In both the case of Caliban and multiculturalism, the underlying descriptive account of the world is not sufficient to justify the normative judgments that are drawn from this account. That is, even if Caliban were right about Prospero's oppressive “colonialism” and the multiculturalists were right about the West's uniquely baneful history of oppression, their normative formula—an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth—does not follow. The fact that Prospero oppressed Caliban does not imply that Caliban has a right to oppress Prospero. One must make other assumptions, and these are the ones that drive multicultural ressentiment: One must believe that there can be no limitation on grievances, that the ethics of revenge cannot be questioned, and, perhaps most fundamentally, that the primary religious directive of the West must be rejected—that there is no possibility for forgiveness, renewal, or salvation for certain classes of people.
In some respects, the rejection of the Biblical text, and of the Western religious tradition more generally, might seem like the wrong target for Stanford's multiculturalists. Among world religions, after all, only Judaism and Christianity consistently take the side of the victim. From the beginning, the Bible seeks to rehabilitate those who have been unjustly persecuted. Already in the Book of Genesis, the Bible sides with Abel over Cain, and with Joseph over the brothers who sold him into slavery. In Exodus, the focus shifts to the entire Jewish community—a community of people who collectively had been oppressed and mistreated in Egypt. And in the New Testament, Christ becomes the “victim,” in juxtaposition to a murderous humanity. It would be no exaggeration to say that the Judeo-Christian perspective, and the civilization (Western civilization) founded on this perspective, were absolutely necessary preconditions for a phenomenon like multiculturalism, with its appeal to rehabilitating the human subject. In Imperial China or Aztec Mesoamerica, “multiculturalists” who demanded that women's feet not be bound or that human sacrifices cease, on the basis that these people were “victims,” would have encountered incomprehension, and then probably a nasty death. The very idea of victimage, and of its undesirability, was alien to non-Western cultures and religions.
Instead of representing an advance on the Western religious and cultural tradition, multiculturalism actually is its perversion. The Western religious tradition seeks to redeem all of humanity, not just select subgroups. Multiculturalists, by contrast, are interested in the rehabilitation only of those of a particular race, gender, class, or sexual preference who happen to share their ideological commitments. This difference is critical. For multiculturalists, the elimination of victimage has become a rhetorical means whereby one group of people can transform their historical mistreatment (both real and imagined) into a political program to oppress other groups of people in the present day. Multiculturalism provides a sort of counterfeit religion for those who do not want to stop hating particular groups of people (men, the bourgeoisie, whites, etc.) even if their hatreds are dressed in the guise of “compassion” and “sensitivity” towards others (women, the poor, racial minorities, etc.). Rather than breaking the cycle of human history, multiculturalism merely represents another link in the long chain of victimization and revenge.
Notes
1. David Stoffel, “Woman of the Year,” The Stanford Review, January 10, 1994.
2. Felicity Barringer, “Campus Battle Pits Freedom of Speech Against Racial Slurs,” The New York Times, April 25, 1989.
3. Thomas Grey, “Interpretation of Fundamental Standard deals with discriminatory verbal abuse,” Campus Report, December 6, 1989.
4. An explanation of the thinking behind the new code was provided by Professor Charles Lawrence: “Words like ‘nigger,’ ‘kike,’ and ‘faggot’ produce physical symptoms that temporarily disable the victim, and the perpetrators often use these words with the intention of producing this effect. Many victims do not find words of response until well after the assault when the cowardly assaulter has departed…. The subordinated victim of fighting words also is silenced by her relatively powerless position in society…. The question of power, of the context of the power relationships within which speech takes place, must be considered as we decide how best to foster the freest and fullest dialogue within our communities. It is apparent that regulation of face-to-face verbal assault in the manner contemplated by the Stanford provision will make room for more speech than it chills. The provision is clearly within the spirit, if not the letter, of existing first amendment doctrine.” See Charles Lawrence, “If He Hollers Let Him Go: Regulating Racist Speech On Campus,” Duke Law Journal, vol. 1990, no. 431, June 1990.
5. Kim Bonnie and Lisa Koven, “Minority students cannot be prosecuted under speech code,” The Stanford Review, January 19, 1993.
