.”

And Scott’s not the only one who has faced such treatment from Butler. In 2010, World Magazine reported that Butler “had a shot at landing U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts as a commencement speaker but voted it down.”

Economics professor Bill Rieber told the magazine that the Faculty Senate missed the opportunity to engage the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States because it had concerns about bringing too many “right-wingers” to campus.

“This was an ideological vote,” Rieber said. “One person said Roberts was not in favor of a woman’s right to choose.”

Scott said he generally does not spend time worrying about the people who neglect to include him because of his opinions, but he did speculate about their motivation.

“Maybe they don’t think I’m smart enough, maybe they don’t think I’m adequate, maybe my politics, you know I could conjure a hundred thousand things,” Scott said. “How does that make me feel at night? I don’t care, because if I cared, I’d have a stroke. I’m not going to let these people get in my psyche. Screw them. Got it?”

Scott said he would turn 70 in March.

“I’m never going to be respected as an academician because half these people don’t know what I do or give a damn what I’ve done. Got it?” Scott said.

Being ostracized eventually led Scott to live a kind of double life–quiet about his political beliefs on campus, while remaining vocal about them elsewhere. Nevertheless, the opposition of leftist academics will not change him, he said.

Scott has also served as radio talk show host on stations in Boston, Mass., Richmond, Va., and Henderson, N.C.

In a forthcoming book, Scott plans to open up about his experiences as a African-American conservative entrenched in the liberal world of academia.

“So I’ve decided to stay here, don’t write any more books, don’t write any more columns, and just wait until I’m out of here and then I’m going to write what I have to say.”

Scott is ready to speak out publicly about his experiences because he is close to retirement and plans to name names in his book.

“They can sue me later, but you know I’m going to say what I have to say.”

Fix contributor Ryan Lovelace is a senior at Butler University.

CLICK HERE to Like The College Fix on Facebook / TWITTER: @CollegeFix

(Image Source: WISH)