There’s been lots of noise – well, at least some noise – about whether or not Bristol Palin should have been invited (and later disinvited) to speak about sexual abstinence at Washington University. Some critics asked what she could contribute that would be worth the $20,000 fee that she charges for such appearances. Others asked why she should be regarded as an authority on abstinence just because she failed to practice it.

While both points may have merit to a greater or lesser extent, there’s another aspect it seems to me everyone is missing. If you want to promote abstinence, Bristol Palin is a very poor example, not because she had a child as an unmarried teenager, but because she has parlayed that event into a very lucrative living. For Palin, crime may not pay, but teen pregnancy certainly has.

Here I need to say that while I believe it’s unfair to criticize family members of political figures as long as they remain private, Bristol Palin has made herself fair game. Daughter Palin hasn’t just been willing, but eager to take advantage of her mother’s celebrity and use it to rake in the dollars. She is interesting for two reasons, she’s Sarah Palin’s daughter and she had an out-of-wedlock baby, and she’s making the most out of both.

No matter how sincerely Bristol Palin may talk about the negative aspects of her experience and the merits of abstinence, doesn’t it strike anyone that her life provides just the opposite lesson? Here’s a young woman, nineteen years old, who just purchased her own five-bedroom house in Phoenix Arizona where she has implied she wants to go to college. Given the big-bucks she can currently pull in, she will certainly not want for child-care; her independence is assured for a number of years. Some might even consider little Palin’s tabloid-created persona glamorous. A confused teenager could be excused if she decides that Palin made out-of-wedlock pregnancy pay off really well.

In the interest of putting my biases up front, I should note that I believe the whole abstinence schtick, at least when it comes to establishing public policy, is silly and unrealistic. That said, I’ve got nothing against exploring the pros and cons and all the nuances fully in events like that planned for Wash U. If, though, I were responsible for putting together a panel to discuss the issue, I would want to insure that my pro-abstinence participant could represent that point of view in the best way possible. Would exploiting Bristol Palin’s notoriety really  have done that?

For me, the most impressive part of visiting  the Tyson Research Center near Eureka is being surrounded by hundreds and hundreds of acres of trees.   About a dozen Franklin Countians joined a bunch of St. Louis folks for a talk and tour of the Living Learning Center on a gorgeously cool evening.   The oxygen-rich environment lifts the spirits and calms the soul.  

Coincidentally, that’s also part of what is being accomplished within the learning center building itself.  As explained by architect Dan Hellmuth,  to meet the requirements of the Living Building Challenge (the next step beyond LEED platinum,)  the design should change a  visitor’s  mindset and create a sense of participating with nature and other living things.  Several of us noticed that feeling right away and wanted to break into camp songs.  What a gift Washington University has given us with this wonderful hideaway.

Background:  Wash U got the 2,000 acres just north of I-44 in the Antire Hill area in 1963 for a good price from the U.S. Dept of Defense.  There are still ammo storage bunkers scattered around the property, but Mother Nature hides them as she would her naughty children.

As explained by Kevin G. Smith, associate director of the center, the mission of the research center is larger than sustainable building practices.  Faculty and students from Wash U and other colleges study infectious diseases transmitted by insects and other critters.  They are experimenting with ecosystems to see how pollution affects them.  They study and remediate the problem of invasive species and are trying to figure out ways to save species that are becoming extinct.

Our tour was set up by Carl Walz of RePower Missouri and the Alliance for Climate Protection.  The Center is available by appointment to school groups and others interested in learning about any of the research topics.

Smith explained that our part of the U.S. has lost native prairie and glade ecosystems due to human destruction of forest and fields, so that is one of the projects the scientists at the center are working on.  They’ve built 12 experimental ponds that they can study and manipulate to see the effects of introducing different species to each other.  Glades used to be abundant on southwestern slopes of hills where the soil is dry.  They were like mini-deserts and can still be discovered under the new vegetation that has taken over.  The research goal is to see if they can be restored and survive.