6. Lawrence, supra note 4.
7. Ibid.
8. Bonnie and Koven, supra note 5.
9. Molly Stephens, “Stanford speech code struck down by judge,” The Stanford Daily, March 1, 1995. Ben Wildavsky, “Rethinking Campus Speech Codes,” The San Francisco Chronicle, March 4, 1995. Thorvin Anderson, “Speech Code ruled unconstitutional,” The Stanford Review, March 6, 1995.
10. Juthymas Harntha, “Two students can't be charged for hurling homophobic slurs,” The Stanford Daily, February 3, 1992.
11. “If you plan on joining a housed fraternity, please reconsider,” Resident Fellow Matthies wrote in a 1990 letter attacking fraternities. See Dennis Matthies, “Pluralistic ideals do not exist in housed fraternities,” The Stanford Daily, April 3, 1990.
12. Harntha, supra note 10.
13. Keith Rabois, “Rabois: My intention was to make a provocative statement,” The Stanford Daily, February 7, 1992.
14. Michael Jackson, “Community should condemn homophobic harassment,” The Stanford Daily, February 4, 1992.
15. See, for example: Harntha, supra note 10; Steve McCarroll, “Officials to fight hate speech with public pressure,” The Stanford Daily, February 4, 1992; June Cohen, “Rabois’ comments on ‘faggots’ derided across University,” The Stanford Daily, February 6, 1992; June Cohen, “Law School searches for the ‘appropriate’ response to Rabois,” The Stanford Daily, February 11, 1992; and Anush Yegyazarian, “Matthies, Rabois called on views of hate speech,” The Stanford Daily, February 20, 1992.
16. Donald Kennedy, “Kennedy: Sense of tolerance is weapon against provocation,” The Stanford Daily, February 7, 1992.
17. Scott Kupor, “Fraternity founded on principles of tolerance,” The Stanford Daily, February 6, 1992.
18. Robin Kennedy, “Lawyer claims Rabois will shame profession,” The Stanford Daily, February 6, 1992.
19. Gina Durante, “Response necessary to inflammatory speech,” The Stanford Daily, February 6, 1992.
20. Mario Huerta, “Gays and lesbians must take action to ensure rights,” The Stanford Daily, February 7, 1992.
21. Cohen, “Law School,” supra note 15.
22. “An Open Letter to the Stanford Community,” The Stanford Daily, February 11, 1992.
23. Cohen, “Law School,” supra note 15.
24. Ibid.
25. Jean-Michel Oughourlian, The Puppet of Desire (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1991).
26. Rabois, supra note 13.
27. W. R. McKelvy, “Name for party is offensive,” The Stanford Daily, November 6, 1987.
28. Michelle Finkel and Vivian Vice, “Republicans aren't threatened like most minorities,” The Stanford Daily, June 1, 1989.
29. Dan Levy, “Stanford Band Suspended for ‘Insensitivity,’” The San Francisco Chronicle, October 31, 1990.
30. Ibid.
31. Interview with Kevin Warsh (class of 1992).
32. David Sacks, “Academic Harassment,” The Stanford Review, May 11, 1992. See also Veronique Mistiaen, “Backlash of ‘political incorrects,’” Peninsula Times Tribune, December 19, 1991.
33. Interview with Neil Morganbesser (Law School class of 1990).
34. Interview with John Abbott (class of 1992).
35. Intervie
w with Norm Book (class of 1991).
36. Miranda Doyle, “Out of the loop, students fear ‘conservative agenda,’” The Stanford Daily, February 25, 1994.
37. Most of these attacks were anonymous, although one university employee warned The Review against responding. In a message on editor Daryl Joseffer's answering machine, he said: “Hi. My name is Robert Driscoll Norton. I'm with the staff of Stanford University…. I've just been informed by some people in the gay community that you're planning on printing a response to our response to your bigoted article in the last issue, and I would like to let you know that the Gay and Lesbian Association Against Defamation and several other gay and lesbian organizations have been notified of what you have printed…. And when you do choose to print your response they'll be all over your butts, so I'd probably suggest not doing it because you're going to be in pretty deep crap as a publication.” The university refused to take any action against Norton's threat. See Daryl Joseffer, “Homosexual Harassment,” The Stanford Review, October 29, 1990.
