I am mystified that Washington University in St. Louis is choosing to honor someone who believes that women should not enjoy the full rights that men enjoy and that it is impossible for husbands to rape their wives. This sends a terrible message to the young women Wash. U. is trying to educate and to other bright young women we would like to recruit to join our university.

I do not deny that Phyllis Schlafly has been an effective grass-roots organizer. But competence is not the only measure of honor. There have been and are effective organizations that Wash. U. should not honor, because those organizations serve purposes that Wash. U. ought not and does not honor.

I do not deny that Phyllis Schlafly has provoked much public debate. But provocation is not always honorable. There have been and are provocateurs whom Wash. U. ought not and does not honor.

I also do not deny that Wash. U. has honored individuals of a wide range of political opinions without endorsing those opinions. But the university has still managed to realize that it ought not and does not honor all provocative and influential voices in the public sphere no matter what their opinion. I trust I do not need to name names of those who are plainly beyond the pale. The only question is whether Phyllis Schlafly is beyond what Wash. U. can honor. I am deeply dismayed that the university has decided that she is not.

Eric Brown
Associate Professor of Philosophy

I am a Wash. U. alum who graduated in 1969. I attended a school that was highly different from the one that currently occupies the land between Big Bend and Skinker, just south of whatever Millbrook has become. For one thing, Channel 9 & the ROTC Quonset hut have been supplanted by something called the “Danforth Campus.” And to obtain some kind of verification on my recent trip back to my good ole’ alma mater, I drove to the other end of what used to be the campus, and I walked up to Brookings Hall, which has always been the grand entrance to the University. I discovered to my horror that, indeed, the Wash. U. campus had become the “Danforth Campus.” The name was boldly and permanently announced by the huge, brassy, embedded plaque gouged into the old cobblestones in front of the arch. Being a skeptical person, (something that was carefully honed during my studies of English literature at the real Wash. U.) I had always feared the worst would happen following the takeover by the Danforth Brothers in the 1970s. I understand that the trustees couldn’t resist the hundreds of millions of dollars that the Danforth Foundation dangled so enticingly in front of their (by then) acquiescent noses.and it didn’t.

Now, in its infinite non-wisdom, the powers-that-be have decided to award one of its most infamous alums – Phyllis Shaftly (sic) – an honorary degree. What’s an upstanding, enlightened, progressive alum such as myself to do? What exactly, is a Wash. U. degree worth? How much did it cost? Who gets one next year – Ollie North? Well, just as Ronald Reagan did NOT want to pardon ole’ Ollie, I refuse to pardon “the shaft.” Her legacy to the women of this country, not to mention the world, is scandalously destructive. An institution that chooses to honor such a person does not deserve to continue to have me as a graduate.

So, I am putting my diploma up for sale to the highest bidder! Doesn’t that have a familiar ring? Bidding starts at $100,000 (inflated to match the egos of those who should be ashamed.) But I will settle for much, much less (deflated to match actual value).

I used to love walking on the campus and running into Dr. Eliot and his golden retriever. He was an actual scholar who led Wash. U. when the students had an actual reason for almost believing the old sweatshirt adage – Washington University, the Harvard of the Midwest.

Who wants the vintage parchment?

Sincerely,
Robert H. Mayes
Wash. U. Alum, 1969

Phyllis Schlafly’s most noteworthy accomplishment is her incredible victory against the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, which stated that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged.on account of sex.” When she first turned her attention to ERA in 1972, the amendment was eight states away from ratification and a plank in both parties’ platforms. It was supported by 90% of the U.S. Congress, every living former president, and nearly every state governor. Yet against all odds, Mrs. Schlafly managed to galvanize women across America, single-handedly leading a ten-year, uphill battle to defeat ERA.

How did she do it? She relentlessly pointed out the ways in which ratification of the innocuous-sounding ERA would actually represent a loss for women’s rights, not a victory. The amendment, she noted, would do away with laws that privileged women, such as those that require husbands to financially support their wives as well as labor laws that protect women in industry from compulsory overtime and from lifting certain amounts of weight. It would deny federal funding to single-sex women’s colleges, prevent elderly widows from receiving Social Security benefits based on their late husband’s earnings, and make it much more difficult for women to automatically receive alimony and child custody in divorce cases. Most importantly, Mrs. Schlafly argued, ERA would end women’s exemption from the military draft. In the event of a draft, young women would be forced into combat in equal numbers with young men.

Mrs. Schlafly fought ERA because it took rights away from women. She is a strong defender of women’s rights, including the special privileges certain laws grant them. It has been frequently asserted over the last several days that Mrs. Schlafly “tells women they should stay at home.” Nothing could be further from the truth. On the contrary, Mrs. Schlafly encourages women to be politically active, as she has been throughout her career, which includes multiple books and two runs for Congress. She considers education to be an important goal for young women-she herself has a law degree, and her mother graduated from Washington University in 1920-and she is fully supportive of women who choose to have careers. Far from viewing women as “weak and emotional”-as Professor Dzubak suggested on KMOX radio on Wednesday morning-Mrs. Schlafly has argued throughout her career for women’s mental and emotional strength, suggesting that their ability to manage home and family makes them even more resilient than men. As Mrs. Schlafly stated on KMOX on Wednesday, she “admire(s) the role of the full-time homemaker.” If women wish to stay at home and give full attention to their children and their household, Mrs. Schlafly argues that they have a right to do so, and she strongly supports women who make this choice.

Her defense of women’s rights aside, Mrs. Schlafly’s intelligence and hard-working nature also make her a worthy example for students and graduates. She graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Washington University, earning a bachelor’s degree in three years while simultaneously working 48 hours a week testing ammunition in a local factory. She went on to receive her master’s from Harvard in a mere eight months. A Washington University political science professor at the time wrote that she “is the most capable woman student we have had in this department in ten years.” In the midst of the time-consuming ERA fight, Mrs. Schlafly enrolled in Washington University School of Law, saying that she would study and attend classes in her “spare time.” She graduated on time near the top of her class. Over the course of her career, she has written ten books, including an 800-page study of U.S. nuclear policy, on which she became an expert during the Cold War.

As a staunch defender of women’s rights, a leader of a national political movement, and a successful, hard-working individual, Mrs. Schlafly is certainly someone “worthy of emulation.” She deserves this honor and she deserves to be held in high regard by Washington University students.

Rachel is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences and can be reached via e-mail at rrwisdom@artsci.wustl.edu.