The actions of campus feminists raised a similar question when, in addition to enacting a new sexual conduct policy, they launched a major effort to change the university's set of rules governing student conduct. Law professor Deborah Rhode sought to lower the threshold of proof for violations like rape from “beyond a reasonable doubt” to “by clear and convincing evidence.”106 Whereas the former standard requires a jury to be 99 percent sure of the defendant's guilt before convicting, the new standard would have required only about 60 to 70 percent certainty. For Professor Rhode and other activists, the solution to the crisis would require the increased prosecution and conviction of heterosexual males, even if the probability of falsely convicting innocent students would increase significantly.
Indeed, the purpose of the rape crisis movement seems as much about vilifying men as about raising “awareness.” A pamphlet released by the Rape Education Project and distributed to freshmen begins to explain just how radical the manufacturers of the rape crisis are:
Rape mythology is so pervasive that many men who participate in gang rapes or acquaintance rapes do not understand that they have committed rape. Assuredly, some of this is feigned ignorance, but perhaps some men don't understand the degree to which they have defined their sexuality as a need for unlimited sexual access. Too many men confuse sex with domination and control…. Not all men rape, but a potential partner in a relationship can not assume that any man is incapable of rape.107
According to the rape crisis movement, all men have been socialized to be potential rapists, while most (if not all) women have been socialized into accepting a “culture of rape,” in which they are nothing but objects of sexual abuse by men. Since women are trained to submit to men, no possibility of consent exists for one of the parties, and rape becomes intrinsic to all heterosexual relations. Because men are the oppressors and women are the victims, all the blame can be shifted to the former. Concludes Stanford feminist Adrienne Rich: “Only through lesbianism and complete rejection of men can women reclaim their self-esteem and control over their own lives.”108
The rape crisis movement's ideological embrace of lesbianism is a point at which the new Puritanism and the new liberation theology meet. The new Puritanism is a bizarre kind of overreaction to some of the failures of the sexual revolution. As in the case of 1960s activists, multiculturalists claim that people should be liberated from the sexual restraints of the Western tradition. But when this liberation does not produce an erotic utopia of untrammeled satisfaction, Stanford's social engineers seek to avoid responsibility for some of the negative results—more unwanted pregnancies, more abortions, a greater number of AIDS cases, and above all, more instances of regret. So instead of blaming a failed ideology, they blame these problems on a mythical “culture of rape.” This rape culture supposedly socializes men to be aggressors and women to submit helplessly.
This solution is highly imperfect, even for the multiculturalists. For if the only way to avoid confronting some of the difficulties with their sexual revolution is by infantilizing women, then it is not clear how the multiculturalists have helped women make any progress. If women are socialized to make irrational choices, as multiculturalists maintain, then why should any woman, including Adrienne Rich or Deborah Rhode, be given a serious hearing? Similar questions arise in the sexual realm. How do we know that women who regret having sex have not just been “socialized” (by Stanford's rape educators?) into thinking that they did not really “consent”? For that matter, if men are no less “socialized” than women, then why should they be held any more responsible?
By blaming interpersonal problems on a “culture of rape,” the rape crisis movement misses the trees for the forest: The problem, to the extent there is one, is primarily on the level of the individual choices that are made in particular instances—like those of Stuart Thomas and the 17-year-old woman. But when individuals are simply “constructs,” and their crimes and faults are blamed on society, every individual mistake vindicates the multiculturalists’ a priori condemnation of the West and reaffirms the need for sweeping social reform. Stanford's social engineers believe that if they can just mix the right formula of programs, consisting of some combination of condom distributions, X-rated movies, and rape reeducation perhaps, then a sexual utopia will follow. Because all such recipes deny the reality of individual choice and the place for individual responsibility, their attempts to build a heaven on Earth produce even greater unhappiness.