38. Undergraduate Leslie Kaufman spearheaded the ban in The Stanford Daily at the beginning of the 1987 school year: “Because of its potential to divide a community, dorms should consider carefully the impact of a decision to host a Bible study group…. It is my experience that no matter how private a Bible study—or for that matter how public—the results are always negative. Bible studies only serve to create strains of isolation and religious competitiveness or closedmindedness that will eventually undermine the solidarity of any dorm…. Bible studies will best meet the needs of the students they serve and least offend everyone else if they are outside the dorms.” Kaufman never explained why a prohibition of dorm-based Bible studies would impose less on Christians than the tolerance of such Bible studies imposes on non-Christians. Or, more generally, why a Bible study—held in the privacy of students’ individual dorm rooms—is any more “irritating and even insulting” than those Res Ed programs that also cater only to certain groups. See Leslie Kaufman, “Bible groups alienate,” The Stanford Daily, October 7, 1987. Byron Bland, “A profound, healthy religious questioning,” The Stanford Daily, October 14, 1987.
39. Bob Beyers, “Faculty Senate Unanimously Criticizes Campbell, Moves To Review Reagan Library,” Stanford University News Services, February 20, 1987.
40. George Marotta, “Partisanship, liberal bias blinded Stanford to library's value,” Peninsula Times Tribune, June 17, 1987.
41. Neil Morganbesser, “Thank You, Dean Brest,” The Stanford Review, February 12, 1990. Neil Morganbesser, “Recruiting Season Begins at Law School,” The Stanford Review, November 5, 1989.
42. Morganbesser, “Thank You,” supra note 41.
43. As one of the students organizing Bennett's campus speech (at 7:30 p.m., on April 18, 1988), Peter Thiel received a telephone call from Rosse's office that same afternoon, regarding a meeting to discuss “security arrangements” for the visit. At the meeting, Peter was surprised to discover that most of the other people invited were the leading student activists who had pushed for the elimination of the Western Culture program—precisely the people from whom one might expect “security” problems, if any. Peter was even more surprised, however, by what transpired next. Rosse denounced Bennett's use of a “bully pulpit” at Stanford, and informed the student activists that it would be “perfectly appropriate” to “boo and hiss, just a little bit.” At the same time, with a Machiavellian twist, Rosse encouraged Stanford's radicals to carefully modulate the degree of booing and hissing. Several years earlier, United Nations Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick had been unable to deliver a speech at UC Berkeley after the crowd had shouted her down—and Rosse wished to avoid a repeat of that fiasco at Stanford. Bennett had to be cast as the victimizer, and a riot in Cubberley Auditorium would only serve to credit some of Bennett's claims.
44. Kennedy blamed the College Republicans for orchestrating support in a televised debate with Bennett on the MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour, on April 19, 1988. See Neil Morganbesser, “Believe it or not, there are some right here at Stanford,” The Stanford Review, April 1988. College Republicans President Jennifer Bryson explained why Kennedy's charge was preposterous: “The Stanford College Republicans is an organization of 300 members. Perhaps 100 of those members were present [at Bennett's speech], and even this is a generous estimate. This clearly did not constitute a majority or even a dominant voice in a crowd of over 800 that attended the program. Furthermore, President Kennedy, though invited, did not attend the program; he was in New York City. It seems doubtful that he was qualified to fairly judge the composition of the crowd.” See Jennifer Bryson, “Kennedy misinformed about student response to Bennett,” The Stanford Review, April 1988.
45. Andy Dworkin and Linda Friedlieb, “Ralliers call for justice,” The Stanford Daily, May 4, 1992.
46. Andy Dworkin and Linda Friedlieb, “Students make peaceful march to Palo Alto, block intersections,” The Stanford Daily, May 4, 1992.
