se
      Se
      A
      ED
      pee,
      ar
      Pr
      ors
      i
      hae
      te
      tae
     
     
      FOS
      SO
      ag
      tis
      ST)
      gee
      ek
      RS
      ee
      eae
     
    
   
   
    
     
       
     
    
   
   
    
     
       
     
    
   
   
    
     
       
     
    
   
   
    
     
      Backlash
     
    
   
   
    
     
      A
      Column
      for
      the
      Politically
      Incorrect
     
    
   
   
    
     
       
        
     
    
   
   
    
     
      Coeditors:
      Peter
      Hanus
      &
      Joseph
      Murphy
     
    
   
   
    
     
       
     
    
   
   
    
     
      Editors’
      Note:
      This
      is
      to
      clarify
      certain
      ‘‘issues’’
     
    

    
     
      _
      that
      have
      arose
      recently
      concerning
      ‘‘The
      Backlash.’’
     
     
      (1)
      This
      is
      not
      a
      ‘‘Men’s
      Column,””’
      it
      is
      a
      political
     
     
      column
      and
      is
      in
      no
      way
      intended
      to
      represent
      the
     
     
      views
      of,
      or
      even
      just
      ‘‘represent’’,
      all
      men
      on
      this
     
     
      campus.
      We
      would
      not
      patronise
      anybody
      orany
     
     
      social
      group
      by
      claiming
      to
      know
      what
      is
      best
      for
     
     
      them.
      (2)
      This
      is
      not
      an
      ‘‘anti-feminist’’
      column
      in
     
     
      the
      sense
      we
      are
      out
      to
      get
      all
      of
      feminism,
      though
      we
     
     
      have
      been,
      and
      will
      remain
      to
      be,
      critical
      of
      some
     
     
      aspects
      of
      feminism
      (esp.
      radical
      feminism)--includ-
     
     
      ing
      this
      week’s
      article,
      only
      2
      out
      of
      our
      7
      articles
     
     
      have
      had
      as
      their
      primary
      focus
      some
      aspect
      of
      femi-
     
     
      nism.
      (3)
      We
      will
      remain
      to
      be
      critical
      of
      ‘‘
      Wom-
     
     
      en’s’’
      Studies
      as
      long
      as
      it
      maintains
      its
      blatantly
     
     
      political
      agenda
      and
      refuses
      to
      allow
      ‘‘non-feminist’’
     
     
      critiques
      and
      viewpoints
      within
      the
      field.
      (4)
      A.D.
     
     
      Irvine
      (re
      **Affirmative
      Discrimination’’)
      is
      nota
     
     
      ‘feminist
      basher,’’
      we
      are
      willing
      to
      show
      his
      study
     
     
      to
      anyone
      who
      may
      feel
      this
      is
      otherwise.
      (5)
      Con-
     
     
      trary
      to
      sporadically
      held
      belief,
      neither
      Dr.
      Daniel
     
     
      Wolf
      nor
      Dr.
      Mujeeb
      Rahman
      write
      anything
      that
     
     
      appears
      in
      this
      column
      nor
      do
      they
      have
      any
      influence
     
     
      upon
      what
      appears
      here.
     
    
   
   
    
     
      THE
      WRONG
      WAY
      TO
      REDUCE
      CAMPUS
     
     
      TENSIONS
      -A
      Statement
      by
      the
      National
      Associa-
     
     
      tion
      of
      Scholars
     
    
   
   
    
     
      The
      academic
      community
      is
      alarmed
      by
      reports
      of
     
     
      intergroup
      tension
      at
      many
      colleges,
      including
      those
     
     
      long
      committed
      to
      equal
      opportunity.
      Unfortunately,
     
     
      educators
      have
      failed
      to
      reassess
      some
      recent
      policies
     
     
      and
      practices
      that,
      far
      from
      promoting
      tolerance
      and
     
     
      fairness,
      are
      undermining
      them.
      Worse
      yet,
      many
     
     
      have
      seized
      upon
      incidents
      of
      conflict
      to
      call
      for
      the
     
     
      extension
      of
      these
      policies
      and
      practices.
      They
      in-
     
     
      clude:
     
    

    
     
      *
      a
      willingness
      to
      admit
      students
      widely
      disparate
      in
     
     
      their
      level
      of
      preparation
      in
      order
      to
      make
      the
      cam-
     
     
      pus
      demographically
      representative;
     
    

    
     
      *
      preferential
      hiring
      for
      faculty
      and
      staff
      positions
     
     
      determined
      by
      race,
      ethnicity,
      and
      gender;
     
    

    
     
      *
      racially
      or
      ethnically
      exclusive
      financial
      aid
      and
     
    
   
   
    
     
      academic
      counselling
      programs,
      as
      wellas
      special
     
    
   
   
    
     
        
     
     
       
     
    
   