The Multiculture
Long before the Stanford administration ever had heard of Stuart Thomas, the case of Allan Cox exposed where its heart really lies. Cox had been dean of Stanford's School of Earth Sciences since 1979, and was internationally known for developing theories of plate tectonics and continental drift. On January 27, 1987, Cox biked down a steep mountain path, raised his uncovered head over the handlebars, and smashed into a large tree. He died immediately, and the coroner later ruled the incident a suicide. Cox had learned four days earlier that the parents of a retarded 19-year-old boy had filed charges against him for allegedly molesting their son over the past five years. One of the parents had been Cox's graduate student during that time. The child had to undergo therapy, for which Cox agreed to pay just before his death.109
From the way Stanford's leaders vilified a 22-year old senior for a one-night stand with a woman (who was only a month away from 18, and in full possession of her faculties), one would think they would wholly cast out a dean who spent five years secretly molesting the teen-age mentally handicapped son of his graduate student. The highest levels of the administration, however, not only pardoned Cox's behavior, but glorified him. A crowd of 1,000 heard President Kennedy attest to the deceased pederast's “fineness”:
Reverence for nature, love of the land, respect for people. These are the qualities that stood out in Allan. Those of us who knew him know his fineness, know his compassion and commitment to others, and know that a generous and sensitive regard permeated all his human relationships. We loved him; we trusted him; and we still do.110
Stanford's leaders subtly shifted the blame to those members of the Stanford community who were not understanding or sensitive enough to Cox. Acting President Jim Rosse stated, “I do not believe he was capable of doing anything that could harm another human being.”111 Psychology professor Albert Hastorf, former provost, resolved that we should be more “sensitive,” “understanding,” and “supportive of each other.”112 Vice Provost Raymond Bacchetti told the San Jose Mercury News, “The complexity of human nature wrapped up in all of this we will never have any way of knowing.”113 Most outrageously of all, Stanford established the Allan V. Cox Medal to celebrate “Cox's vision of the potential for faculty-student partnership at a research university and his contributions at many levels of making the potential a reality.”114 Every year, faculty and graduating seniors receive a request to nominate a worthy colleague for the Allan Cox prize.
While Allan Cox was seen as complex but ultimately worthy of a medal, no such status was accorded Stuart Thomas. His everyday promiscuity—of the sort that the university encourages in numerous ways—was execrated. At the very least, this double standard suggests that multiculturalists are not really concerned with protecting people from sexual abuse. So if some sex at Stanford is good and other sex is bad, then what makes the difference? The answer is that sex—like religion, art, and gender relations more generally—has itself become a vehicle for the attack on the West. Sometimes, this attack takes the form of “liberation”—the promotion of homosexuality and of sexual exploration, for instance, or the condemnation of traditional mores. In others cases, the attack takes an almost Puritanical form—such as the manufactured rape crisis movement or Ann Simonton's rebuke of women in advertisements. Occasionally the new Puritanism and the sexual revolution can be combined—such as in the decisions by RAs to ban parties where roommates found one another dates (in order not to hurt the feelings of closeted homosexuals). The only common denominator that remain
s, when all is said and done, is the attack itself.
Just because the multicultural agenda is at times inconsistent does not mean that it is random. It follows a rigorous logic of its own. Earlier, we approximated the multicultural agenda by saying it was simply the agenda of 1960s radicals. But this is not quite right, for over the last three decades the 1960s agenda has evolved. Its evolution into the multicultural agenda of the 1990s has involved a broadening of scope. No longer is multiculturalism merely political, taught in classrooms and through books. If that were still the case, multiculturalists would promote a single ideology, be it either liberation theology or the new Puritanism (but not both). Something altogether different is at stake when multicultural leaders passionately advocate totally contradictory views in relatively similar contexts. Were multiculturalism simply ideological, moreover, the debate would have been over long ago. Numerous critics have revealed the multicultural agenda's logical leaps and internal contradictions—only to be nonplussed by its endurance. The dragon cannot be slain so easily, because multiculturalism is much more than a political philosophy, an intellectual system, or even a blueprint for the new academy.