47. Ibid.
48. Ibid.
49. Ibid.
50. Ibid.
51. Ibid.
52. Ibid.
53. David Sacks, “Student Excluded from Feminist Class for His Ideology,” The Stanford Review, May 20, 1991.
54. Ibid.
55. Ibid.
56. Ibid.
57. Ibid.
58. Ibid.
59. In practice, of course, not all white males are persecuted either. President Donald Kennedy is a white male, but he is also a leftist multiculturalist. “White male,” in some ways, is more of a political epithet than a biological description. In an equal but opposite way, some blacks (i.e., conservative blacks) are considered not really “Black.”
60. Corey Davis, “Accepting cultural roots,” The Stanford Daily, April 11, 1990.
61. Ibid.
62. Daryl Joseffer, “Chicanos Allege Harassment,” The Stanford Review, February 26, 1990.
63. Ibid.
64. Ibid.
65. Juan Yniguez, “League critics have endured harassment by peers,” The Stanford Daily, June 7, 1990.
66. Ibid.
67. Ibid.
68. Ibid.
69. Ibid.
70. The Stanford Review was the first newspaper to break this story, in February 1990. Interestingly, MEChA's leadership proceeded to accuse The Review with charges very similar to the ones it had leveled against the “disrupters”: “In a recent issue of The Stanford Review, a front-page article was run which serves to erode the gains the Chicano community made in the last year. By failing to acknowledge the tremendous progress made by the Chicano community, The Review has offered an uninformed and negatively-biased view which adversely affects the building of a multicultural university.” Indirectly, the response actually verified The Review's charges. See Jerry Porras et al., “Chicano community is forging positive future for all,” The Stanford Daily, March 7, 1990.
71. Mircea Eliade, Cosmos and History: The Myth of the Eternal Return (New York: Garland, 1985).
7
The Egalitarian Elite
“The public just doesn't understand that the kind of government-funded research we do here at Stanford requires a certain ambience.”
“I quite agree…. More caviar, Donald?”
—A cartoon in the San Jose Mercury News
depicting two voices emanating from
a Stanford lofted high in the clouds1
On the morning of March 13, 1991, U.S. Representative John Dingell banged his gavel, and the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations came to order. The committee's purpose that day was to determine whether Stanford University had misused federal funds.
“What we will hear today,” Dingell announced in convening the hearing, “is a story of taxpayer dollars going to bloated overhead rather than to scientific research. It is a story of excess and arrogance, compounded by lax governmental oversight.”2 Federal investigators proceeded to make their case: During the 1980s, Stanford president Donald Kennedy's a
dministration had diverted funds earmarked for research into other areas that it deemed more integral to the university's functioning.3 While much of the misspent money had been used to fund a bloated campus bureaucracy, the auditors also chronicled an extensive list of personal abuses:
Stanford billed the government $184,286 for depreciation on the Victoria, a 72-foot sailing yacht owned and operated by Stanford's sailing program. The boat's walnut and cherry paneling, marble counters, brass lamps, mirrors, and exquisite joinery made a pleasant setting for the multicultural elite.4
Uncle Sam paid $6,200 for a football lunch and subsidized other bashes for the faculty.5
Taxpayers also laid out $185,872 for salaries and related administrative expenses for the Stanford Shopping Center.6
Government money funded tuition costs for the children of Stanford faculty and staff.7
Senior university administrators regularly traveled first class, at either government or alumni expense.8
While all these financial diversions were taking place, the congressmen proceeded to ask, where were the people entrusted with oversight responsibility? The evidence indicated they had been in on the racket.
Not even the university's Board of Trustees was clear. In one particularly egregious violation, the trustees had seen fit to take a $45,250 retreat at Lake Tahoe, once again at taxpayer expense. The expenses covered costs for water skiing and pontoon boats, as well as lodging for 126 people. (Stanford has only 32 trustees.)9
Perhaps even more embarrassing to the university were the revelations about its leading educator. Taxpayers had footed the bills for a number of lavish personal items in Kennedy's home. Here, too, the multicultural experiment had been pricey:
$12,084 for a pair of George II lead urns;
$7,000 in bedsheets and table linens;
$3,000 for a cedar-lined closet;
$2,500 to refurbish a grand piano;
$2,000 per month for flower arrangements;
The Diversity Myth Page 29
