Family group assails college tuition increases, calls on lawmakers to take action

LEXINGTON, KY--A state family advocacy group called the decision by the Council for Postsecondary Education to allow state universities to raise tuition by as much as 6 percent a slap in the face to Kentucky families struggling to afford to send their children to college.

The group is requesting that Gov. Steve Beshear place the issue on his call for a special legislative session and asking state lawmakers to place a moratorium on tuition increases at state colleges and universities.

"Instead of taking measures to control their costs, state universities want to continue on their spending spree on new building construction and expansion of non-teaching staff," said Martin Cothran, senior policy analyst with The Family Foundation, "and they are asking Kentucky families to foot the bill."

Cothran said that college costs are already out of reach for average Kentuckians and that the Council's decision will only make the problem worse. He pointed to a study commissioned by his group that showed that costs for a college education were rising faster than health care costs and that the problem lay with the universities themselves who refuse to control their own costs.

"Our college presidents are blaming everyone but themselves for the problem of rising costs. They need to take a good look in the mirror and ask themselves whether they really need to be building more expensive buildings at a time when taxpayers have to tighten their belts."

Bellydancing Toward Gomorrah

There are many things parents make sure their daughters pack when they're getting ready for college: clothes, toiletries, towels, and laundry soap. But parents sending their daughters to the University of of Kentucky might think about adding one more item to the list: a chastity belt.

This week is "Sex Week" at the university. According to the Lexington Herald-Leader, the main aim of organizers is "sexual literacy." That's right. Today's college students apparently don't know enough about sex. If you didn't get that memo, don't worry, neither did we.

The organizers of "Sex Week" are apparently under the impression that our culture is prudish about sex. We should all try to remember that the next time we're treated to a television commercial for "masculine enhancement"--or the next time we find ourselves unconsciously humming the chorus to "Viva Viagra!"

But the organizers of "Sex Week" have a solution to this problem that is not really a problem: Tupperware parties for sex toys and performances of the Vagina Monologues.

That's right. And then there is Jonas Hans, UK assistant professor of Family Studies, and faculty adviser of "Sex Week," who is apparently UK's answer to Dr. Ruth: "Sexuality," he tells Alessi, "is something much broader than just sex. We love the tease of talking about sex," added the grim Dr. Hans, "but we don't like to talk about it openly and honestly and seriously." Yes, we must get more serious about sex, which is why Sex Week features ...

Bellydancing classes.

This scientific approach to the subject of sex involves getting "in tune with your body’s fluidity and sensuality" through "belly-flaunting and hip-moving." Or you can attend the "Poetry slam," where you can participate in "sexually and sensually-charged creativity flows."

Why is it that you get the idea that the people who put these things on wear tie dye t-shirts and beads, burn incense, and give their children names like "Rainbow," "Moon Beam," and "Sunflower"?

And then there is the event in which men (and I use that term here loosely) will walk down Main Street in women's heels to protest violence against women. No doubt the spectacle will drive the gorillas who actually perpetrate such violence weeping repentantly into the streets--that is, if they don't fall over laughing.

I mean, if you're going to trivialize sex, you might as well trivialize violence against women too.

In fact, why not have marchers wear the wrist and ankle restraints and whip that are part of the "Beginner's Bondage Fantasy" set sold by Pure Romance, Inc., the main sponsor of UK's "Sex Week"?

That'll show 'em.

But let's give the organizers of "Sex Week" some credit here. After all, they will be showing a film on sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, an actual scientist who in the 40s and 50s gave the leaders of the sexual revolution the statistics they needed to bring down traditional social norms and sexual restraints.

Of course there's not much of a chance the film will tell UK students about the fact that 25 percent of Kinsey's data sample was made up of prison convicts and male prostitutes.

Such revelations might interrupt someone's sensually-charged creativity flow.

