EDITORrnThomas FlemingrnMANAGING EDITORrnTheodore PappasrnSENIOR EDITOR, BOOKSrnChilton Williamson, ]r.rnEDITORIAL ASSISTANTrnChristine HaynesrnART DIRECTORrnAnna Mycek-WodeckirnCONTRIBUTING EDITORSrn]ohn W. Aldridge, Harold O./.rnBrown, Katherine Dalton, SamuelrnFrancis, George Garrett,rnE. Christian Kopff, Clyde WilsonrnCORRESPONDING EDITORSrnJanet Scott Barlow, Bill Kauffman,rn]ohn Shelton Reed, David R. SlavittrnEDITORIAL SECRETARYrnLeann DobbsrnPUBLISHERrnAllan C. CarlsonrnPUBLICATION DIRECTORrnGuy G. ReffettrnCOMPOSITION MANAGERrnAnita FedorarnCIRCULATION MANAGERrnRochelle FrankrnA publication of The Rockford Institute.rnEditorial and Advertising Offices;rn934 North Main Street, Rockford, IL 61103.rnEditorial Phone: (815)964-5054.rnAdvertising Phone: (815) 964-5811.rnSubscription Department: P.O. Box 800,rnMount Morris, IL 61054. Call 1-800-877-5459.rnFor information on advertising in Chronicles,rnplease call Rochelle Frank at (815) 964-5811.rnU.S.A. Newsstand Distribution bv Eastern NewsrnDistributors, Inc., 1150 Cleveland Road,rnSandusky, OH 44870.rnCopyright © 1993 by The Rockford Institute.rnAll rights reserved.rnChronicles (ISSN 0887-5731) is publishedrnmonthly for $28 per year by The RockfordrnInstitute, 934 North Main Street, Rockford,rnIL 61105-7061. Second-class postage paidrnat Rockford, IL and additional mailing offices.rnPOSTMASTER: Send address changes tornChronicles, P.O. Box 800, Mount Morris,rnIL 61054.rnThe views expressed in Chronicles are thernauthors’ alone and do not necessarily reflectrnthe views of The Rockford Institute or of itsrndirectors. Uirsolicited manuscripts cannot bernreturned unless accompanied by a self-addressedrnstamped envelope.rnChroniclesrnVol, 17, No. 9 September 1993rnPrinted in tlic United States of AmericarnPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESrnOn ‘Young Conservatives’rnI am most concerned by the profile of “ArnYoung Conservative” (Liberal Arts) featuredrnin your lune issue. While I realizernthe election is not yours but rather thatrnof a conservative student newspaper atrn”one of America’s largest universities,” Irnam fearful that youthful conservatives, ofrnwhich I am a part, are becoming less andrnless capable of discerning the good fromrnthe bad, the just from the unjust, andrnthe culture from the counterculture.rnInitially I was elated that a paragon forrnconservatives of tomorrow was a “LeisurernStudies” major, assuming as I did a definitionrnof “Leisure” along the lines ofrnJoseph Pieper. But only moments afterrnmy euphoria did I read the following;rn”Goals: To have a successful career as arnspecial events planner… to plan a PresidentialrnInauguration.” Suddenly I feltrnthe sort of suspicion one experiencesrnwhen entering a surprise party plannedrnfor another though thought for a briefrnmoment to be for oneself. A “SpecialrnEvents Planner” sounds like somethingrnright out of the Kantian “workaday”rnworid Pieper so aptly describes, whichrnthreatens our very cult’s existence.rnAs I read on things became worse. Asrnif epicurean enjoyments that wouldrnmake King Hedon elated (“I really enjoy:rnspending time with friends, going to parties,rndancing, and eating”) or trivial concernsrnabout her hair were not enough,rnreaders were left with the following: “Irnread: Danielle Steele and Stephen King.”rnCan this be?rnPerhaps modernity has won out afterrnall. I am by no means optimistic aboutrna conservative movement, so intimaternwith the essence of our existence, survivingrnvery long when its leaders of tomorrowrnare of the sort outlined here.rnGod save us!rn—Michael D. CurryrnComstock Park, MIrnCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSrnPOLITICAL CORRECTNESS hasrnfound a new champion on our collegerncampuses. Professor Betty Jean Craige ofrnthe University of Georgia argued in thernChronicle of Higher Education last Januaryrnthat truth has not been subordinatedrnto political goals in Americanrnhigher education; students today simplyrn”examine critically long-standing ‘truths’rnabout race, gender, and our civilization’srnpast.” Using antipathy to Darwin’s theoriesrnas analogy, Craige maintains thatrn”conservative” scholars criticize feminismrnand multiculturalism for the samernparochial reasons they denounced Darwin.rn”Conservatives fear a vision of humanrnsociety as a continuously evolvingrnsystem of interdependent individualsrnand cultures,” she notes.rnPresumably the diversity emergingrnfrom this dynamic is anathema to conservativesrnwho, according to Craige, resistrnchange. They resist because changernundermines a natural order. “No naturalrnlaw decrees that whites should be consideredrnsuperior to blacks or that menrnshould be considered superior to women.rnDiversity is natural, even desirable.”rnErgo, any model of the good, true, andrnbeautiful is suspect. Her Darwinian dynamismrnis incompatible with a literaryrncanon, indeed incompatible with thernranking of anything, especially culture,rnrace, or gender. As Craige maintains,rn”humanists are challenging the very possibilityrnof objectivity.”rnFrom the myth of objectivity, Craigerndraws the conclusion that the pursuit ofrntruth is inherently disruptive. Yet if objectivityrndoesn’t exist even as a possibility,rnthe pursuit of truth is comparable tornthe search for phlogiston, a nonexistentrningredient in fire invented by medievalrnscientists to account for an increase inrnatomic weight. Why search for whatrncannot be demonstrated?rnIn fact, Craige has embraced a truthrnemerging from her conceptualization ofrnsociety. “Laying bare patriarchal valuesrnin literature, for example, may alert stu-rn4/CHRONICLESrnrnrn