If Clinton had not been so brazenly manipulativernin the first place, he would notrnhave had to do it again. The President’srnattempt to destrov military distinctionsrnearlv in his administration backfired, andrnill became a draft-evader. But now therntime had come to reassemble Clinton’srnrambcw coalition. And because of hisrnlack of credibility, Clinton will always bernsuspected of connivance in the rubberrnglove incident, as he in effect gainedrnfrom it both ways. T he tricky Mr. Clintonrnhas a way of making Richard Nixonrnlook like Woodrow Wilson.rnBut beneath his burlesque lies therngrotcscjuc—the second place. No onernshould be invited an where, even to thernWhite House, just to be insulted. Thernobligations of hospitalit (a great themernof Homer’s Odyssev) are a definition ofrnci’ilization. Yet strangely enough, thosern”gay elected officials” were and are thernlast people in the world with a claim tornbe exempted from what we might callrnthe rubber treatment. Mr. Clinton, inrnhis apologv, referred to “the inappropriaternand insensitive treatment severalrnof the participants were subjectedrnto” and deeply regretted “any insultrnand embarrassment” that some mightrnhae suffered. This seems an oddly selectirne view of the matter.rnFor a quarter of a century, the greatrnmajority of the American people havernbeen subjected unrelentingly to inappropriaternand insensitive treatment andrnendless insult and embarrassment, byrnthe constituency or even by the membersrnof the delegation of “gav elected officials.”rnIf I may use the first person plural,rnwe have been subjected to a greatrndeal of the rubber treatment. I refer torncondoms thrown at priests during Mass,rncondoms thrown at children, the attemptedrnsubs’crsion of the school systemrnto instruct in homosexuality, condomrnads on T/ endorsed by ‘arious SurgeonsrnGeneral—indeed a widespread advocacyrnof the homosexual worldview. To acknowledgernthat view in some way hasrnmeant to diminish any vestiges of normalitvrnand illusions of nmocence.rnCliildhood has particulariy been a ]5ointrnof attack. The separation of sex fromrnmarriage has produced its opposite: therndemand for legal homosexual marriagernand adoption rights. The American peoplernhae been asked to endorse a caricaturernof the family, even as the familyrnitself is disintegrating.rnThe homosexual propaganda machine,rnone allied with the most powerfulrnorgans of communication in our world,rnhas asserted that a life of impersonal lustrnand the threat of IIIV and other diseasesrnhas necessitated the intrusion of rubberrnin everv intinraey—which will of coursernsave the world, and not eoincidentallyrndemonstrate an equivalence betweenrn”lifestyles.” Unfortunately, the newsrnfrom the gav community, which shouldrnmore accurately be called the morosernlobb’, is that the protection of rubber isrnbeing scanted in favor of romantic freedom.rnSomething’s in the air, and they’rernin love again, and the I IIV incidencernamong young morose males is rising.rnWell, all right then, I think that everyonernhas seen doctors and dentists andrnfoodhandlers and others wearing rubberrngloes and usually accc]5ted it as necessaryrnor even beneficial. So what’s v rong,rnI’d like to know, with the Secret Servicernmen greeting morose elected officialsrnwhile wearing rubber gloves? Theyrnshowed a prudence commendable inrnpublic servants. Their offense was to implyrnthat self-identified homosexuals werernhomosexuals, and that the government’srnown propaganda about protection is supposedrnto be ignored for political, not polite,rnreasons. Besides, the homosexualityrnof self-proclaimed homosexuals is notrnsupposed to be noted except by homosexualsrnwhen it is to their maximumrnadvantage, and only then, such as at ralliesrnattempting to extort money from therngovernment or at Morose Pride marches,rnat which men witfi female breasts gorntopless.rnSad to say, even a handshake has beenrnsubjected to a paranoid treatment that’srnnot without justification. The peoplernwho say that viruses cannot be spread byrncasual contact are the same ones whornonce said that the nation’s blood suppkrndid not need screening—that would berndiscriminatory! Precisely so. Today, inrnview of all the lying that has gone on inrnrefusing to treat a disease as a disease, Irnwould recommend that to prevent furtherrnembarrassment, all visitors to thisrnWhite House wear rubber gloves. ThernSecret Service persons would be off thernhook, and the isitors would be protectedrnfrom the administration by rubber, asrnthe government has so insistently recommended.rnIf there were any hand-in-glovernpressing of the flesh, no one would havernto remember what the comedianrnJonathan Winters used to say in character:rn”Put that down! You don’t knowwherernit’s been!”rn—/.O. TaternWESLEYAN UNIVERSITY and thernUniversity of Connecticut have comernunder fire from the United States Commissionrnon Civil Rights. According to arnstartling report to that body from thernConnecticut Advisory Committee lastrnJanuary, facultv at these two institutionsrnin particular “resist efforts to diversifyrncurricula and adapt to the changingrncomposition of the student body and ofrnthe nation’s citizenrs.” The committeernrecommended that performance evaluationsrnof faculty members include “elementsrnrelated to the ability to accommodaternchange.” It specifically suggestedrnthat the University of Connecticut appointrna high-ranking official “to concentraternon multicultural and diversity issuesrnand give appropriate weight to their consideration”rnand that Weslevan implementrn”a clearer line of communicationrnand command between the presidentrnand the individual faculty member.”rnIf one reads through the pompousrnprofspeak in this committee report, it isrnclear what the Connecticut AdvisoryrnCommittee is proposing: faculty membersrnsliould not be permitted to resist thernmulticultural agenda. Surely there arernfaculty members who arc convinced thatrnmulticulturalism is the imposition of anrnorthodoxy on campus and who thereforernoppose it. But if faculty performance isrnto be determined by an ability to accommodaternchange, then those on the wrongrnside of the orthodoxy vv’ill be writingrntheir own pink slips.rnMoreover, what docs a high-rankingrnofficial at the university do when assignedrnthe task of overseeing multiculturalrnissues? Is he the chief of thoughtrnpolice? Must he force faculty conformity?rnSimilarly, what does a universityrnpresident “communicate” in this area?rnIn a way these recommendationsrnbespeak an intolerance that is the directrnantithesis of the civil rights they supposedlyrndefend. Since when is the demandrnfor conformity so rigid that faculty membersrnshould be penalized for disagreementrnand reluctance to accommodaternchange? At this moment many Americanrnuniversities resemble their Chineserncounterparts in imposing a party linernon faculty members for some greaterrnsocial good. Howcer, if universities arernobliged to adopt a doctrine, then itrnseems to me the university paradigm willrnhave been vitiated. What is the meaningrnof a university unwilling to acceptrndissent?rnDiversity on campus is certainly nee-rnSEPTEMBER 1995/5rnrnrn