Hellmuth began his portion of the program by asking the 40 or so attendees if they believe climate change is a serious issue.  Since we were all there at the invitation of RePower Missouri, the answer was simple.  But Hellmuth said that when he asks that question of most groups of visitors, the answer divides into thirds – yes, no and don’t know.  That’s shocking in and of itself but a testament to the power of the language being used by climate change deniers.  Hellmuth’s excellent suggestion: “Whether you think it’s a problem or not, you should be doing things to save energy and make your homes more efficient.”   I agree.

The goal of the Learning Center building which is just a few months old is to become carbon and energy neutral.  Gone are the yukky compost toilets of the 1970’s.   The new system is made up of some kind of natural processing  in a big tank under the building.    Also, rainwater is captured and recycled into potable water through a series of filters.  Hellmuth said Ameren was very cooperative and helpful in setting up the electrical system.  The Center uses power from Ameren’s grid when it can’t produce its own power from the solar panels.  On really sunny days, when the Center produces more power than it needs, it goes back to the Ameren grid.

One of the requirements of the Living Building Challenge is that construction materials not contain toxic substances and that materials not be transported more than a certain number of miles.  During the discussion period, several people brought up the need for new jobs in our area and how we could be building the materials right here for energy efficient homes.  Even the “sidewalks” around the building are eco-friendly in that water flows right through them rather than creating runoff.  The red cedar used for construction came from Eastern Red Cedars considered an invasive species and harvested right there on the property.   (Question:  How long does a tree have to be common to an area before it’s no longer considered “invasive”?  Is it kind of like a Yankee moving to Missouri?)

All in all, it was a very educational evening and I would recommend taking advantage of a tour when one comes your way.  

Last week Hotflash reported on some members of the  Young Americans For Liberty (YAL) Chapter at Washington University who were planning to protest communism while commemorating the fall of the Berlin Wall on Monday of this week (11/9).  According to the Student Life Newspaper, they built a makeshift prison camp display, identified as a “Peaceful Justice Social Reeducation Clinic,”  which was inhabited by students representing blood-smeared gulag prisoners.  A YAL participant explained:

I think it was mostly about the Berlin Wall, but I think certain policies that are going on today and certain things in the government, and mostly the health care plan, were reasons that we wanted to host the event …

The display was, however, promptly shut down by the ever so circumspect University administration, citing safety concerns among other reasons:

The University said in a statement Tuesday that the students had not mentioned the display when requesting the space and built the display using power tools without permission and without oversight from the facilities office.

No one can dispute the right of the University to enforce its policies retroactively. Nor could one blame the administration if it wanted to distance itself from potential controversy. However, shutting the display down seems heavy-handed and not very well thought out. Universities, after all, are institutions that ought to be devoted to the rough-and-tumble of ideas – and even the perception of censorship ought to be anathema.

Certainly, if one judges from the student comments attached to the newspaper article, shutting down the display only served to cast the YAL students as victims. And, of course, they and their supporters have been quick to capitalize on this idea with even more hyperbole:

John Burns, an area resident who is not a student but who is involved with the Washington University YAL and participated in the display, said he felt the University censored students in a manner similar to Soviet communists.

“I guess the students at Washington University were in a gulag all along, and the administration proved it through their stifling of free speech,” Burns said.

Ridiculous. Washington University is currently receiving a ton of complaints because of Gwen Ifill’s alleged bias.

Note to wingnuts: Even granting your argument that Ifill is biased (which I do not), the site of the debate has no input as to the moderator, just as they have no input as to the format, podium height, or myriad other details that the two campaigns negotiate for a presidential debate. If you have a problem with her, take it up with Team McCain. They agreed to have Ifill moderate this debate even knowing that Ifill would be publishing a book on a new generation African-American politicians.

