Legal Commentary

Brian Leiter's anger at Phyllis Schlafly's getting an honorary degree  from Washington University, her alma mater, perplexes me.  At first glance, I am inclined to believe that Leiter's position is a product of academic intolerance for viewpoints not prevalent in the academy but widespread in the population at large.  There is a certain delicious irony about such intolerance, given the academic conceit that profs stand above parochial prejudice.

But I could be mistaken on this score:  Maybe Schlafly's views are really beyond the pale, even if one adopted a stance of tolerance for matters about which reasonable people can disagree. 

The difficulty in resolving the question is that Leiter's invective against Schlafly is too general to be helpful on this score:  He calls her a "bigot," "parochial," "ignoramus," etc -- but those are epithets, not arguments.  They are, of course, applicable to all of us, in some measure.  (For instance, I am (a) an ignoramus about theoretical physics, (b) a bigot in my inveterate hostility towards any musical by French composer Claude-Michel Schönberg, and (c) parochial compared to many of my colleagues who are polylingual (alas, I speak only English fluently) and are always walzing off to some conference or teaching junket at Bellagio or Dubai or Singapore).

To my knowledge, Schlafly's specific positions and activities are that Schlafly (a) was adamantly anti-Communist and "anti-global" (whatever that means) during the 1950s, running for Congress on that platform; (b) opposed the ERA in the late 1970s; (c) believes that life as a full-time mother who accepts her husband's leadership in marriage is more socially responsible and fulfilling for women than life as a woman working outside the home (making her own choices to act as an author and activist and perennial candidate for Congress obviously ironic); and (d) has conservative views on sexuality and marriage -- being against premarital sex, abortion; etc. 

Which of these views places Schlafly beyond the academic pale?

I suppose that (c) comes close to an unacceptably subordinating position, at least to the extent that she recommends that wives obey their husbands. But even this view has a consent-based justification: To my knowledge, she urges that wives voluntarily accept their husband's leadership, not that the State impose such leadership on them. I certainly would not want my two daughters to accept such a marital bargain, and I have struck exactly the opposite deal in my own marriage where my spouse most definitely calls the shots. But I guess that this view of marriage still falls within a version of consent-based liberalism; It does not call for the subordination of one group to another as does, say, white supremacy, anti-semitism, etc. So I guess that I do not see how it is bigoted in any specific (i.e., non-epithet) sense of the term.

Schlafly's sexual conservatism -- (d) above -- has led her to condemn same-sex intercourse as immoral. That comes closest in my mind to a bigoted position, because it could be part of a larger belief that gay and lesbian people belong to an inferior caste or class. Such sexual conservatism is also consistent, however, with a less subordinating belief that everyone has, but should restrain, their homoerotic inclinations out of some notion that only reproductive sex is morally worthy or acceptable -- a view that is not inherently subordinating (although it strikes me as silly). Is Schlafly's rejection of same-sex sexual-romantic relationships the key belief that disqualifies her? Apparently 41% of the population share this view (see Gallup poll results) It seems odd to me to brand almost half of one's fellow citizens as ignorant bigots, even if one believes (as I do) that they are mistaken in their beliefs.

In short, without using epithets, can anyone explain to me precisely which view disqualifies Schlafly for an honorary degree from her alma mater?