life. For many academics, this is an unacknowledgedrnconfluence of interests,rnnot a diabolical plot.rnIn their endless support of the civilrightsrnmovement, liberal academics seeminglyrnhave covered themselves in glory. Atrnleast initially, the assistance was sincerernand did ameliorate many of America’srnworst faults. But, alas, the honeymoon isrnover. As in enduring marriages, relationshipsrnevolve. Yesterday’s passionate affectionrnhas been replaced by a cravenrn(though vehemently denied) utility:rnBlacks now are conscripted to expand arnpowerful state ever attentive to professorialrnadvice. The outcome is often evil. Policiesrnsubverting our values, even if totalitarianrnin character, can be “sold” as commendablernfor black civil rights. Why elsernregulate such personal matters as housingrnand employment? Why else permit immenserngovernmental intrusion into businessrnand education?rnHarshly put, academics are guilt}’ ofrnself-serving malpractice on a grand scale.rnThey feed their patients a steady diet ofrndebilitating nonsense that aggrandizesrnthe state and empowers themselves.rnEndless talk of compassion is self-delusion.rnThe relationship, deep down, is opportunistic.rnWe can only hope blacksrnwill eventually discover the fraud and discardrntheir current overseers.rnRobert Weissberg is a professor of politicalrnscience at the University of Illinois atrnUrbana-Champaign.rnSOCIETYrnHearing More,rnFeeling Lessrnby Janet Scott BarlowrnOn a Wednesday in June, it is reportedrnthat a woman in Houston,rnTexas, has methodically drowned herrnfive children in the bathtub. The day afterrnthis horrific news, two things happen.rnFirst, the woman’s husband —his wifernnow jailed, his children not yet buried —rnstands outside his home and, while displayingrna framed portrait of his family,rntalks at length with the many reportersrngathered at his house, as the many photographersrnalso gathered take his picture.rnThrough it all, this man whose family hasrnjust been obliterated conducts himself,rneven in his grief, as if it were the most naturalrnthing on earth to use this moment tornbe questioned and photographed by arnthrong of strangers. (Only belatedly do Irnarrive at the sickening realization that thernfather behaves as he does because suchrnbehavior now is the most natural thing onrnearth.)rnThe second thing that happens is anrnexplosion of coverage of the event on talkrntelevision, most of it focused on a singlernquestion: “Where did the system fail?”rnThe unexamined and unchallengedrnpremise of these discussions is that arnproperly working “system” would havernprevented a mother in Houston fromrndrowning her children on a Wednesdayrnmorning in June.rnThe system under assault covers everythingrnfrom the medical and mentalhealthrnestablishments to the availabilityrnof family support. But the woman whorndrowned her children did not exist outsidernthis system and had not been ignored,rnneglected, or victimized by it. Inrnfact, she had received treatment for severalrnyears, with various drugs, for repeatedrnepisodes of depression. And she did havernfamily support —a mother-in-law whorncame by daily to help with the children.rnIf, even under these conditions, thernsystem could be said to have failed thernwoman, one question logically presentsrnitself Wliat evidence would be requiredrnto prove that the system had not failedrnher? The answer in this case is both obviousrnand meaningless: living children.rnUnder the terms of the televised discussion,rnthe only way the system coidd bernsaid to have worked on behalf of thernHouston mother is if she had not chosenrnto kill her children. In other words, onlyrnby doing the most unexceptional thing inrnthe world—keeping her children alive —rncould the mother’s behavior be seen asrnproof of the system’s efficacy. But how dornyou evaluate a catastrophe that does notrnexist? If you define the act of infanficidernas a failure, does the absence of the actrnconstitute a success?rnIf the quesdons come back on themselves,rnit’s because the argument is rigged.rnNo matter. Tlie integrity of the argumentrnis not the point. The point is the need forrntelevision programming—product, hoursrnand hours of product. Ghastly occurrencesrnno longer have real meaning inrnour society. They now exist merely to providernmutually beneficial opportunifies forrnself-promotion to the triumvirate of talkrnTV, experts for hire, and political advocates.rnShow the grief Find the culprit. Advancernthe agenda. This is the context inrnwhich the unspeakable now exists in ourrnculture. There was a time when werncould hear that a mother in America hadrndrowned her children, and we could takernthat knowledge, unwelcome as it was, intornourselves and follow it wherever it led:rnto awe at the limits of our human understanding;rnto relief at the sunshine outsidernour window; to prayer for the souls ofrnthose dear children; to uncompromisedrnsorrow.rnBut such events can no longer haverntheir way with us, because they can nornlonger find their way to us. The}’ are impededrnby both the nature of televisionrnand by the obscenely doubt-free “insights”rnof psychologists, lawyers, feminists,rnand all the other media whores.rnMock-solemn news accoimts of whichrnHouston child was drowned first are interspersedrnwith energetic debates aboutrnthe conditions under which that childrnand his siblings might still be alive. Tornall this, we listen mutely, stupidly, unaffectedrnand unmoved, because the incidentrnthat generated the din surroundingrnus—on a Wednesday morning in June, arnwoman in Houston, Texas, methodicallyrndrowned her children in the bathtub — isrnbeing presented not as an act to be feltrnbut one meant, as pornography is meant,rnto displace feeling. Emotionalism supplantsrnemotion. Sensation suffocatesrntruth. Thus, we respond, but we don’t absorb.rnWe react, but we don’t feel.rnAnd before we know it, we are isolatedrnand self-forsaken, losing our humanityrnalong with our humility, one irretrievablernpiece at a time. And losing, too, the connectionsrnthat allow us to seek God in thernthings we least understand.rnOn a Wednesday morning in June, arnwoman in Houston, Texas, methodicallyrndrowned her children in the bathtub.rnJanet Scott Barlow, who writes fromrnCincinnati, Ohio, is the author of ThernNonpatriotic President: A Survey of thernClinton Years (Chronicles Press).rnLooking for a good video?rnCheck outrnGeorge McCartney’srnreviews from ourrnback issues online atrnwww. ChroniclesMa0azine.orgrn46/CHRONICLESrnrnrn