Roman Catholic prelate Cardinal JohnnO’Connor as a ‘fat cannibal.'” “Religiousnpeople must no longer be personalntargets of cannon fire from NationalnEndowment projects,” RutherfordnInstitute President John W.nWhitehead said.nWe have reached the point wherenthings considered acceptable and protectednby law if done under secular ornantireligious auspices are judged criminalnif done for identifiably religiousnreasons. For example, although statenand federal courts have been veryngenerous in granting or extending thenConstitution’s right of freedom ofnspeech to various other forms of activities—nmost recently and notoriously,nflag-burning — last February a dividednMaryland Court of Appeals upheld thenconviction of a man who “disturbednthe peace” by reading the Bible andnpreaching outside a Hagerstown abortionnclinic in May 1988, an offense henperpetrated during three successive periodsnof two to three minutes each.nThe Washington Post, a pro-abortionnnewspaper, came to Jerry Fanes’ defensenin a strongly worded editorial. Itnendorsed dissenting Judge John C.nEldridge’s protests that Fanes “wasnengaged in free speech in its mostnpristine and classic form.” Fanes wasnconvicted under an anti-noise statutenthat specifically bars attempts to “willfullyndisturb any neighborhood … bynloud and unseemly noises.” As of thisnwriting he has already served 45 days innjail for his reprehensible behavior.nMost Americans do not, however,nbelieve that every expression ought tonbe allowed, and certainly not that everynexpression should be subsidized, regardlessnof its content. A poll recentlynpublished by the Thomas JeffersonnCenter for the Freedom of Expressionnshows that while people want the freedomnto say what they think, theynbelieve that some rather definite limitsnshould be set on public expression andnperformances, and particularly on governmentnsubsidies for the same. ThenJefferson Center poll indicated that 90npercent of its 1,500 respondents —nsupposedly a representative cross sectionnof America—believe the governmentnhas no business telling them whatnto say, and while 74 percent backnartists’ rights to display works thatnmight be offensive, 72 percent opposenspending of tax money for “objection­n8/CHRONICLESnable art.”nThis poll reveals that a healthy majority,nranging from about 60 percentnto over 80 percent, would grant governmentnthe right to censor to somendegree public art displays and performances,nespecially those funded withnpublic money. What is provoking thenmedia uproar about censorship is notnfear of the power of a few self-appointedncensors, but an awareness of the factnthat the general public really does wantnsome standards of decency and civility.n—Harold O.J. BrownnBARNARD COLLEGE’S “FirstnYear Seminar Committee” has decidednto use a grant from the Ford Foundationnto encourage the faculty to use thenworks of “minority women” in theirncourses. So reports Herbert London innthe Spring 1990 issue of AcademicnQuestions, the journal of the NationalnAssociation of Scholars. It seems thatnfaculty members who put such worksninto their reading lists will receive an”stipend,” to be used, says HelenanFoley, spokesman for the committee,n”to buy time to discover and readnworks.” As Dean London says, this isnsimple bribery. Foundation moneynthus influences college affairs, in thisncase extending the influence of annotherwise insignificant fringe group.n”Is it any wonder,” he asks, “thencurriculum is in disarray and the defendersnof Western civilization are oftennhiding in their office bunkers?”nThe Barnard case will come as ansurprise to those unfamiliar with thenways of today’s academic administratorsnand faculties, but in fact this kindnof corruption has been going on for andecade or so. Here at Mount HolyokenCollege, where I teach, it appearednabout fen years ago in the form ofnfoundation grants meant to “encourage”n{i.e., buy) the faculty’s participationnin such things as interdisciplinarynteaching and the development ofncourses in “quantitative reasoning,”n”writing across the campus,” and whatnI guess we could call postmodern humanities.nAs at Barnard, participantsnreceived a “stipend.”nPayment has become a standardnmethod of persuading a significantnnumber of chosen faculty to supportnadministrative policies. Since most ofnthe money comes from foundations.nnnand since colleges seldom do anythingnindependently, I assume the practice isnwidespread. The payment can be asnabsurdly low as $100 for attending anseminar and reading a few books —nwhich tells one something about facultynself-respect — and as high as aboutn10 percent of one’s salary for actuallynplanning a new course. This makes anvery nice payoff The money is routednthrough deans, presidents, and handpickedncommittees.nThis form of corruption is so entrenchednthat by now perhaps a third ofnthe faculty has received some of thisnmoney at some time. One consequencenis that without bribery it is nowndifficult to get faculty to do anythingnbeyond their basic teaching assignment.nAfter all, what young professor isngoing to spend hours advising studentsnor sitting on a busy college committeenwhen he can earn approval as well as an”stipend” by reading a few books andnattending a few meetings? On thenother hand, for those faculty who perseverenin researching and teaching innthe central subjects of the curriculum,nwhether in the humanities or the sciences,nvirtue has to be its own reward.nNo matter how able they are, they willnget litfle if any recognition from theirnadministrative masters or from thenwould-be professors who amuse themselvesnwith disbursing foundation fundsnto colleges.nBribery, administered and receivednin raptures of high-mindedness, is onenexample of the corruption endemic innhigher education. This, after all, is thenprofession that invented the sevenmonthnyear and the two-day week.n— F.W. BrownlownI HE lAS’s directorship today resemblesnthe Presidency from Kennedy tonCarter — a series of one-termers.nThree directors have come and gone innnot 13 years, with directors having leftnthe job, dropped the job, or beenndriven from the job. Now with MarvinnColdberger’s departure without finishingneven his first five-year appointmentn(whether he was fired or just quit is notnat issue), we have to ask, what of thenfuture?nThe truth is, if Einstein hadn’t spentnhis declining years at IAS, the Institutenwould hardly enjoy the high visibilitynthat even today, three decades aftern