Washington University in St. Louis announced last week that an alumna -- with both undergraduate and law degrees from Washington University -- would be given an honorary doctorate this June.

Why is this a controversy? Because the announced recipient is Phyllis Schlafly. Quite famous (or infamous) for her successful organizing of opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s and 1980s, Schlafly has continued to take positions defending different treatment of women in the workplace, for instance favoring the banning of women from being soldiers, firefighters, or construction workers. She's recently stated her opinion that a married woman has, by marriage, consented to sex with her husband, so there cannot be such a thing as rape within marriage.

Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, recently disinvited the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to receive an honorary doctorate, and feminists are asking why Washington University doesn't do the same.

Some were especially offended that the University's announcement mentioned Schlafly's leadership of the conservative movement, but left off mention of her activism regarding women's legal rights.

In the past, Washington University has given honorary doctorates to many who had strong political views, and maintains that it is whether alumni and others "have become part of the broad public discourse on vital issues" that is a basis for selection, not agreement with the views.

Inside Higher Ed has a longer article on this controversy: Is Phyllis Schlafly Worthy of an Honorary Doctorate? (May 5, 2008)

Is Phyllis Schlafly deserving of an honorary doctorate from Washington University? Was Washington U being diplomatic or disingenuous by leaving out mention of her positions and activism on women's issues? Are the university's standards for selection wise? Are critics of the selection responding fairly?

I'd welcome your comments on this controversy below.