But while Dr. Hans' goal is to get serious about sex, the other, seemingly conflicting goal of "Sex Week" is to enhance the romantic appeal of sex. Now in a culture in which university students are confronted with preachy condom demonstrations, HIV tests, and sermons from "health education coordinators" (I'm thinking Ben Stein should play this role in the movie version), why would sex lack any romantic appeal?

On second thought, maybe the chastity belts won't be needed. It could be that "Sex Week" organizers will succeed in making sex either so sterile or so trivial that no one will want to bother with it any more.

Martin Cothran is senior policy analyst with The Family Foundation of Kentucky.

Another report from one of our higher reeducation camps (a. k. a. our colleges and universities)

Mary Grabar describes her experience as an adjunct English professor trying to teach, like, English--which is now apparently declasse in our higher re-education camps:

I’m an adjunct English professor. When the subject of adjunct faculty comes up, the predictable calls for unionization and “social justice” are often voiced by my tenured colleagues enjoying light teaching loads and by administrators enjoying comfortable salaries overseeing “multicultural” programs. But I know that I would not be among their intended beneficiaries were they made aware of my political views.

It’s not that I sought to be political when I returned to school in the 1990s to earn my Ph.D. I soon discovered, however, that political neutrality—even in literary studies—is suspect. In the academic world, the belief that great literature conveys universal, timeless themes is generally taken as evidence of an imperialistic outlook. The same holds for history, where the reliance on factual evidence and focus on major events are deemed offensive to women and those from non-Western cultures.

My fellow graduate students tailored their programs for the job market: studying African-American and gay writers, and applying the trendy postmodern, deconstructivist literary theories. Since 2002, when I earned my Ph.D. in English, the field has gotten even stranger, with such additions to the ideological postcolonial, African-American, and critical theory courses as “fat studies” and “trauma studies.” An upperclassman can enroll in “Introduction to Visual Rhetoric”—and then presumably in “Advanced Visual Rhetoric.” But how does my study of Plato and Cicero prepare me to teach these classes? ...

Read the rest here.

University of Kentucky scores a "C" on its core curriculum in national report

For Immediate Release
August 24, 2009

The University of Kentucky received a grade of "C" from a national organization that monitors what colleges and universities teach. In its report, "What Will They Learn?" the American Council of Trustees and Alumni gave it a mediocre rating on its general education requirements, and specifically criticized its natural science requirement because it could be met my taking courses which didn't teach natural or physical sciences.

"That a school attempting to be a 'Top Twenty Research School' would have a weak general education requirement in science is pretty pitiful," said Martin Cothran, senior policy analyst with The Family Foundation of Kentucky.

"No credit given for Natural or Physical Science," said the report of UK, "because the Natural Sciences requirement may be satisfied by courses from anthropology, political science, and psychology; and the College Laboratory or Field Work Experience requirement includes courses from the social sciences."

While crediting UK for its requirements in composition, language, and math, the report docked the state's flagship educational institution for week requirements in literature, U. S. government/history, economics, and science.

The report evaluated whether 100 major institutions require seven key subjects. "What we found is alarming," said the report's authors. "Even as our students need broad-based skills and knowledge to succeed in the global marketplace, our colleges and universities are failing to deliver."

The report comes during the same month that UK earned a lower ranking in the U. S. News and World Report national university rankings for the third straight year, falling from 112 in 2007, to 122nd in 2008, to 128th in 2009.

###

UK drops for 3rd straight year in national rankings

For Immediate Release
August 21, 2009

Contact: Martin Cothran
Phone: 859-329-1919

The University of Kentucky dropped in the U. S. News and World Report ranking for the third time in three years according to the magazine's newly released national rankings. "The three-year slide is bad enough," said Martin Cothran, senior policy analyst for the Family Foundation of Kentucky. "This report points out some problems the University of Kentucky needs to address."

