Legal Commentary

Washington University in St. Louis awarded an honorary degree to Phyllis Schlafly last week, a choice that sparked outrage among faculty and alumni and calls for the university to rescind the invitation, which it declined to do. Brian Leiter covered the controversy in detail. Ultimately, Schlafly got her degree and a number of students and faculty stood and turned their backs when she was introduced. Brian Leiter wrote about the controversy here, here, here, here, and here.

The arguments against the university honoring her always were carefully framed in seemingly neutral terms. It was not about disagreement with her political views (especially her opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment). It was about her anti-intellectualism, her history of demagoguery and name-calling instead of engaging with her opponents, her opposition to and criticism of rational political and scientific discourse, her opposition to scientific inquiry. It was about her views of women as intellectually inferior to men and thus unfit for the university environment, her opposition to the principles of judicial independence, and her history of bigotry against gays and lesbians, immigrants, women, feminists, and librals. And Schlafly did not help herself by insulting the faculty and students who objected to her as "a bunch of losers" who need to "get a life" and suggesting that the students who turned their backs were not mature enough to be graduating college, comments showing a disrespect for public discussion and for what was a thoughtful, non-disruptive, and meaningful act of symbolic counter-speech)

But many of the objections to Schlafly cannot easily be disentangled from her substantive political views. Her views about the intellectual capacity of women are entwined with political views about the role of women in society and relations between men and women and related issues such as domestic violence. What many label as bigotry against gays and lesbians relates to a political view about homosexuality. At least some of her opposition to science ties back to her political opposition to teaching evolution and support for creationism. Now, I object to and disagree with every one of these political positions, as do many students, faculty, and others. But the controversy was, purportedly, not about her political views.

So here are three related questions:

1) If not Schlafly, then who? What pundit/commentator/activist from the far-religious-right wing social conservatism would be acceptable? What person who holds similar views to Schlafly about the role of women, about creationism v. evolution, about gay rights, etc., would not be similarly objectionable as a recipient of an honorary degree?

2) Does this somehow become about politics and viewpoints? Is it that some political and social views simply are beyond the pale for a university environment? Is it that these positions are inherently anti-intellectual and dismissive of reasoned debate, thus inappropriate for academic recognition through an honorary degree? Maybe so. But if so, then let's say that and let's conduct the debate about honorary degrees for people such as Schlafly on those explicit terms.

3) Is there anyone on the political left who could be objected to as similarly anti-intellectual or as engaged in demagoguery rather than rational discourse? Dinner companions the other night (both Wash. U. professors, not in law) suggested Michael Moore. I am not sure--anyone else?