Posted on | February 15, 2013 | 37 Comments
“Ms. Dunlap, 31 … was raised a Catholic and was educated at parochial schools”
(Photo: Michael Nagle, New York Times)
You may recall this week I wrote an item called “Why Does @BridgetteDunlap Want to Suppress the Truth About Abortion?” describing a misguided effort to intimidate those who had written about the abortion-related death of Jennifer McKenna Morbelli. I closed that post by wishing Bridgette “good luck with your career as a commissar in the Thought Police.” Little did I realize Dunlap had already established quite a name for herself in that regard.
In November, College Republicans invited Ann Coulter to speak at Fordham University, where Dunlap is “Crowley Scholar in International Human Rights at the Leitner Center for International Law and Justice.” Apparently, this is the kind of sinecure that entitles the “scholar” to engage in radical mau-mauing wherever her fanatical obsessions are involved.
The College Republicans caved under pressure and disinvited Coulter — thus providing Fordham CRs valuable experience in the cherished Republican tactic of caving under pressure — but the campus radicals, no more satisfied than Hitler had been with the cession of the Sudetenland, decided to take it a step further: Demanding reparations merely for the school having entertained the possibility that Coulter might be permitted to speak at Fordham:
Though the College Republicans withdrew the invitation to Ms. Coulter in light of the outcry from their peers, the problem remains that the University was willing to allocate over $10,000 to this event even while denying funding to other student and departmental initiatives featuring speakers or topics with which it disagrees. We appreciate your statement distancing the University from Ms. Coulter’s hateful rhetoric and defending free speech and academic freedom. . . .
We would like you to explain how the decision was made to allow the College Republicans to use student activity funds to pay for the Coulter event while denying the use of such funds for other purposes deemed not to be in keeping with the University’s mission. For example, we understand that student groups may not use their budgets for the productions of the Vagina Monologues mounted by Fordham undergraduates each year to raise funds to combat violence against women. Along these same lines, Fordham’s anti-abortion club receives funding while pro-choice advocacy is censored. Why are these forms of student expression and association denied support while the Coulter event was not? Is pro-choice advocacy or the Vagina Monologues more inconsistent with the University’s mission than Coulter’s hate speech you rightly decry? Are they less entitled to respect in the free exchange of ideas in the Academy? . . .
This angry manifesto was written and circulated by Fordham Law professor Tracy Higgins and — you guessed it — Bridgette Dunlap.
At the time, William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection wrote:
A group of law professors at Fordham Law School exchanged high-fives over Coulter’s departure, then quickly segued into demanding that the University fund the Vagina Monologues, pro-abortion groups, and other oppressed, um, minorities at Catholic universities on the theory that if the University was willing to fund Coulter’s “hate speech,” it should fund the feminist agenda even if contrary to Catholic teachings.
Fordham is a Catholic university and somehow, in the twisted pretzel logic of Commissar Dunlap and Comrade Higgins, permitting student funds to be used for College Republicans to invite Coulter to campus — an invitation the mau-maus forced the CRs to withdraw — means that the Jesuits are obligated to fund Eve Ensler’s obscene farce in the name of “the free exchange of ideas.”
This is a concept that a friend of mine long ago dubbed “diversity through homogenization”: Radical egalitarianism requires that all institutions be equally diverse, so that traditionally all-male institutions must be forced to accept females, each university must have a certain quota of left-handed Latina lesbians, and so forth. This rigid insistence on universal conformity to the dogma of “diversity” is the mindset that led to the death of Kara Hultgreen and the ritual humiliation of Lawrence Summers at Harvard.
You will perhaps not be surprised to learn that Bridgette Dunlap staged a Sandra Fluke-style protest over the refusal of Fordham’s campus health center to prescribe contraceptives. Students at Catholic universities must be provided the exact same things that are provided to students at secular schools or else, to the radical egalitarian way of thinking, someone’s “rights” have been infringed.
This is a totalitarian worldview and the fact that a neo-Stalinist commissar like Bridgette Dunlap is honored with a scholarship in “human rights” at Fordham is an obvious clue as to what manner of indoctrination now prevails in American academia.
The legal accusations are frivolous.
If late-term abortion is defensible, why try to hide the reality that there are names and faces and lives destroyed [?] . . .
It’s not an esoteric law school discussion.
Defend the practice if you can, but don’t deny it. Or try to silence it.
As the Coulter controversy showed, Dunlap and her comrades are able to silence the truth at Fordham. Totalitarians are nothing if not ambitious: “Today the campus! Tomorrrow the world!”
UPDATE: How is it, Matthew Archbold of the Cardinal Newman Society wondered back in July, that Catholic schoolgirls grow up to be anti-Catholic Daily Kos contributors? Dunlap invoked her days as “a first-grader in plaid” while accusing Bishop William Lori of lying, and denouncing American bishops as “extremist, lacking in compassion and disconnected from our values.”
Clearly, Dunlap’s first-person possessive — “our values” — refers to the values of progressive feminists for Obama, i.e., MSNBC viewers.