Chancellor Wrighton just sent out an e-mail to everyone at Washington University to confirm that the university will confer an honorary doctorate to Phyllis Schlafly at the commencement ceremony on Friday. The only “concession” he made was to state that trustee Margaret Bush Wilson will read Schlafly’s citation. As “the first woman of color to serve as the national chair of the NAACP” and “the second woman of color admitted to practice law in Missouri,” her inclusion will supposedly show the university’s commitment to diversity and tolerance.

But the chancellor is missing the point. The issue isn’t just the inflammatory statements that Phyllis Schlafly has made, it’s the fact that she’s an anti-intellectual, someone who has made a career out of opposing the very reasoned discourse that should be the foundation of a respected university. Allowing an advocate of tolerance and diversity legitimizes not only the extreme views of Phyllis Schlafly but also her approach to inquiry.

Wrighton also stated that the university would make unspecified changes to the honorary degree selection process. Here’s hoping they will block out future nominees who approach the offensiveness of Phyllis Schlafly.

The full text of the letter is below the fold.

Dear Members of the Washington University Community,

I write to address the controversy surrounding the decision to award

Phyllis Schlafly an honorary degree at Commencement this Friday, May 16,

2008. I am sorry that this controversy may detract from Commencement.

However, the Trustees, the University administration and I fully support

the rights of our students and others within this community to express

their concerns on this issue.

Our long-standing process for awarding the honorary degree was followed:

Mrs. Schlafly was nominated by a member of the community and was reviewed

by the Board’s Honorary Degree Committee.  The Committee included faculty,

students, trustees and administrators. After two meetings, Mrs. Schlafly

and other nominees were recommended unanimously for consideration at the

full Board meeting.  The full Board voted to award the honorary degree at

the May 2007 meeting.

Following the public announcement of the honorary degrees, many in the

University community have called for the University to rescind that offer,

stating that Mrs. Schlafly is associated with some views, opinions and

statements that are inconsistent with the tolerant and inclusive values of

the Washington University community. Personally, I do not endorse her

views or opinions, and in many instances, I strongly disagree with them.

However, after further consultation with members of the University’s Board

of Trustees, the University has concluded that it will fulfill its

commitment to award the degree to Mrs. Schlafly.  I apologize for the

anguish this decision has caused to many members of our community.

In bestowing this degree, the University is not endorsing Mrs. Schlafly’s

views or opinions; rather, it is recognizing an alumna of the University

whose life and work have had a broad impact on American life and have

sparked widespread debate and controversies that in many cases have helped

people better formulate and articulate their own views about the values

they hold.

At Commencement, Trustee Emerita Margaret Bush Wilson has volunteered to

read the citation to award the degree to Mrs. Schlafly. As the first woman

of color to serve as the national chair of the NAACP, the second woman of

color admitted to practice law in Missouri, and as a prominent St. Louis

civil rights attorney for more than 40 years, she provides a strong voice

for the importance of tolerance and discourse as hallmarks of the

Washington University community.

In the midst of this controversy, I want to affirm my personal and the

University’s institutional commitment to strengthening diversity and

inclusiveness and to improving gender balance. Additionally, I have made a

commitment that the University will review the process for awarding

honorary degrees and will propose appropriate changes.

Washington University is home to students and faculty from all walks of

life, from most systems of religious belief and political thought, and

from all corners of the world. Yet we do not require these widely diverse

individuals to agree with one another. We are stronger because

disagreement allows us the opportunity to speak as individuals and as

advocates for sometimes widely divergent agendas. Collegial dialogue and

discourse inform us as to our feelings and help guide an institution that

nurtures debate and tolerance.  A university is strengthened by exchanges

that may be strongly worded, and that may have been born from the passions

and rhetoric of disagreement.

Washington University – or any other university – is neither perfect nor

are all its processes for making decisions.  We can always do better.  In

the aftermath of Commencement, I am deeply committed to whatever work

needs to be done to rebuild damaged relationships with members of our

community — faculty, students, alumni, parents, trustees and staff.  I

thank you for all that you do to make this a community so open, tolerant

and inclusive, and I ask for your assistance as we work together to build

the very best environment for all who live, learn, discover and create

here.

