EDITORrnThomas FlemingrnMANAGING EDITORrnTheodore PappasrnSENIOR EDITOR, BOOKSrnChilton Williamson, ]r.rnEDITORIAL ASSISTANTrnMichael WashburnrnART DIRECTORrnAnna Mycek-WodeckirnCONTRIBUTING EDITORSrnHarold O.]. Brown, Katherine Dalton,rnSamuel Francis, George Garrett,rnE. Christian Kopff, Clyde WilsonrnCORRESPONDING EDITORSrnBill Kauffman, Jacob Neusner,rn]ohn Shelton Reed, Momcilo SelicrnEDITORIAL SECRETARYrnLeann DobbsrnPUBLISHERrnAllan C. CarlsonrnPUBLICATION DIRECTORrnGuy C. ReffettrnPRODUCTION SECRETARYrnAnita CandyrnCIRCULATION MANAGERrnRochelle FrankrnA publication of The Rockford Institute.rnEditorial and Advertising Offices:rn934 North Main Street, Rockford, IL 61103.rnEditorial Phone: (815)964-5054.rnAdvertising Phone: (815)964-5811.rnSubscription Department: P.O. Box 800,rnMount Morris, IL 61054. Call 1-800-877-5459.rnFor information on advertising in Chronicles,rnplease call Rochelle Frank at (815) 964-5811.rnU.S.A. Newsstand Distriburion by Eastern NewsrnDistributors, Inc., 1130 Cleveland Road,rnSandusky, OH 44870.rnCopyright © 1994 by The Rockford Insritute.rnAll rights reserved.rnChronicles (ISSN 0887-5731) is publishedrnmonthly for $28 per year by The RockfordrnInstihjte, 934 North Main Street, Rockford,rnIL 61103-7061. Second-class postage paidrnat Rockford, IL and additional mailing offices.rnPOSTMASTER: Send address changes tornChronicles, P.O. Box 800, Mount Morris,rnIL 61054.rnThe views expressed in Chronicles are thernauthors’ alone and do not necessarily reflectrnthe views of The Rockford Institute or of itsrndirectors. Unsolicited manuscripts cannot bernretumed unless accompanied by a self-addressedrnstamped envelope.rnChroniclesrnVol. 19, No. 1 January 1995rnPrinted in the United States of AmericarnPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESrnOn Higher EducationrnMary Pride’s informed prediction ofrntechnology’s radical transformationrnof higher education (“Hire Education,”rnSeptember 1994) incorrectly noted thatrnI advocated “cutting professors’ salaries.”rnIn How Professors Play the Cat Guardingrnthe Cream: Why We’re Paying Morernand Getting Less in Higher Educationrn(George Mason University Press, 1992),rnI lacked the courage to invoke spousalrnrage by calling for less pay. I demandedrnmore work.rnDifferential faculty teaching loads isrnone of seven reforms designed to helprnuniversities do a better job at less cost.rnThe mechanism for this reform is performancernaccounting, which measuresrnteaching, research, administration, andrnservice to the community. Some professorsrnteach more hours, others fewer tornmeet a departmental mandate. One reasonrnfor universities’ poor productivity isrnthe false assumption that when teachingrnhours are reduced for everyone in a departmentrnthere will be a correspondingrnincrease in everyone’s research productivity.rnThe differential scholariy contributionsrnof some cannot compensate forrnthe equal teaching loads of all.rnBut who cares? Faculty resistance tornaccountability is a reckless invitation tornprofessor-bashers to phase out the academicrnfortification and job security ofrntenure. Let the next generation of scholarsrnsuffer the insecurities of contract employment!rn—Richard M. HuberrnWashington, D.C.rnOn Neoconservatives andrnthe Rehgious RightrnSamuel Francis’s remarks (“The AbortionrnGambit,” October 1994) on the effortsrnby neoconservatives, especially BillrnKristol, to co-opt the religious right arernconvincingly presented. Francis rightlyrnnotes that Kristol, Bennett, and otherrnneocon movers and shakers are workingrnto control the religious right and therebyrnto provide themselves with a mass basernthat they would not otherwise have.rnFrancis is also correct that neocons arernpresenting the religious right as innocuousrnrepresentatives of “family values,”rnless to sell them to the electorate than tornpush them toward nonradical mainstreamrnviews. If the neocons succeed, asrnFrancis perceptively argues, the religiousrnright will abandon its radical stands andrnbecome mere neocon pawns in thernWashington power game.rnOn these points, I must tip my hat tornhim for knowing the enemy so well.rnWhere I disagree is on his judgmentsrnabout the religious right. There is nothingrnin its current rhetoric that couldrnmake me think twice about leaving it asrna gift package to Bill and Irving. Atrnthe Christian Coalition gathering onrnSeptember 16, the liberal New YorkrnTimes columnist Frank Rich heard sornmuch public praise of Martin LutherrnKing that he thought he had wanderedrnonto a Freedom Bus. Though Bill Kristolrnand George Weigel may have ulteriorrnmotives for doing so, it is they and notrnthe religious right, as Francis concedes,rnwho have taken the paleoconservativernposition on abortion. The religiousrnright’s insistence on an antiabortionrnamendment (together with one allowingrnfor school prayer) shows lack of regard forrnthe power of the states, as protected underrnthe Constitution. It also confirmsrnwhat I noticed about the religious rightrnin Washington: its desperation to findrnpublic sector jobs for its members andrnfriends. It is they who illustrate at least asrnwell as the neocons the perils of “bigrngovernment conservatism.”rnLong before Bill Kristol swooned overrnthem, religious rightists were already embracingrnsuch bona fide neocons as CalrnThomas, Jack Kemp, and Bill Bennett.rnLast year Christian Coalition members,rnthough not its leaders, wildly applaudedrna speech by Pat Buchanan, but this yearrnthe coalition paid enthusiastic homage tornKristol handlee (pardon the neologism)rnDan Quayle and joined the media cultrnof Martin Luther King. Though some ofrnthose present may exemplify Francis’srn”Middle American Radicals,” the religiousrnright, with which they are nowrnidentified, seems made for a neoconrntakeover. I agree with Francis that the religiousrnright can fuel a right-wing populistrnmovement, but that can be the casernonly if traditionalists leave the religiousrnright for a more intelligent and morernconsistently rightist politics. Ollie North,rnwhom the neocons opposed in thernVirginia senatorial race, may have beenrn4/CHRONICLESrnrnrn