The university went from 112th in the nation in 2007 to 122nd in 2008. This year it dropped further to 128th in the nation. Cothran pointed to a simple comparison with other SEC schools (excluding Vanderbilt), a comparison many Kentuckians would find familiar, that showed where the university needed to put its attention:

• Diversity Index Rank: Worst
• Average Freshman Retention Rate Rank: Lowest
• Average Alumni Giving: 2nd lowest
• Fall 2008 Acceptance Rate: 2nd highest
• Average high school GPA: 2nd worst
• Cost of room & board: Worst
• Classes with fewer than 20 students: 2nd lowest
• Classes with 50 students or more: 3rd highest
• 6-year graduation rate: 2nd lowest

"Two years ago, the university argued that implementing domestic partner benefits would help it become a top 20 research school," said Cothran. "We argued then that the university needed to drop the political correctness and get its priorities straight. This report is further evidence that it hasn't done that."

###

Darwinists who don't want to debate

If you thought the scientific community was a place of free and open discussion, you'd better think again. Northern Kentucky University recently announced a mock trial involving a fictional public high school teacher who is fired for teaching creationism in a biology class. The program is part of a series the university is sponsoring on controversial issues. But there are some people who don't want the debate to happen at all.

According to Inside Higher Ed, NKU University president James C. Votruba has received hundreds of e-mails asking him to call off the debate. It isn't the conservatives who are complaining, says the article, "scientists are." “Evolution is science and creationism is faith,” Vortuba told the online education magazine, but, he added, that's no reason to be afraid of a debate on the issue.

But there are those in the scientific community who think otherwise, and their voices seem to be growing louder by the day. “What this really is is an attempt to contrive a debate between science and superstition in which the superstition side gets to pretend they have equal status. [sic] And, of course, science issues are not settled in a courtroom, ever,” said PZ Myers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota at Morris, whose weblog Pharyngula, purports to be a watchdog on anti-evolution activity.

Myers is just one of many voices that in recent years have tried to shout down any debate about issues involving human development and origins on the grounds that any debate would give undeserved credibility to the anti-Darwinist side. The dogmatic tone Myers strikes is one being heard increasingly among those who hold to Darwinism, the reigning paradigm in the scientific community.

Earlier this year, advocates of Darwinism strongly opposed a bill passed by the Louisiana State Legislature that advocated objectivity, logical analysis, and critical thinking skills in the discussion of science and other controversial issues in state schools, claiming that the measure was a thinly veiled attempt to impose creationism in the classroom.

When you are reduced to arguing that objectivity is a creationist plot, you'd better start revising your public relations strategy. And when you have to abandon the very principles that you advocate on every other occasion in order to protect your beliefs, it's probably time for an intellectual gut check.

Tolerance and diversity are the academic watchwords when it comes to views that challenge other dominant paradigms, so why are they abandoned so quickly when it comes to discussion of controversial issues like evolution?

Why is there such a fear of debate?

"Within the larger scientific community, the issue is settled, but in the public policy arena, it’s not a settled issue,” Mark Neikirk, executive director of the university’s Scripps Howard Center for Civic Engagement, told Inside Higher Ed. Scripps Howard, along with the university’s law school, is sponsoring the event. “In the real world, there is a public policy debate over how to handle this topic. Many Americans believe in intelligent design. Many Americans believe it should be taught."

Advocates of Darwinism are understandably frustrated. Despite the fact that they have had control of the nation's science education for decades, a majority of Americans still hold to some form of creationism, or at least intelligent design, a broader theory that would include creationism but also includes those who belief in some form of evolution guided by a designer.

Maybe one of the reasons there are so many people in this country who maintain a suspicion of Darwin's theory is the behavior of those who are its most ardent advocates. If the evidence for Darwinism is as airtight as its advocates claim, then why are they so opposed to the discussion of the issue in an academic forum?

In other words, their failure to convince the larger public may turn out to be their own fault.

Lee Todd's fear of real diversity at UK

The Family Foundation of Kentucky recently challenged University of Kentucky President Lee Todd to explain why it was that, despite his rhetoric about "diversity," there seemed to be little or no ideological diversity in some of its own departments--little diversity, but plenty of political activism going on at taxpayer and student expense.