   
    
     
      administrators,
      ombudsman,
      and
      resource
      centers
     
    
   
   
    
     
      assigned
      to
      serve
      as
      the
      putative
      representatives
      of
     
     
      selected
      student
      groups;
     
    
   
   
    
     
      *
      punitive
      codes
      restricting
      ‘‘insensitive’’
      speech;
     
    

    
     
      *
      mandatory
      ‘‘sensitivity
      training’’
      for
      incoming
     
     
      freshman
      and
      sometimes
      for
      all
      students,
      faculty,
     
     
      and
      staff;
     
    

    
     
      *
      requirements
      that
      students
      take
      tendentious
      courses
     
     
      dealing
      with
      groupsregarded
      as
      victimized;
     
    

    
     
      *
      a
      failure
      to
      enforce
      campus
      rules
      when
      violated
      by
     
    
   
   
    
     
      those
      promoting
      these
      policies
      or
      other
      ““politi-
      —
     
     
      cally
      correct’’
      causes.
     
    
   
   
    
     
      The
      National
      Association
      of
      Scholars
      believes
      that
      |
     
     
      these
      policies
      and
      practices
      involve
      either
      the
      applica-_
     
     
      tion
      of
      a
      double
      standard
      or
      the
      repudiation
      of
      appro-
     
     
      priate
      intellectual
      criteria.
      Consequently,
      they
      under-
     
     
      cut
      the
      academy’s
      special
      sense
      of
      common
      purpose
     
     
      and
      prompt
      divisive
      calculations
      of
      group
      interest.
     
     
      Specifically
      we
      believe
      that:
     
    

    
     
      (1)
      The
      admission
      of
      seriously
      underprepared
      stu-
     
     
      dents
      creates
      unrealistic
      expectations
      and
      frequently
     
     
      leads
      to
      frustration
      and
      resentment.
      Moreover,
      poli-
     
     
      cies
      that
      target
      specific
      minority
      groups
      unfairly
     
     
      stigmatize
      all
      students
      in
      such
      groups,
      reinforcing
     
     
      negative
      stereotypes.
     
    

    
     
      (2)
      Two-track
      hiring
      threatens
      to
      produce
      a
      two-tiered
     
     
      faculty
      instead
      of
      a
      genuinely
      integrated
      one.
      While
     
     
      such
      hiring
      may
      well
      create
      ‘‘role
      models,’’
      they
      will
     
     
      be
      the
      wrong
      kind,
      encouraging
      the
      belief
      that
      it
      is
      the
     
     
      assertion
      of
      group
      power
      instead
      of
      the
      pursuit
      of
     
     
      individual
      achievement
      that
      reaps
      the
      most
      abundant
     
     
      rewards.
     
    

    
     
      (3)
      Disadvantaged
      students
      deserve
      ample
      assistance,
      —
     
     
      yet
      disadvantage
      need
      notcoincide
      withrace
      oreth-
      _
     
     
      nicity.
      Those
      excluded
      are
      often
      frustrated
      by
      seeing
     
     
      individuals
      who
      may
      be
      no
      worse
      than
      themselves
     
     
      receiving
      special
      treatment
      solely
      because
      of
      ancestry.
     
     
      Furthermore,
      bureaucracies
      created
      to
      serve
      orcham-
      —
     
     
      pion
      particular
      groups
      tend
      to
      have
      vested
      interests
      in
      —
     
     
      emphasizing
      differences,
      fostering
      complaints,
      and
     
     
      maintaining
      the
      separation
      of
      those
      groups.
     
    

    
     
      (4)
      Safeguarding
      intellectual
      freedom
      is
      of
      critical
     
     
      importance
      to
      the
      academy.
      Thus,
      it
      is
      deeply
      dis-
     
     
      turbing
      to
      see
      the
      concept
      of
      **discriminatory
      harass-
      —
     
     
      ment’’
      stretched
      to
      cover
      the
      expression
      of
      |
     
     
      unapproved
      thoughts
      about
      selected
      groups
      or
      criti-
     
     
      cism
      of
      policies
      assumed
      to
      benefit
      them.
      Higher
     
     
      education
      should
      prepare
      students
      to
      grapple
      with
     
     
      contrary
      or
      unpleasant
      ideas,
      not
      shield
      them
      from
     
     
      their
      content.
      What
      is
      more,
      ifa
      higher
      permissive
     
     
      attitude
      toward
      the
      excoriation
      of
      the
      ‘‘privileged’’
     
    
   
   
    
     
         
     
     
          
     
     
       
     
     
         
     
     
       
     
     
        
     
     
        
     
    
   
   
    
     
       
     
    
   
   
    
     
       
     
    
   
   
    
     
      UPEI
      X-P
      RESS
     
    
   
   
    
     
      Marehs,
      1992
     
    
   
   
    
     
      Page
      10