STAFF EDIT: Anti-feminist follies

Phyllis Schlafly’s presence on campus last night brought together a group of curious students — from a community often self-characterized as apathetic — to behold a relic of American history and engage the icon of the anti-feminism movement. The Boston University College Republicans knew its audience well when it decided to host Schlafly. For bringing a symbol of political and social issues that reverberate with the BU population — gender identity and rights — the group is to be commended.

BUCR President Kasia Zabawa deftly introduced the controversial figure by quickly explaining her historical significance and then allowing Schlafly to speak for herself — without aligning the BUCR with outdated sentiments or making explicit statements on behalf of its members. Zabawa told the audience the event was meant to spark a multifarious discussion on campus. This it did: Many questions posed by audience members, some of whom appeared to have thoughtfully taken notes during Schlafly’s speech, challenged the views of the “pro-family conservative.”

Schlafly’s shtick at times showed nuance and thoughtful consideration of the implications of the Equal Rights Amendment she helped to squelch. On other points, it indicated extremist views that lack modern relevance or even an awareness of historical trends. A misguided belief that feminist laws have created a “sexual harassment Gestapo,” rather than addressed a real problem, and a highly selective gloss of constitutional history that suggests complete legal gender neutrality existed since the 18th century proved Schlafly’s role is as a zealot, not as a rational policymaker.

Schlafly’s frequent reference to the philosophies of feminists whose speeches, like Schlafly’s, have become more a symbol of intellectual and gender history than a representation of current mainstream trends showed Schlafly’s age and place. Her adlibbed responses to audience questions revealed what her arguments lack. Asked what is wrong with daycare, Schlafly responded with a weak answer, referring to the spread of contagious illnesses between children. She then referred to a book she edited, Who Will Rock the Cradle?, but was unable to cite any of the many compelling arguments that exist against daycare.

Schlafly’s packaged message was also conspicuous for its omissions. Schlafly, who bemoans cuts to college athletic programs for traditional manly sports because of feminist pressure, wrote about BU’s decision to cut its football program in a January 2006 column. This fact was not mentioned during her scripted speech. Schlafly, who stands firmly against gay marriage and judicial activism, did not even explicitly mention the Massachusetts courts that upheld gay marriage in 2004 to her Boston audience.

This woman who tours the country making archaic pronouncements and overbroad statements — such brash and generalized ideas that work involves tedium, while the home offers happiness — for “a fee” ultimately showed herself to be a professional stumper, but not necessarily a person with modern relevance. Her presence on campus, however, was an effective stimulant for political conversation.