In a recent Kentucky Kernel article, President Todd responded to our challenge by appealing to "academic freedom." "Free and open inquiry," said Todd, "is at the very heart of what institutions of higher learning are supposed to do ... We shouldn't attempt to regulate such inquiry."

Where does President Todd get the idea that real diversity and academic freedom are at odds? And why, when he and his university spend so much time talking about diversity, is there so little of it among the faculty on his own campus?

We called on the Gender and Women's Studies department to produce just one scholar on its allegedly diverse staff who deviates from the left-wing political orthodoxy that predominates in the department. The first response from the department was a tirade from Prof. Ellen Riggle, the associate director of the program, in which she portrayed our call for a demonstration of diversity an "attack on education in general."

How can someone who claims to support diversity say at the same time that calls for demonstrating diversity are an "attack on education"? We thought diversity was supposed to be good for education.

We pointed out how the department's own website proudly boasted of a number of professors in the department who were involved in left-liberal groups such as the pro-abortion Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and the pro-gay rights "Fairness" Alliance, but could cite none who had affiliations with similar conservative groups.

Why was it, we asked, that all of the political activism among UK faculty seemed to be in one direction?

Once again, the response from faculty members was an angry rebuke against anyone who questioned the liberal party line. Dr. Melanie Otis was so upset with our challenge that she called it "targeting all faculties engaged in the scholarship that contributes to the elimination of social justice."

In other words, Otis seems to suggest, real diversity is a threat to her political agenda.

Why is it that those who talk so much about diversity get so upset when you ask them to demonstrate it themselves? Why are they so scared of the very thing they claim to support?

Kentucky taxpayers need to know that their tax dollars will not be spent on indoctrinating students in one set of political beliefs, and UK students deserve more than be presented with only one viewpoint on matters as important as family and gender.

In another recent article on this controversy in the Lexington Herald-Leader, former director of the Women's Studies program Dr. Joan Callahan characterized our call for diversity as "McCarthyism." But last time we looked in our history books, "McCarthyism" was a reference to Sen. Joseph McCarthy, whose rantings resulted in people not being hired because of their political beliefs--a process called "blackballing."

In other words, Dr. Callahan, while characterizing calls for diversity as "McCarthyism," was defending a department which appears to be doing exactly what the real McCarthy actually did: exclude people whose political beliefs deviate from the prevailing political dogmas.

In fact, we thought it was instructive that the only faculty members the Kernel could find to comment on our challenge to the department were left-wing professors. The Gender and Women's Studies program isn't filled with left-wing political activists, they seem to be saying, and the program has plenty of left-wing political activists willing to say so.

It sort of proves our point, doesn't it?

Meet the Faculty at the Gender and Women's Studies program at UK: Part V

Tax and tuition dollars to teach abortion and "involve students in activism" for Planned Parenthood?

Joanna M. Badagliacco is Associate Professor of Sociology, and Director of UK's Discovery Seminar Program. Dr. Badagliacco examines women's lives with respect to issues of reproduction, family planning, abortion, poverty, genomics, social justice, and social inequalities. Her current research focuses on homeless mothers in Kentucky. Dr. Badagliacco is a Fulbright Senior Specialist in teaching and methods. She is also the chair-elect of the Board of Directors of Planned Parenthood of the Bluegrass. One of her life passions is gardening, and she is certified by the state of Kentucky as a Master Gardener. She devotes many hours to community service.

As director of UK’s Discovery Seminar Program, Dr. Badagliacco “involves students in research and activism through internships and volunteer opportunities.”

Salary = $54,494

"The Gender and Women's Studies Program at the University of Kentucky investigates gender broadly conceived and the cultures and contributions of women worldwide from feminist/womanist perspectives. The purpose of the program is to develop and coordinate an interdisciplinary curriculum in Gender and Women's Studies at the undergraduate and graduate levels; support critical research, teaching and public programming in Gender and Women's Studies that take into account various beliefs about gender, race, class, and sexuality; and foster interdisciplinary collaboration. The Gender and Women's Studies Program aims to serve the University and the Commonwealth through promotion of equity and commitment to excellence."

