EDITORnThomas FlemingnMANAGING EDITORnKatherine DaltonnSENIOR EDITOR, BOOKSnChilton Williamson, ]r.nASSISTANT EDITORnTheodore PappasnART DIRECTORnAnna Mycek-WodeckinGONTRIBUTING EDITORSn]ohn W. Aldridge, Harold O.J.nBrown, Samuel Francis, GeorgenGarrett, Russell Kirk, E. ChristiannKopff, Clyde WilsonnGORRESPONDING EDITORSnJanet Scott Barlow, Odie Faulk,nJane Greer, John Shelton Reed,nGary VasilashnEDITORIAL SECRETARYnLeann DobbsnPUBLISHERnAllan C. CarlsonnASSOCIATE PUBLISHERnMichael WardernPUBLICATION DIRECTORnGuy C. ReffettnCOMPOSITION MANAGERnAnita FedoranCIRCULATION MANAGERnRochelle FranknA publication of The Rockford Institute.nEditorial and Advertising Offices: 934 NorthnMain Street, Rockford, IL 61103.nEditorial Phone: (815) 964-5054.nAdvertising Phone: (815) 964-5811.nSubscription Department: P.O. Box 800, MountnMorris, IL 61054. Gall 1-800-435-0715, innIllinois 1-800-892-0753.nFor information on advertising in Chronicles,nplease call Cathy Corson at (815) 964-5811.nU.S.A. Newsstand Distribution by EasternnNews Distributors, Inc., 1130 Cleveland Road,nSandusky, OH 44870.nCopyright © 1990 by The Rockford Institute.nAll rights reserved.nChronicles (ISSN 0887-5731) is publishednmonthly for $24 per year by The RockfordnInstitute, 934 North Main Street, Rockford, ILn61103-7061.nSecond-class postage paid at Rockford, IL andnadditional mailing offices.nPOSTMASTER: Send address changes tonChronicles, P.O. Box 800, Mount Morris, ILn61054.nThe views expressed in Chronicles are thenauthors’ alone and do not necessarily reflect thenviews of The Rockford Institute or of itsndirectors. Unsolicited manuscripts cannot benreturned unless accompanied by a self-addressednstamped envelope.nChroniclesnK M I G A M N E OF A M E t l C l N ( U L I U I En4/CHRONICLESnVol. 14, No. 12 December 1990nOn ‘Women’snStudies’nPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESnThe first half of Elizabeth Fox-nGenovese’s article “Whose Women’snStudies?” (September 1990) seems tonbe a fair and balanced account of thenstruggle between passionate feminists,nscholars in the field of women’s studies,nand those of us who question or opposenfeminist efforts to “transform the curriculum.”nShe admits the central role ofnradical feminists and concedes that theirnmotives, objectives, and tactics are political.nI am sorry she did not take a momentnto explain to her readers somethingnabout the full effect of this kind ofnpolitics on collegiality, curriculum planning,nand the integrity of the academy.nShe touches on this in a general way,nbut such generalities have little meaningnto those outside the profession. Perhapsnall is sweetness and light at Emory, butnquite the reverse is the case in myninstitution and others around the country.nWhat about quotas, official or covert,nin faculty hiring? What about thenapplication of different standards in promotionnand tenure decisions? Whatnabout the termination of white, malenprofessors to make room for femalenprofessors? What about the “packing”nof faculty committees to protect curriculumnproposals from serious questions?nWhat about harassment policies thatnthreaten punishment of students andnfaculty who express themselves openly?nWhat about the effect of “group politics”non reasoned discourse and facultynrelationships? And what about thenteaching of suspicion and anger in thenclassroom?nThe second half of the article and thenbold peroration should be read carefullynby anyone who is trying to distinguishnwomen’s studies and radical feminism.nFox-Genovese seems to blame the troublesnon those who defend the traditionalncanon. Using such language as “outragednand bigoted opposition,” “sorcerer’snapprentice,” “bunker mentality,”nand “self-proclaimed defenders of inheritednculture,” she warns us thatn”unilateral opposition will only drive itn[the women’s studies movement] furtherndown the road of stiffening opposi­nnntion to Western culture as a whole.”nTranslated into plain English, this simplynmeans that those who stand in ournway have only themselves to blamenwhen we tighten the noose.nI hear these expressions all the time.nBut, I must insist that it is not the kindnof language used by those who seek anmiddle ground. I am sorry that ProfessornFox-Genovese chose to addressnus in this fashion in an otherwise usefulnarticle.n— William C. BurrisnGreensboro, NCnAfter reading Professor Fox-Genovese’snarticle (September 1990) one wondersnwhy exegetes for “women’s studies”nalways seem to fall short, into a maze ofnunchallenged vagueness and self-congratulation.nPossibly because feministsnresort to what Eric Voegelin, in a treatmentnof Kari Marx, referred to asn”pseudo-logic,” which should not bensurprising, since feminism is an avowedlynradical, revisionist, socialistic endeavornthat has surmounted most intellectualnobstacles merely by ignoring them.nProfessor Fox-Genovese’s quotenfrom the final paper of an enlightenednyoung woman won over to feminismnconveys the usual impression that thenstudents seem unaware of the radicalnorigins of the program and that thencourse content of “women’s studies” isnnot quite on the higher level one mightnreasonably expect from a university—anlevel that is discussed so remarkably wellnby most of the other writers in the samenChronicles issue. Women enjoy ournenduring respect as an integral part ofnhumanity too completely to allow theirnself-focused, introspective, solipsisticnsegmentation as a group, or as justnanother 20th-century special, separateninterest.nThis “pseudo-logical” approachnstates “feminism is justified because wensay it is justified.” This is why ProfessornFox-Genovese could write volumes ofntangled rhetoric trying to justify a universitynstatus for a junior-high-levelnprogram and still not alter the fact thatnthere is no more intellectual justificationnfor “women’s studies” than forn”men’s studies,” etc. The very namesn