I see that the right's philosophy toward campus outreach is -- unsurprisingly -- that it's easier to catch flies with toxic waste than with honey or vinegar.

There's this, from Boston University:

BU group offers white scholarship

Looking to draw attention to what they call the "worst form of bigotry confronting America today," Boston University's College Republicans are circulating an application for a "Caucasian Achievement and Recognition Scholarship" that requires applicants be at least 25 percent Caucasian.

...The scholarship, which is privately funded by the BUCR without the support of the university, is meant to raise awareness, group members say. BUCR member argue that racial preferences are a form of "bigotry." ...

The application for the $250 scholarship, due Nov. 30, requires applicants be full-time BU undergraduate students and one-fourth Caucasian and maintain at least a 3.2 cumulative GPA. Applicants must submit two essays, one describing the applicant's ancestry and one describing "what it means to you to be a Caucasian-American today." ...

The article goes on to note that the BU College Republicans borrowed the idea from College Republicans at Roger Williams University. The RWU 'pubs sponsored a similar award three years ago, but

the scholarship was discontinued after its first year when the national and state Republican parties severed ties with RWU College Republicans....

"The RNC under [former chair] Ed Gillespie disagreed with me," [former RWU College Republicans president Jason] Mattera said. "For Ed Gillespie to be dismissive or to imply that there was racism, he lacked any type of -- to put it bluntly -- balls in standing up against racial preferences. It would have been a great opportunity."...

Y'know, when you're too obnoxious for the Bush/Rove-era national GOP, maybe you should ask yourself if you've gone a wee bit too far.

And over at Oberlin, there's this:

Republican Griffin Critiques Feminism

Chair of the Republican party of Virginia Kate Obenshain Griffin delivered a lecture titled "The Failures of Feminism" Thursday to a large audience. The lecture was the final event of this semester's controversial and well-attended Ronald Reagan Lectureship Series, sponsored by the OC Republicans.

...Griffin's distaste for feminism grew as she entered a professional life in politics.  She worked for then-governor and now departing U.S. Senator George Allen, first as a campaigner and later as an educational advisor.  It is here that she first encountered "hypocritical liberal Democrats," who she criticized as attacking her integrity and expertise based on her being female.  Furthermore, as she rose to the seat of Republican Party Chairman (she prefers the title "chairman") in Virginia she was accused by Democratic opponents of "shrill and hysterical rantings," adjectives Griffin claims are targeted at women alone.

Women in politics are subject to sexist remarks? You've noticed that? Wonderful. Kate Obenshain Griffin, meet Nancy Pelosi.

But I'm not sure why Griffin is complaining -- after all, she clearly thinks feminists are much worse than sexists:

Apart from the hypocrisy she sees in feminism, Griffin argues that successful feminism is damaging and even dangerous to American society....

"We have forgotten the victims [of feminism]," she said, "and these are the children." ...

Under the umbrella of the harm inflicted upon children by feminism, Griffin included abortion, under-nurtured "latchkey kids" and babysitting arrangements that take children away from their own homes.

In particular Griffin feels that young boys find themselves in a damaging situation: made to feel ashamed of "natural boyishness" and forced to "get in touch with their feelings" in a way unsuited to their natures....

Y'know, I could be wrong, but I suspect some of the Democrats who referred to her "shrill and hysterical rantings" (if these people existed) were merely expressing their "natural boyishness."

...Griffin believes that feminism has been primarily targeted at dismantling the family, as it is seen as an institution of male oppression....

Excuse me, is it 1971 in here, or is it me?

Yeah, the contemporary left hates the family. That's why we keep trying to expand its definition to include gay couples, especially gay couples raising kids -- because we hate gay people, and we want to force them into an institution we see as evil.

Er, that was sarcasm. I wonder if Griffin would be able to tell.