Meet the Faculty at the Gender and Women's Studies program at UK: Part IV

Tax and tuition dollars for teaching "cross-gender ventriloquism"?

Jan Oaks is Full-Time Lecturer of Gender and Women's Studies and English. Dr. Oaks directed the University of Kentucky Women Writers Conference for four years, and has special interests in the novel as a peculiarly female enterprise and the performance of gender in literary works by women. Her current scholarship involves cross-gender ventriloquism in early American novels and the intersection of feminist theory and pedagogy.

Salary = $33,083

"The Gender and Women's Studies Program at the University of Kentucky investigates gender broadly conceived and the cultures and contributions of women worldwide from feminist/womanist perspectives. The purpose of the program is to develop and coordinate an interdisciplinary curriculum in Gender and Women's Studies at the undergraduate and graduate levels; support critical research, teaching and public programming in Gender and Women's Studies that take into account various beliefs about gender, race, class, and sexuality; and foster interdisciplinary collaboration. The Gender and Women's Studies Program aims to serve the University and the Commonwealth through promotion of equity and commitment to excellence."

Meet the Faculty at the Gender and Women's Studies program at UK: Part III

Tax and tuition dollars to lobby for same-sex marriage and for Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender legal status?

Ellen D.B. Riggle is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Gender and Women's Studies and Associate Director of the Gender and Women's Studies program. Her research interests include the effects of minority stress on the well-being of GLBT individuals and same-sex couples, and legal status issues for same-sex couples. For more information about Dr. Riggle's research, please visit www.prismresearch.org.

Salary = $70,650

"The Gender and Women's Studies Program at the University of Kentucky investigates gender broadly conceived and the cultures and contributions of women worldwide from feminist/womanist perspectives. The purpose of the program is to develop and coordinate an interdisciplinary curriculum in Gender and Women's Studies at the undergraduate and graduate levels; support critical research, teaching and public programming in Gender and Women's Studies that take into account various beliefs about gender, race, class, and sexuality; and foster interdisciplinary collaboration. The Gender and Women's Studies Program aims to serve the University and the Commonwealth through promotion of equity and commitment to excellence."

Meet the Faculty at the Gender and Women's Studies program at UK: Part II

Tax and tuition dollars to to work on “strategies for social change" for The Fairness Alliance?

Melanie Otis is an Assistant Professor and Director of Undergraduate Studies in the College of Social Work. She holds bachelors and masters degrees in Social Work and a Ph.D. in Sociology. Her research interests include examining the individual and community-level impact of homophobia, heterosexism, racism, classism, ethnocentrism, and sexism in the lives of LGBT people. Additionally, her work explores strategies for social change and advocacy around issues affecting members of disenfranchised groups. Dr. Otis is a steering committee member of the Bluegrass Chapter of the Kentucky Fairness Alliance.

Salary = $61,292

"The Gender and Women's Studies Program at the University of Kentucky investigates gender broadly conceived and the cultures and contributions of women worldwide from feminist/womanist perspectives. The purpose of the program is to develop and coordinate an interdisciplinary curriculum in Gender and Women's Studies at the undergraduate and graduate levels; support critical research, teaching and public programming in Gender and Women's Studies that take into account various beliefs about gender, race, class, and sexuality; and foster interdisciplinary collaboration. The Gender and Women's Studies Program aims to serve the University and the Commonwealth through promotion of equity and commitment to excellence."

Meet the Faculty at the Gender and Women's Studies program at UK: Part I

Tax and tuition dollars to advocate for the ACLU and abortion rights?

Robert S. Tannenbaum is Associate Director of Undergraduate Studies. He holds faculty appointments in the College of Engineering (Computer Science) and the College of Education (Instructional Systems Design). His areas of interest and research include all aspects of multimedia, especially its use in instructional systems. His responsibilities include finding and supporting ways for undergraduates to engage in research and scholarly activities beyond their regular classroom experiences.

