Mosher had given “conflicting stories”nto some faculty members about somendetails of his research—the intendednresearch use of a van, the number ofndocuments collected, and the date of ancamera purchase. (The Stanford administrationnapparently regards thensuspect camera purchase as central tonthe case and has gone so far as to hire anHong Kong detective agency and anhandwriting expert to investigate thenpurchase receipt for the NikonnFE—or was it really a Nikon F2?)nKennedy also found it unacceptablenthat Mosher submitted a shockingnexpose of infanticide and compulsorynabortion when his “advisors were expectingnto receive a demographic comparisonnbetween a fishing village and anfarming community in Taiwan.” Itnseems that at Stanford, graduate studentsnare not supposed to redirect theirndissertations to “enhrely different subjectnmatter without so much as anby-your-leave,” even if Moshernhad arranged for a new dissertationncommittee.nTo be fair, Stanford’s is not the onlynanthro department in which studentsnknow the results of their research beforenthey ever start. And it is true thatnStanford had received a letter from thenChinese government warning thatnChinese-American relations would benstrained if Mosher were not dismissed.nKennedy did complain about the improprietynof a Stanford student travelingnabout in China “without suchnpermission being specified in writingnon his travel permit,” since an exchangenstudent has an “obligation tonprotect the reputahon of the program”nby not “testing the limits of the Chinesensecurity system.” Still, the Stanfordnpresident insisted that politicalnconsiderations had nothing to do withnthe Mosher dismissal—and at leastnthree aging alumni and two enteringnfreshmen believed him.nThe Wall Street Journal was notnimpressed, however. WSJ editors sawnnothing in Stanford’s “procedural fastidiousness”nto erase “the strong impressionnthat had Mr. Mosher been antenured university anthropologist rathernthan an Indiana Jones, the worldnwould never have learned of the horrorsnhe had discovered in GuangdongnProvince. . . . [T]his is by no meansnthe only recent instance of faculty andnadministrators flushing from theirnmidst colleagues’ or visitors they deemnintellectually, politically, or personallynuncongenial. We worry about a morengeneral intolerance on the part of whatnseems to be an increasingly enervatednclass of U.S. university intellectuals.”nBut wait—there’s good news fromnStanford. According to the Chroniclenof Higher Education, the Stanford LawnSchool has just announced that anynorganization that discriminates againstnhomosexuals will no longer be allowednto recruit on campus. At least they arenconsistent. In protecting the rights ofnthe People’s Republic and thenhomophiles, Stanford displays a typicallynacademic hostility both to freedomnand to the reproduction ofnhuman life. ccnChildren s rights have taken an unexpectednturn in Sweden, In a movendesigned, as some observers put it, ton”make Sweden the cradle of democracy,”nthe Swedish Pediatric Associationnrecentiy proposed that all Swedish in­nfants be granted the right to vote atnbirth, a right to be exercised by parentsnuntil the child is 18. According tonReuters, Swedish pediatricians aren”worried that society takes insufficientncare of families with children” andnfeels that the government must findn”ways of giving children and parentsnmore political influence.” ClaesnSundelin, chairman of the SwedishnPediatric Association, believes that theninterests of children are slighted inncomparison with those of retirees andnworkers: “The most important reasonnwhy society pays so little attention tonchildren is quite simply that it is notnespecially profitable politically.” Tonsay the least: Sweden’s birthrate nownstands at less than 60 percent of re­nnnplacement level.nThis is one Swedish idea the UnitednStates ought to consider. (Goodnessnknows, we’ve been picking up all theirnother zany suggestions.) As it is now,nwe have a tax system with a scandalouslynlow personal exemption for dependentsnand a built-in penalty fornfamilies who take care of their ownnchildren. We also suffer under a socialnsecurity system that places the wellbeingnof an increasing number of retireesnon the backs of a declining numbernof young workers. It is hardly surprisingnthat were it not for immigrationn(much of it illegal), the Americannpopulation would already be stagnantnor declining. In many areas, one of thenhottest issues in local politics is thenclosing of schools. Unless we want tonbecome — like Sweden — a land ofnswinging geriatrics, it may be time tonreenfranchise families.nA head-count of our colleagues, bynthe way, revealed an average of 3.5nchildren per family (and some are stillnin the running). Since literacy is nonlonger a requirement, we could e’ennlet the children pull the lever. Theynsay random selection in the stock marketnoutperforms the experts. In politics,nit couldn’t hurt. ccnSociaUstsplan to boycott games—notnjust in Seoul but in Peoria and Springfield,nIllinois, as well. Here in thenPrairie State, it seems that some leadersnof the Illinois High School Associationn(IHSA) believe that public schoolingnoffers the only legitimate variety ofneducation. In an effort to keep theirnstudents undefiled by contact with thenelitists enrolled in parochial and privatenschools, the Interstate Eight Conferencenhas called for the expulsion ofnprivate schools from all of the state’snchampionship tournaments. Citingn”basic philosophical differences concerningnthe education process itselfnbetween public and nonpublicnschools,” the conference is looking fornsome “more equitable system” to overcomenthe “feeling of unfairness” pervadingncurrent competition. Many observersnbelieve that this “feeling ofnunfairness” is nothing more than embarrassmentnover the record compilednby public schools in competition withnprivate ones. Private schools constituten(continued on p. 50)nFEBRUARY 1386 / 7n