The transformation of students in settings like bedrooms, chapels, and dining halls suggests that multiculturalism involves a significant social component. Or rather, multiculturalism is no longer a 1960s-style political agenda at all, but a cultural phenomenon. Multiculturalism has become coeval with an all-out assault on the West, whereby historical landmarks, social responsibilities, religious values, interpersonal relations, and even artistic merit as understood by a new culture seek to displace the same as understood by the old. The new culture of multiculturalism (or “multiculture”) defines its own taboos, creates its own mythos, initiates its own rites of passage, and distributes its own social roles. It is in many ways a self-contradictory culture—one that advocates liberation from moral certitude and all other forms of authority, but maintains itself with maximum authority and certainty of belief. This contradiction runs through the heart of the multiculture, and so runs through its denizens, whose daily choices ultimately must sustain it. Like all cultural systems, it has a sacred core—a bundle of values, superstitions, and beliefs never articulated by its citizens but fiercely guarded nonetheless. To pierce this sacred veil is to occasion sacrilege. As we explore the core of multiculturalism in the second half of this book, we will take our chances.
Notes
1. Allan Bloom, “Educational Trendiness,” The Wall Street Journal, January 26, 1989.
2. Brooke Hart, “SCAAN ‘abducts’ English professor, senior,” The Stanford Daily, May 1, 1990.
3. Ibid.
4. Maria Saldana and Marcia Klotz, “Mock kidnappings dramatized fear felt by Salvadorans,” The Stanford Daily, May 3, 1989.
5. Susan Mizner, “SCAAN accurately portrayed terror of Salvadoran life,” The Stanford Daily, May 10, 1989. See also “Poor performance,” The Stanford Daily, May 5, 1989. Not surprisingly, the “educational” efforts of Project Awareness, which was sponsored by the Stanford Central America Action Network (SCAAN), backfired. According to Otero House residents interviewed by the Daily, “For the past two days El Salvador has not been the subject of interest; SCAAN's tactics have.”
6. Rick St. John, “First Amendment Controversy Shakes Donner,” The Stanford Review, April 15, 1991.
7. Ibid. See also Kim McCreery, “Sexist, violent graffiti in dorm disturbs Donner residents,” The Stanford Daily, April 5, 1991; and David Sacks, “Political Correctness Pervades Donner Incident,” The Stanford Review, April 15, 1991.
8. Ibid.
9. McCreery, supra note 7.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. St. John, supra note 6.
14. Mary Ann Seawell, “The Politics of Art,” The Stanford Observer, May–June 1992.
15. “Be a Resident Fellow,” The Stanford Review, February 3, 1992.
16. Evan Porteus and Ann Porteus, “Roble Resident Fellows urge rethinking budget,” Campus Report, April 18, 1990.
17. Brian Gerber, “Staff position added to Row: Program assistants will help RAs, plan programs,” The Stanford Daily, April 2, 1991.
18. Kathleen O'Toole, “Residential Education at Stanford: Does It Have a Hidden Agenda?” Stanford University News Service, October 12, 1988.
19. See “An overused theme: The increasing number of theme houses seems to defeat their purpose,” The Stanford Daily, April 5, 1993.
20. Theresa Johnston, “In ‘focus houses,’ students explore arts, gender, the ’60s,” Campus Report, January 6, 1993.
21. Nehrad Lai, “Robinson, Lantana and Castano each gain a focus,” The Stanford Daily, April 2, 1993.
22. See Angie Kim, “Ex-model decries gender stereotypes,” The Stanford Daily, January 28, 1988.
23. Ibid.
24. Gerald Davis, “Minority Residential Assistants Share Experiences With Applicants,” Stanford University News Service, March 20, 1990.
25. Ibid.
26. O'Toole, supra note 18.
27. Marcus Mabry, “A View From the Front,” Newsweek, December 24, 1990.
28. Ibid.
29. O'Toole, supra note 18.
30. History professor Mark Mancall, an RF, admitted exactly this point: “Eventually, I think what happened is that Res Ed became a vested interest in itself. Although the University said it eschewed it, Res Ed itself became in loco parentis. Educating people about racism, sexism…became the raison d'etre of Res Ed.” See Julie Makinen, “Res Ed at a crucial crossroads; Program tries to look ahead despite budget cuts, staff loss,” The Stanford Daily, March 9, 1994.