He administers several research-related scholarship programs and edits Kaleidoscope, the University of Kentucky Journal of Undergraduate Scholarship. He has taught in the Discovery Seminar Program for four years. In the Fall of 2006, his seminar will focus on Civil Liberties and the Bill of Rights.

Dr. Tannenbaum is a member of the Board of Directors of the Kentucky chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and a member of the Advisory Committee for its Reproductive Freedom Project.
Salary = $107,636


"The Gender and Women's Studies Program at the University of Kentucky investigates gender broadly conceived and the cultures and contributions of women worldwide from feminist/womanist perspectives. The purpose of the program is to develop and coordinate an interdisciplinary curriculum in Gender and Women's Studies at the undergraduate and graduate levels; support critical research, teaching and public programming in Gender and Women's Studies that take into account various beliefs about gender, race, class, and sexuality; and foster interdisciplinary collaboration. The Gender and Women's Studies Program aims to serve the University and the Commonwealth through promotion of equity and commitment to excellence."

UK drops ten spots in major college ranking

For Immediate Release
July 31, 2008

Contact: Martin Cothran
Phone: 859-329-1919

The University of Kentucky dropped in U. S. News and World Report's national college rankings from 112th in 2007 to 122nd in the 2008 rankings and was near the bottom of top-tier schools in the percentage of classes with fewer than 20 students. "This is one more indication that President Lee Todd and those running the university may not have their priorities in order," said Martin Cothran, spokesman for The Family Foundation.

When UK was challenged on its attempt to implement health benefits for the live-in partners of its staff last year, the university defended itself by saying that it needed such a program to pursue top-20 status, prompting The Family Foundation to point out other, more important factors such as class size and lagging faculty salaries that were being ignored in favor of special interest social policy.

"The University of Kentucky needs to figure out whether it is there to serve students who have to foot rising tuition bills or whether it is going to continue dabbling in special interest politics through its employee benefits policies and its increasing emphasis on social and political activism in some of its departments," said Cothran. "If it started putting first things first maybe it would begin rising in the rankings instead of falling."

The U. S. News and World Report College Rankings are the most well-known college rankings.

The CJ looking the other way

Anyone notice that in the growing fraud scandal at the University of Louisville over federal education money that was apparently lining the pockets of Education Department Dean Robert Felner, e-mails pretty clearly indicated that not only was Felner engaging in financial fraud, but he was apparently doing it with his gay lover who was getting a cut of the money in his bogus nonprofit Illinois organization.



One of Felner's e-mails to Tom Schroeder in Rock Island, Illinois, his partner in crime, begins "Hi Honey." And several end with "Hugs".

Does this mean that the Felner scandal is an indication that gays are more likely to engage in financial fraud? Of course not. But what is interesting is that in today's story in the Louisville Courier-Journal, which has been a day late and a dollar short trying to keep up with the breaking story in the blogosphere, didn't even mention the gay angle on this story.

Now when was the last time the media failed to mention a sexual angle in a scandal story? If Felner has been engaged in a heterosexual relationship with a co-conspirator in this case you know darn well they would be all over it. But as it stands, not only does the CJ look like it is protecting James Ramsey and his increasingly ridiculous administration at U of L, but it also looks like it is running interference for the gay community--just like they did during the last election.

Let's see how long it takes the CJ to acknowledge the Felner/Shroeder relationship in this case. We're starting the clock now...

Doin' the Ramsey Shuffle

University of Louisville President James Ramsey, far-famed for lying to a legislative committee about his university subsidizing domestic partner benefits, is apparently standin' by his man in the case of former education dean Robert Felner, who is accused --making excuses for criminal activity to top it all off.



Apparently the standards are getting pretty low at UofL. Now it's okay for department deans to be “a little weak...violating the law now and then.” I wonder if that's what they teach in business ethics at Ramsey's university.

