College Chapel Celebrates Female Orgasms, Offers How-To Techniques to Boy Friends.
The following story has received a lot of publicity. It got onto the Web, by way of Drudge and other sites, and the story is everywhere.
Allegheny College, which is an accredited, private, liberal arts school in Pennsylvania, costs $42,000 a year for students to attend. For this, a student gets to attend chapel where there are sexual training courses in female masturbation.
That seems like a bargain price to me. How about you? I mean, a student gets a bachelor's degree from an accredited university, and all kinds of information about how to enjoy your life without marital encumbrances.
Most parents will send their kids back to this school next year. There will even be parents who encourage their children to apply to this school this month. There will be parents in May who will be ecstatic to learn that their children got into this private liberal arts university.
What about the president of the school? What did he have to say? This:
"The decision to hold this event in our chapel felt disrespectful to members of the Allegheny community who regard it to be inappropriate for a house of worship. Whether or not everyone agrees with that feeling -- it is a matter of respect to take those feelings into account and to accommodate them if possible. That could have been accomplished -- without restricting open discussion -- by selecting another site. I wish that another venue had been chosen."
This is what I call academic boilerplate. This is what virtually every president of any accredited liberal arts college will issue to the press whenever some flagrant activity takes place on campus, and the media pick up the story. He will say nothing about it unless the media pick up the story.
What if the issue had been something different? What if there had been an on-campus seminar on IQ scores of black Americans? What if this seminar had pointed out that American blacks consistently get lower scores on IQ examinations? Do you think the president of the university would have issued a comparable statement?
Let us go with another issue. What if there had been an untenured history professor who announced that he did not think that 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust? What if he said it was a hoax? Do you think that history professor would still be employed within 24 hours? I don't think so.
So, the boilerplate is issued on a highly selective basis. It is issued for anything that liberal opinion basically favors. Liberal opinion is not outraged by this sort of seminar being presented in the campus chapel. Maybe on a Roman Catholic campus, there would be some negative sanctions imposed, because the president of the school would know what was going to happen to donors' contributions. Also, he would be under the authority of a bishop or cardinal, and no matter what the sexual preferences of the bishop or cardinal may be, he would know where his ecclesiastical bread is buttered.
The moral decline of higher education in America has been systematic, relentless, and unchallenged by donors or parents. Neither donors nor parents object sufficiently to pull their kids out, and send their kids to another institution, or let their children be educated at home, earning a bachelor's degree for about $15,000. There is no chance they would do something like this. No, no, no, they are going to send their children to an accredited institution that has this kind of seminar in the chapel building. Why not? It is just another sharing of opinion. We need to be open-minded, right?
Parents and donors are open minded, indeed. They have holes in their heads.
The boards of trustees over these institutions do not have the backbone to stand up to any of this. The presidents act as economic agents of the faculty members. The faculty members want complete autonomy for whatever goes on in their classrooms. They do not want any responsibility whatsoever from the point of view of finances. It is the job of the president of the school to raise the money; other than this, he is to keep out of academic affairs. This is known as academic freedom. It leads, step-by-step, to unique and informative seminars being held in chapels.
There are no negative sanctions imposed. The parents do not impose them; the donors do not impose them; the boards of trustees do not impose them; and therefore this sort of thing goes on. It is a matter of hierarchy and funding. Parents and donors get what they pay for, and this is what they pay for. They will not say that this is what they are paying for but it is.
This has been going on in a systematic way since about 1960. It accelerated during the student revolt of the second half of the 1960s. It became institutionalized in the 1970s. Since then, this has been the drift of higher education. The parents do not care. The donors do not care. The faculties do not care. And the presidents do not need to worry about any of it. They can glad-hand the alumni, while the students are glad-handing each other in chapel.