The British television classic Father Ted has a very limited following in the States. But that's to the disadvantage of Americans. It's a hysterically funny and uncannily wise series about three Irish priests who have been banished to the remote professional backwater of "Craggy Island" for various indiscretions (drunkenness, stupidity, graft) but who still find themselves held accountable by a Church that works hard to extend its reach even into those areas it has itself designated as beyond the pale.

The clip below is from an episode in which two of the priests are commanded to picket the Craggy Island premiere of The Passion of St. Tibulus (a fictional stand-in for The Last Temptation of Christ), and it captures with great economy both how standardized political protest has become and how likely it is to backfire, given people's innate distrust of censorious efforts and, more basically, their incurable prurience.

I'm reminded of Father Ted this morning partly because that just happens a lot, but mainly because of this astute op-ed from Christina Hoff Sommers:

As if losing the presidency of Harvard for hinting that there might be a biological explanation for the preponderance of men in academic science wasn't enough, Lawrence Summers now appears to be persona non grata elsewhere too.

A few weeks ago the University of California, Davis rescinded an invitation for him to speak. More than 150 faculty members signed a petition protesting his appearance, saying Mr. Summers "has come to symbolize gender and racial prejudice in academia." Davis ecology Professor Maureen Stanton was "appalled and stunned that someone like Summers would be invited to speak."

Ms. Stanton and her allies want pariah status for anyone who dares to suggest a biological basis for difference. Yet the scientific literature on why men and women enter different fields is legitimate, robust, complex and fascinating. What is appalling is that leading academic institutions would try to shut down the discussion and get away with it. Almost.

Last week, the American Enterprise Institute brought together top researchers on sex differences, ranging from the strongly feminist Brandeis women's studies scholar Rosalind Barnett to AEI scholar and co-author of "The Bell Curve," Charles Murray. The discussions were heated, but civil. No one got mad, fled the room weeping, or nearly fainted.

[...]

The audience was captivated as experts played with the politically incorrect notion that male and female brains may be markedly different.

Unfortunately, the deniers of differences between the sexes are on the march with powerful allies. In the fall of 2006, the National Academy of Sciences released a recklessly one-sided study, now widely referred to as authoritative, titled "Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering." According to the report, differences in cognition between the sexes have no bearing on the dearth of women in academic math, physics and engineering. It is all due to bias. Case closed. The report calls on Congress to hold hearings on gender bias in the sciences and on federal agencies to "move immediately" (emphasis in original) to apply anti-discrimination laws such as Title IX to academic science (but not English) departments. "The time for action is now."

No it is not. Now is the time for scholars in our universities and in the National Academy of Sciences to defend and support principles of free and objective inquiry.