CJ's David Hawpe defends UK and U of L's Ideological Uniformity Initiative

by Martin Cothran

In yesterday's Louisville Courier-Journal, editorials editor David Hawpe condemns The Family Foundation for drawing attention to the lack of ideological diversity at our state universities and for questioning why, in a time of tight state budgets and rising tuitions, our public universities are spending public money to fund scholars and campus organizations who promote left-wing special interest political and social causes on campus.

In response, Hawpe says that the best thing to do with The Family Foundation is to ignore it, and he spends almost a thousand words explaining why.

Sort of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

I'm trying to remember how many times The Family Foundation has been condemned in Courier-Journal editorials. It's become sort of a ritual. Now it is going to pretend the organization isn't there--by talking about it. It's nice to be ignored: you get so much attention that way.

Hawpe first observes that, although it tried, The Family Foundation "failed to start much trouble" with an op-ed piece in the CJ on UofL's use of "Bucks for Brains" money on a scholar whose specialty was studying the cultural influence of "black, male-bodied drag queens."

Really? Failed to start much trouble? I now count six UofL faculty or officials who have written in to the CJ indignant that anyone would question the funding of special interest political and social activism on its campus. That doesn't count the letters and internet comments on the CJ website--on both sides of the issue. Add to that an editorial by one of the opinion editors. What's his name? ... Oh yeah: David Hawpe!

If it didn't start much trouble, then why is Hawpe writing about it?

The self-defeating response by Hawpe was rivaled only by UofL's response to the charge of a lack of diversity on its campus, which, strangely, was to roll out a parade of left-wing professors to deny it. UofL isn't lacking in diversity and they've got a whole faculty full of liberal professors willing to say so. If you think you have fallen down the rabbit hole, you have.

No wonder Hawpe identifies with these people.Six different UofL professors and faculty published in the CJ in defense of the university's Ideological Uniformity Initiative and not a single, solitary conservative from the university on the other side willing to identify himself.

I wonder why.

Hawpe then comments on similar criticisms The Family Foundation made of UK, where the "gender and women's studies" program enjoys a publicly subsidized ideological monopoly, saying, "UK president Lee Todd and state American Civil Liberties Union director Michael Aldridge have issued appropriate statements defending academic freedom."

Gee, Lee Todd - and the ACLU. No liberals there!

Then Hawpe, his eyes and ears covered, desparately trying to ignore The Family Foundation (you remember, the group that didn't start the trouble Hawpe is not concerned about), tries to paint a scary picture of what could happen if The Family Foundation gets its way. He recounts events in Florida in the early 1960s in which a number of faculty were dismissed at the behest of the Johns Committee on grounds of homosexuality.

Of course, homosexuals are no longer fired, but recruited. Conservatives, on the other hand, are not fired. They don't have to be. They are simply not hired in the first place. We have challenged UK's "gender and women's studies" department to produce a single, solitary conservative on its diverse staff.

So far, no response.

UK and UofL don't need a John's Committee to rid themselves of conservatives who might challenge the liberal ideas that now enjoy protected and subsidized status at their ideologically uniform campuses: they've got people like Hawpe to keep them at bay.

We wonder what Hawpe's reaction would be if, instead of left-wing causes, right-wing causes were getting taxpayer and tuitions subsidies from our public universities. What would be Hawpe's reaction if, instead of Queer Theory and the study of "black, male-bodied drag queens" the university had a scholarly enclave of, say, white supremacists which the university proudly boasted about on its website? Let's call it the "Aryan Studies Center."

Would Hawpe be writing editorials defending its publicly supported status? Would Lee Todd and his pals at the ACLU be talking about academic freedom?

Not on your life.

Our academic institutions - particularly our public institutions of higher learning -should be focused on the critical scholarly examination of all view points, and should be a place where the skills to do this are taught and nurtured. In no case should they be turned into centers for political indoctrination of any kind.