B/CHRONICLESnFathers are striking back in thencultural war over abortion. As a slogan,n”abortion rights” has translated intonthe woman’s absolute prerogative tonabort her unborn child. It is not onlynthe interests of the child that are brutallyncrushed by this “right”; the desires ofnfathers — even married fathers — havenalso been brushed aside as irrelevant innabortion decisions. But this year a fewnfathers — in New York, in Utah, innIndiana—have started to protest thensituation in court. In New York, orthodontistnDavid Ostreicher sued his wifenand her doctors and the hospital fornaborting his child without notifyingnhim. “This is a case of father’s rights, ofnhusband’s rights,” Dr. Ostreicher toldnthe press. “It’s a case of an outrageousnact that a wife did against a husband.nWithout my knowledge, without mynconsent, she took our baby and rippednit out of her.”nDr. Ostreicher’s suit comes too latento save his child, and similar “fathers’nrights” cases in Utah and Indiana likewisenfailed to prevent abortions. At lastnreport, the Indiana case was still in thencourts, as the father pressed a paternitynaction on behalf of the unborn but nowndead child.nSince the Supreme Court ruled inn1976 that a wife need not obtain hernhusband’s consent for an abortion, thenlaw offered little real hope for thesenfrustrated fathers. Yet the three fathersnwho filed these suits did capture widenpublic attention and sympathy. Theirnsuits seem fully justified to the millionsnof Americans who remain convincednthat the nation’s future depends morenupon the integrity of its families thannupon the unchallenged authority of thenSupreme Court. At a time when thenrising tide of female-headed householdsnthreatens to drown half a generationnin poverty, crime, drugs, and failure,nit is becoming painfully evidentnthat fathers were not quite so dispensablenas feminist theory supposed. ButnCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSnamong the policymakers now desperatelyncalling for more paternalnresponsibility—often enforcednthrough more vigorous state collectionnof child support — few acknowledgenthe need to rehabilitate paternal authority.nAs legal scholar George Swannrecently observed, a father who has nonlegal say in whether his unborn childnlives or dies can hardly be expected tonacknowledge a legal obligation to supportnthat child. Any repudiation ofnpaternal authority must necessarilynweaken the social responsibilities ofnfatherhood.nThe problem transcends law.nWyndham Lewis observed more thann50 years ago that the “Age war” andnthe “Sex war” were both part of “annattack on man and on masculinity.” Innhis view, the overall objective of bothnfeminism and “the politics of Youth”nwas “to eliminate all those elements innpolitics likely to perpetuate traditionalnideas.” This united campaign requiredna dethroning of the “little ‘kings'” (i.e.,nthe husbands and fathers) ruling familynlife. “Man in himself is a symbol ofnauthority,” Lewis observed. “For, apartnfrom man as father, or man as husbandnor man as leader (in tribe ornstate), there is an even more irreduciblenway in which man is a symbol ofnpower.” At a time when a man enjoysnno legal control over whether his wifenaborts his child or his teenage daughternaborts his grandchild, it appears thatnthe assault on male authority is wellnadvanced. (BC)nFour black students, representing thenUnion of African Student Organizations,nstaged a “takeover” at a recentnRutgers University conference on racenrelations. They grabbed the microphonenand proceeded to criticize thenaudience for its thoughtlessness in notnhaving invited them. In another age,nwhen propriety existed and usurpationnnnwas decried, these students would havenbeen censured. But these are thenpost-60’s, where demonstrations andntakeovers have become institutionalized.nT. Edward Hollander, New Jersey’snChancellor of Higher Education, saidnafterward that he was “delighted” tonsee the students take the stage. “It wasnfamiliar,” he noted, “and I’ve waitedn10 years for students to show that kindnof interest. They asked for five minutesnto speak and I turned them down. ButnI knew if they wanted to say somethingnthey would. If this were 20 years agonthe conference would have been takennover totally by students, and not one ofnus would have had a chance to speak.”nDoes the chancellor—the highestnauthority on higher education in NewnJersey — actually believe the studentn”interest” is evident in a takeover? If anrequest to speak is turned down,ndoesn’t that mean students do not haventhe right to speak, or is rejection merelyna disingenuous wink at the practice ofndemonstration? Are we supposed to bensatisfied with a partial student takeovernof the conference as opposed to thentotal one, or is such a remark annobvious concession to those who employnnondemocratic methods in ordernto be heard?nYet this is by no means the onlynexample of accepting extremist methods.nIn February black students at thenAmherst campus of the University ofnMassachusetts occupied a building andnmade numerous demands that werensubsequently accepted by the administration.nBoth the university’s chancellor,nJoseph D. Duffey, and the studentnleaders were satisfied with the agreementnthat included: increasing minoritynenrollment, revising the code ofnstudent conduct to specify the consequencesnof racial harassment, changingnthe name of the African-Americannstudies building, creating new classes innhistory and culture to accommodaten