very system that made the accumulationrnof those milhons possible. Places likernHarvard are still thought of as staid, conservativerninstitutions by much of therngeneral populace (and by aged alumni),rnbut Harvard also produced the Unabomber,rnwith help from Berkeley andrnMontana. The Ivy League has become arnstrange and wealthy ideological playground,rnand people concerned with preservingrncivilization (such as, say, TimrnForbes, editor oi American Heritage magazine,rnor a man who wanted to be President)rnought to watch carefully how thernfamily fortune is spent by such institutions.rnTrue, Steve Forbes can hardly be expectedrnto watch every dime himself, andrnI would not want him to be so culturallyrnuptight that we were robbed of entertainingrnmoments such as him introducingrnthe militant black band Rage Againstrnthe Machine on Saturday Night Live.rnAnd admittedly—as Steve Forbes mustrnbe well aware after his campaign—mainstreamrnmedia are more dangerous to thernculture than obscure Marxist critics.rnStill, a glance at the MCM textbooks inrnthe Brown Bookstore should suffice tornshow there is something wrong with thernForbes media empire aiding MCM.rnWhen I examined the shelves on my reunionrnvisit, typical textbooks includedrnBlack Skin, White Masks by FrantzrnFanon, the socialist whose inclusion inrnStanford’s notorious Western Civilizationrnsurvey bumped John Locke fromrnthe lineup; Michael T. Taussig’s ThernDevil and Commodity Fetishism in SouthrnAmerica, with a quotation on the backrncover calling the book “superb ethnography,rna Marxist critique of world capitalism,rna lesson in analogical and dialecticalrntechniques (some of them bordering onrnthe mystical)”; Michel Foucault’s Historyrnof Sexuality, Volume 1; and, perhapsrnmost ironically (given Steve Forbes’ anticommunistrnradio work under Reagan),rnCuban-American Radio Wars, a bookrnwhich criticizes Voice of America, notingrnthat “In the United States, the paragonrnof the liberal tradition, the interests ofrnthe minority elite classes are paramountrnand are safeguarded by a representationalrnstructure favoring those classes.”rnPerhaps the book is correct, but if donationsrnto the MCM department are anyrnindication, those elite classes are not beingrntoo farsighted about preserving theirrnown social system.rnTodd Seavey writes from New York City.rnMondornQuasimodornby Marian Kestei CoombsrnLast June, the 19,000 delegates to thernSouthern Baptist Convention votedrnto boycott the Walt Disney Company forrnits “promotion of homosexuality” andrnthe other “anti-family” values. The conventionrnpointed to Gay and LesbianrnDays sponsored by Disney theme parks;rnto such twisted fare as Priest, Powder, andrnKids, all films produced by Disney’s Miramax;rnto such books as Growing UprnGay, published by Disney’s Hyperionrnsubsidiary; and to the company’s grantingrnof marital-type benefits to homosexualrnemployees’ partners.rnPresident Clinton, a “lifelong SouthernrnBaptist,” promptly had his mouthpiecernmouth the usual objection: “Herndoesn’t agree with that particular position.rnThat doesn’t change his faith orrnmembership in that denomination.”rnWhile the two segments of this statementrnare typical Clinton in their mutualrnexclusivity, it does not follow that Clintonrnreally is on both sides of everyrneither/or. In his actions, at least, Clintonrnalways favors the immoral, amoral, andrnabnormal. At this late stage of the game,rnit is no longer possible to put into wordsrnwhat is wrong with the Clintons andrntheir associates. It is a wrongness so fundamentalrnthat one either grasps it profoundly,rnintuitively, or one cannot bernbrought to grasp it at all. This sense ofrnwrongness beyond words has begun torndefine a physical boundary between thernAmerica of our fathers and another, entirelyrnincompatible one.rnMore illuminating was Disney’s retortrnto the Baptists, which justified the benefitsrnpolicy as necessary in view of the intenserncompetition for top talent in thernentertainment industry. Thus it wouldrnseem that Disney equates “top talent”rnwith homosexuality. This may begin tornexplain why the company’s attitude towardrnsociety has changed so markedly.rnCompared with the toxic products ofrnmost studios, the creations of the DisneyrnCompany always seemed righteous, upright,rnand wholesome, at least until thernconsolidation of the new executive powersrnthat captured the company after WaltrnDisney’s death. Each time Michael Eisnerrnintroduces himself on television asrn”chairman of the Disney Company,” hernappears to dance a little jig on Walt’srngrave and toast himself with a draughtrnout of Walt’s skull. Conservative, traditionalist,rnand pro-family critics havernlooked on in dismay as the old playful,rngood-hearted Disney anarcho-cosmicrnsubversion—Four Legs Good/Two LegsrnBad (Bambi), Underdog Good/OvermanrnBad (Dumbo), Red Man GoodAVhiternMan Bad (Tonka), Children Good/StepparentsrnBad (Cinderella, Snow White,rnThe Sleeping Beauty)—has marched furtherrnand further astray, rewriting classicrnliterature as it goes.rnIn 1987’s The Little Mermaid, Arielrngives up her family, identity, and environment,rnliterally becoming a “fish outrnof water” to pursue her infatuation withrnPrince Eric. The mer-folk are shown ignorantlyrndemonizing the land-dwellingrnhumans, like a bunch of Texas skinheadsrndisparaging Mexicans, while Ariel persistsrnin dreamily championing humansrndespite the pain this causes her father,rnthe ruler of the sea. Though the originalrnAndersen tale ends with the protractedrndeath of the mermaid, out of her elementrnand condemned to watch herrnbeloved marry another human, in thernDisney version Ariel turns her back onrnher native ocean and switches species byrnmagic. In I993’s Beauty and the Beast, itrnis not the father who opposes Belle’s lovernfor the Beast, but the traditional communityrnof townsfolk led by tall, handsome,rnvigorous Gaston, who in a classicalrnfable would have been Belle’s naturalrnmatch. There exists no such character inrnthe 18th-century La Belle et la bete; hernhas been added both to rub in Belle’s rejectionrnof a natural match and to be thern”dumb and dumber” butt of her sarcasticrnfeminism.rnThere are many interpretations ofrnBeauty and the Beast, and many meanings,rnno doubt, to the tale. One thing itrndoes symbolize is the need for nubilerngirls to overcome their fear of men, tornrecognize the human tenderness thatrnlurks beneath the alien, sometimesrnfrightening exterior of the male. ThernDisney version focuses not on this leap ofrnfaith but on Belle’s preference for arn”monstrous” mate over a (despicably)rn”normal” one. For this is the new specialtyrnof Disney films: the subversion ofrn46/CHRONICLESrnrnrn