31. Porteus and Porteus, supra note 16.
32. Angie Chuang, “A first for Mem Chu,” The Stanford Daily, October 18, 1993.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid.
35. Ibid.
36. Ed Malone, “Out of the closet, into the Church,” The Stanford Review, May 9, 1994.
37. See Angel R. Puerta, “Gay commitment ceremony was insensitive to Catholics,” The Stanford Daily, October 21, 1993.
38. Chuang, supra note 32.
39. An advertisement in the spring of 1987, for example, stated: “Gay and lesbian students are encouraged to apply for RA positions, as are all students who can foster constructive discussion about sexual preference.” The Stanford Daily, April 2, 1987.
40. Davis, supra note 24.
41. “Increasing awareness,” The Stanford Daily, April 22, 1993. Anoop Prakash, “BGLAD should include speakers representing contrasting viewpoints,” The Stanford Daily, April 20, 1993.
42. Marie Bui and Cecilia Tom, “Queerland aims to add visibility to homosexuals,” The Stanford Daily, February 1, 1991.
43. “For the Record,” The Stanford Review, April 1989.
44. S.L. Wykes, “Statue of Stanford's first family waits in limbo,” The San Jose Mercury News, May 1, 1994.
45. In addition to these benefits, the LGBCC receives about $7,000 per year from the Office of Student Activities. The Daily observed that “GLAS competed for limited funding with the myriad of other clubs and groups on campus.” See Chris Shuttlesworth, “University funds combined center,” The Stanford Daily, September 27, 1988; and Miranda Doyle, “LGBCC also wary of budget cutbacks,” The Stanford Daily, January 10, 1994.
46. David Sacks, “Apologizing for Deviance,” The Stanford Review, January 25, 1993.
47. David Bianco, “Taking the next step: being openly gay in a non-gay world,” The Stanford Daily, October 11, 1990.
48. David Cuff, “Restroom Sex Complaints Prompt Meeting Between Gays, Police,” Gay and Lesbian Alliance at Stanford: GLAS, April 7, 1985. According to a press release by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance, “Representatives of the University's gay and lesbian community met with Stanford police chief Marvin Herrington on Friday, April 5 [1985]; the gay leaders argued strongly against police intervention.” According to gay activist David Cuff, arrests would be inappropriate beca
use the publicity surrounding them would compromise the identities of homosexuals who are not out of the closet.
49. Hanna Rosin, “Rubber Ducky,” The Stanford Daily, December 18, 1990. Kenneth Wang, “Free Speech and the X-Rating: Salo to Be Screened Tuesday,” The Stanford Review, May 6, 1991.
50. See, for instance, Rajiv Chandrasekeran, “Basic Training,” The Stanford Daily, December 5, 1990.
51. Ken Ruebush, “Stanford Students Plan Workshops on Safer Sex,” Stanford University News Service, March 31, 1987.
52. Chandrasekaran, supra note 50.
53. One suspects that students who could not afford to pay 50¢ for a condom would have more important worries than obtaining cheaper condoms.
54. University Housing Operations Advisory Committee Chairperson Marni Lum explained: “We decided that condom dispensers are a good idea…and therefore should be made readily available to students in the residences, and equally available to both men and women.” Those residences that did not install machines would be “dealt with,” she said. Ken Yew, “Residences to get condoms in bathrooms,” The Stanford Daily, January 12, 1988.
55. Lara Filson, “Condom sales are sluggish,” The Stanford Daily, November 30, 1988. In a five-week period, 82 condom machines had sold a total of 432 condoms. Student Housing Operations manager Suzanne Tamiesie explained that despite the slow sales, the machines would not be removed. The machines were proposed not to make money, but to “make a loud and direct message” to students, Tamiesie admitted.
The Diversity Myth Page 19