Sincerely,

Mark S. Wrighton

Chancellor

Following up on Blue Girl’s recent report of some really bad journalism, I’d like to point out this gem from St. Louis’s Channel 5 news on the Phyllis Schlafly debacle, which is either blatantly adopting a right wing frame or is pure laziness incarnate:

So “some students and staff” (ie, DFHs) are upset about Schlafly getting an honorary doctorate.  But, of course, the objective way of describing the situation is claiming that Schlafly is a lifelong advocate of “family values.”  Then, you might as well throw in a couple choice quotes from Schlafly like “I think the role  of the full-time homemaker should be honored and respected” (yeah, that’s what this whole controversy is about) and the old “I’m not worried about myself, I just hope the university is OK” thing,  and one from the university about how any honorary doctorate is going to be controversial.

Finally, to show that they are fair and balanced, they include one quote from the head of the Women’s Studies Department.  This basically presents this as a “she said, she said” issue; one side thinks this, the other side thinks that (framed all the while around the imaginary question of whether one should be pro-family or not).  But would it kill Ryan Dean to actually do some research on the reasons why people are actually upset?  For example, would it be that hard to  list one of these quotes from Schlafly so that people can make up their own mind on what they think of her views:

“I suspect that the picture of the woman soldier with a noose around the Iraqi man’s neck will soon show up on the bulletin boards of women’s studies centers and feminist college professors.  That picture is the radical feminists’ ultimate fantasy of how they dream of treating men.” (Schlafly’s Eagle Forum newsletter, 19 May 2004)

“By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don’t think you can call it rape.” (speech at Bates College, 28 March 2007; WashU’s Student Life, 12 May 2008)

Sexual harassment on the job is not a problem for virtuous women, except in the rarest of cases. Men hardly ever ask sexual favors of women from whom the certain answer is no. Virtuous women are seldom accosted. (TIME Magazine, 4 May 1981)

“The flight from the home is a flight from yourself, from responsibility, from the nature of woman, in pursuit of false hopes and fading illusions.” (www.CampusProgress.org)

“ERA means abortion funding, means homosexual privileges, means whatever else.” (www.brainyquote.com)

“The atomic bomb is a marvelous gift that was given to our country by a wise God.” (N.Y. Times, 9 July 1982)

“Sex education classes are like in-home sales parties for abortions.” (Eagle Forum newsletter)

On Harvard president Larry Summer’s assertion that women are not cut out for science: “The outburst by feminist professors simply confirms the stereotype … that they are too emotional to handle intellectual or scientific debate.” (Eagle Forum newsletter, 9 March 2005)

Oh wait, I just did it; I guess it must not be that hard.

I had started a post about Phyllis Schlafly and her honorary degree at Wash U, but after reading this post by Kathy G, I gave up, because she absolutely nails it.

I am in complete agreement with Wolfe here-Phyllis Schlafly is indeed probably “one of the two or three most important Americans of the last half of the twentieth century.” That is a bitter and painful truth, but a truth nonetheless. Wolfe again:

Critchlow [author of the Schlafly biography Wolfe is reviewing] is right to insist on Schlafly’s influence-but influence is a neutral category. It may be a force for good or a force for ill, depending upon the ideas that animate it. Let it be said of Phyllis Schlafly that every idea she had was scatter-brained, dangerous, and hateful. The more influential she became, the worse off America became.

The officials at Washington U. can piously murmur all the bland words they please about “difficult issues where differences of opinion are profound and passionate,” but let’s get real: when you award someone with an honorary degree, you are making a value judgment[…]

But very rarely-in fact, almost never-do you see a great university honor someone who, throughout her public life has shown nothing but contempt for the values of the academia, values such as intellectual honesty and integrity, rational discourse, and the dispassionate pursuit of knowledge.

It gets better from there. As they say, read the rest.