doubt. He was well-liked by his studentsrnand had received glowing evaluationsrnfrom his department in his four years atrnFSC. The holder of a doctorate in comparativernliterature from Columbia, Narrettrnhad delivered guest lectures at collegesrnthroughout New England and hadrnpublished papers in academic journals.rnAs for Narrett’s colleagues in the EnglishrnDepartment, their professional activitiesrnoff campus are mostly limited to poetryrnreadings at a local bookstore; tworntenured women do not have doctorates,rnand one has a degree in a field other thanrnEnglish. Eugene Narrett was, arguablv,rnthe most distinguished and widely publishedrnprofessor in his department.rnPerhaps to compensate for its obscurity,rnFSC strove to be on the cutting edgernof political correctness. According tornNarrett, the school brought in a “Professorrnof Diversity” and promoted feministrnprofessors who have publicly madernsneering comments about men. Narrett’srnapplication for a tenure-track positionrnwas reviewed (and turned down) byrna professor who had reportedly referredrnto one of her colleagues as a “worthlessrnwhite man.”rnNarrett’s writings in the local newspaper,rnwhich is in no way affiliated with therncollege, were increasingly unpopularrnwith his colleagues—and with FSC’srnstudents. After Narrett published a trenchantrncolumn on feminism in the MiddlesexrnCounty News, anonymous postersrnaccusing him of misogyny and makingrnscurrilous remarks about his personal lifernstarted appearing around campus. Narrettrnclaims that Jack Ling, the administratorrnin charge of harassment cases,rnfailed to take action. On another occasion,rnMary Murphy, a tenured professor,rnreportedly stormed into Narrett’s officernand screamed that his criticisms of feminismrnhad “gone too far” and “hadrnto stop” immediately. She apparentlyrnwanted the college to insist that Narrettrnobtain prior approval from the school tornpublish any future article—a clear violationrnof academic freedom. A harassmentrncomplaint he filed against ProfessorrnMurphy was summarily thrown out.rnFor his failure to embrace radical feminism,rnNarrett was harassed and evenrnmenaced by his colleagues. A senior colleaguernstood over Narrett in the facultyrndining room one day and haranguedrnhim, and another professor got into thernhabit of stalking up and down the hallwayrnoutside Narrett’s office. In Septemberrn1996, Professor Narrett’s office wasrnsuddenly moved to a closet-sized roomrnwithout telephone and computer, a deprivationrnthat not even beginning professorsrnhave to put up with. According tornNarrett’s written account, he was toldrnthat he “can use the secretary’s phone”rnto make calls.rnLast March, several students approachedrnProfessor Narrett and said thatrnthey were interested in taking his classesrnin the fall but could not find his name inrnthe 1997-98 catalogue. The reason wasrnsimple: no one had bothered to tell Narrett,rnbut he had been fired. Despite hisrnglowing evaluations of Narrett’s teaching,rndepartment chairman Alan Feldmanrninsisted he had the right to sackrnNarrett without giving a reason, whichrnruns counter to a clause in Narrett’s contractrnwhich bars the department fromrnfiring him without explanation.rnAlthough Narrett’s writings have notrnbeen cited officially as a reason for fiis firing,rnhis credentials as a teacher andrnscholar beg the question why the departmentrnwould so abruptly terminate himrnfor reasons that remain hazy. Narrettrnsays that Feldman did finally come forthrnwith an after-the-fact rationalization;rnNarrett had broken his contract by askingrnto teach a fall course he had taught in thernpast, instead of one he had never taughtrnbefore (although Narrett never insistedrnon this). Meanwhile, the college hasrnthrown out Narrett’s two “wrongful terminationrngrievances,” sending a strongrnmessage that a worthless white man whornhas run afoul of the thought police needrnnot reapply.rn—Michael WashburnrnA N E C U M E N I C A L jihad was thernsubject of a conference, “Not of ThisrnWorld,” held at Rose Hill College inrnAiken, South Carolina, last May. HerernEastern Orthodox Christians hosted RomanrnCatholics and evangelical Protestantsrnin an effort to discover commonrnground and build on it. In a surprisingrndemarche, Boston College professor ofrnphilosophy Peter Kreeft delivered an addressrnentitled “Ecumenical Jihad” (recentlyrnpublished in a book edited by ProfessorrnJames Cutsinger of the Universityrnof South Carolina). Under the sloganrn”Today = Decay,” Professor Kreeftrnbriefly outlined the social degeneracy ofrnour day, giving particular emphasis tornthe sexual licentiousness of the West.rnAccording to Kreeft, God has let Satanrnloose upon the world, thus causingrnProtestants, Catholics, and Orthodoxrnto make common cause against him.rnBut then came his ecumenical bombshell:rna proposal that the three groups ofrnChristians include not only Jews but alsornMuslims in this “ecumenical” effort.rnHis choice of the word “jihad,” anrnArab term for holy war, waged at timesrnagainst Christians and Jews, is a clue tornhis surprising thesis. “We should notrnbalk at having Muhammad’s followers asrnour allies against Satan,” he argues.rnMuslims are often “better Christians”rnthan wimpy nominal Christians, sincernthey honor Jesus and will defend Hisrnname against insults—such as removingrncrucifixes from Catholic schools—whilernChristians at most wring their hands andrnlook sad. Kreeft envisages the “five kingsrnof orthodoxy,” i.e., the five greatrnmonotheistic traditions—Judaism, Orthodoxy,rnCatholicism, Protestantism,rnand Islam—making common causernagainst Satan-inspired social degeneracy.rnThe difficulty is that very few Muslimsrnare interested in making common causernwith Christians, to say nothing of Jews.rnIt should be self-evident that arnconception of orthodoxy that includesrnnot merely Christians but Jews andrnMuslims is itself extremely wimpy. Thernarea of agreement between Protestants,rnCatholics, and Orthodox is considerablern—they share the same ecumenicalrncreeds—and it is possible to define themrnall as “orthodox” on the major doctrinesrnof Christianity, even though there arernconsiderable differences between themrnon topics such as the authority of tradition,rnthe meaning of justification, andrnthe sacraments. It is also true that thernProtestant and Roman Catholic communions,rnand to a lesser extent, the EasternrnOrthodox, contain individuals andrngroups who question or even repudiaternthe fundamentals of the traditional faith.rnConsequently, the traditionalists withinrnthe three confessions are coming to seernthat they have more in common withrnone another, despite the difference in labels,rnthan they do with liberals in theirrnown confessions. However, most of whatrnthey have in common, as reflected in thernecumenical creeds, is not shared withrnJews, let alone Muslims.rnTo label Jews as “orthodox” in thisrncontext is strange, for although Christianityrnoriginated in Judaism and sharesrnwith the older religion the doctrines ofrnmonotheism and of biblical authority,rnthe Christian doctrines of the Trinityrnand of the Incarnation of Christ—rn8/CHRONICLESrnrnrn