It is no secret that a recent literary contribution to this paper has awakened the sleeping giant of Wesleyan consensus liberalism, in what may be (inadvertently) the most interesting challenge to Wesleyan’s “diversity” fetish yet conceived. The combatants are an unlikely group, as are the arguments raised. On one side, steadfastly defaming some forms of organized religion and all forms of conservative politics, stand the partisans of intolerance and particularism. By contrast, at least some of the forces of diversity seem to take their stand (in a rare bit of consistency) on the notion that Wesleyan’s welcoming atmosphere for all forms of religion AND politics is a moral good.

For those who are confused, I am speaking of the current literary battle taking place over Gloria Fanchiang’s ’10 recent Wespeak. Fanchiang’s piece, which would otherwise have been read as the sort of boilerplate plea for campus community that graces the pages of this paper every so often (full disclosure: the author has written one such piece), instead attracted a rather sharp set of critiques because of the author’s proposed method for unification. That is, Fanchiang eviscerated nearly all of Wesleyan’s pluralistic sacred cows by inviting her readers to pray, of all things, and to Jesus Christ, of all people.  Under almost any other circumstances, given that the United States is predominately a Christian country, this sort of invitation would have been perceived as noncontroversial. At Wesleyan, however, it is an unspoken article of faith (the irony is obvious) that effusions of religion should be seen, and not heard, unless they can dress themselves in suitably secular and humanistic garb to pass as liberalism. Thus, two responses have emerged: one raising measured and even persuasive objections while wittily concealing its disdain behind little-known Yiddish words, and the other sounding rather like the unfortunate choral director who tries to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony.

The rejoinder by the Christian apologists has been twice as fascinating—indeed, were it not for David Thompson’s ’11 obligatory smear of Ronald Reagan, I could have mistaken him for one of my own, given how sternly he eviscerates the mistaken notion that religion is an antiquated bugaboo. Ms. Fanchiang, surprisingly, has been more conciliatory, but not by much, given that she has yet to apologize for her supposed offense of calling the campus to prayer under one religious banner.

And good for her! However amused this author may be by the notion of being a “one-man conservative revolution” (flattering but incorrect, by the way, as there are at least five genuine conservatives on this campus), it stills seems quite clear that the Christians have the better of this argument on the philosophical level, even if their choice of battlefield is less than ideal. This advantage seems to rise from three problems with the opposing argument, some of which Mr. Thompson has pointed out already, but all of which deserve explication.

In the first place, let us acknowledge how overly convenient it is that the partisans of diversity have only now woken up to the fact that asking people to join under one restrictive aegis is an assault on their professed values. One wonders where this commitment to value-blind diversity was when antiwar protestors called on the entire campus to join them in opposing the seemingly irrefutable immorality of the Iraq War. Furthermore, one wonders why these apostles of pluralism were silent over the numerous instances when the guardians of political correctness tried to incite the campus to join with them in demonstrations against whatever expression of judgment seemed too mean that particular week. One wonders why they kept their mouths shut when Patrick Serr ’10, in an opinion piece written last semester, called on every student on-campus who didn’t feel adequately represented by the Argus’ opinion page to run this author out of the section through their own participation. These acts, surely more exclusionary than the simple invocation of Christ’s name, seem to have merited no attention whatsoever, suggesting that the apostles of “diversity” are really using the term as an opportunistic front to consolidate an anti-Christian argument.

In the second place, the very notion of campus unity implies some sort of unified front, which implies the existence of other forces that do not and cannot fit into the unity. “Diversity” is not, and cannot be, such a source of unity because it is by definition incapable of excluding anyone (including the intolerant), if it aspires to full consistency. While this author does not believe that Christianity is a belief system which is likely to win many converts at this school, Fanchiang and Thompson are perfectly within their rights to propose it, and it deserves more consideration than a simple brush-off for being insufficiently “diverse.” All unifying principles are exclusionary—why is this one more objectionable than others?

In the third place, the notion that “empathy” is unconstrained by visions of morality and anchored in the permanent is comically insufficient. The notion of universal empathy has long since been exposed as a saccharine progressive wet dream by the biological notion of a “monkeysphere,” which dictates that for most humans, the largest group to which they can apply empathy is about 150 people. Unity under a God may slightly expand such a limit, but with nothing but a vague feeling of campus pride, it would almost certainly be impossible to expand such recognition to 3000 people. For goodness’ sakes, we find it difficult to even feel empathy for Michael Roth.

Being a weak-kneed deist, I don’t plan to attend Ms. Fanchiang’s prayer meeting, but I find it agreeable in spirit much as I find Beta, Alpha Delta Phi and other “exclusive” institutions agreeable. Lay off, fellows.