I was recently asked by Congressional Quarterly to comment on the rising demand for "gay studies" programs at American universities. Here's what I had to say on this subject (they edited it, just a little; here's the original). Your thoughts would be appreciated:

I’m pleased the CQ has given me space to address the question of whether or not universities should establish programs in “Creation Science.” It seems to me an improper use of university resources to support such a department or interdisciplinary program. This not merely for the standard set of reasons cited (for instance) against black or women’s studies programs—that creating such a department would prove needlessly divisive, or produce graduates with degrees in what is not currently an established discipline, and who are therefore handicapped in the job market. However valid such objections might be from a pragmatic perspective, the real reason to oppose the creation of such a major is philosophical: As thinking people, we are compelled to question, if not dismiss outright, the very basis of the discipline, as founded not upon knowledge and the quest for truth, but on opinion. By its very definition, such a discipline seems locked into a set of doctrinally regulated responses. This may be acceptable in the narrow context of a specifically religious school, which is at least candid about its catechetical mission. It seems totally inappropriate for a nonsectarian university.
No, I didn’t get the assignment wrong. I laid out the argument above about “Creation Science” because it is in every particular applicable to the so-called discipline of “Gay Studies.” Like Creationism, Gay Studies is predicated upon a long list of unexamined, unquestioned premises which dictate in advance the outcome of debates which ought rather to be open, subject both to input from the heritage of the past and the democratic politics of the present. While Creationism is rejected by the overwhelming verdict of contemporary science, the unexamined assumption of Gay Studies—that homosexual activity is morally equivalent to heterosexual—conflicts with the orthodox teachings of the three major religions in the West, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and the beliefs of most Americans. Secular elites may disagree with these beliefs; but they do not have a scientific basis for disproving them. Evolution is empirically demonstrable as the most probable hypothesis for explaining the origins of life. Acceptance of homosexuality is not similarly proveable. It may be held with equal fervor, but it is not an empirically arguable proposition; rather, it’s a plank in a liberal social platform, and one that should remain open to dispute.

Excellent analysis. I often wonder why money is diverted away from important things, like History or Philosophy and other disciplines which both enrich the mind and soul, but have been proven helpful in the job market, to so called minority studies programs. These programs I believe promote a culture of victimology, which the left thrives on, and do nothing to contribute to the intellectual growth of the individual. If homosexuals or other minorities want studies programs, why do they not get together with a bunch of left-wing rich people and gather resources to start their own universities where such programs could get all the funding they need. The fields of study which do help prepare one for the job market need to quit being squeezed in the name of tolerance and acceptance. I do not hear an outcry for a White Male Studies department and I doubt that I will see one.

1. I disagree with your analysis on the basis of your somewhat Kantian epistemology. The idea that science is the king of the disciplines is merely construct of Modernity. Science cannot and should not order or filter out that which is or is not considered worthy of academic study in the university. Rather, theology is that which unifies all the disciplines. Without a conscious effort to underscore the theological nature of study, the university breaks down, and no longer maintains its "university" (unity in diversity). Every discipline in the university is at root a theological discipline, and therefore a kind of study that resembles, but is not interchangeable with, philosophy. You cannot separate anything considered scientific from theological assumptions, whatever they may be.
2. Rather than make the case that Gay studies ought to be ousted on the basis that the morality of homosexual behavior is not verafiable, it would be better to make the case that Gay Studies as a science is not a study of biological or physical traits, but rather it is a study of the condition of the human soul, and therefore we ought to be discussing this in a philosophy class or an ethics class.
3. And finally, I disagree with the distinction you have made between fact and value. To impose the standard of verifiability upon moral epistemology is at best ad hoc. At worst, it shows an exaltation of an epistemology that ignores the nature of the human race. We know that it is morally wrong to castrate babies solely for the pure pleasure of it. We know this is a fact even though it cannot be verified through demonstration.

My reply, aimed at a secular audience of Beltway liberals, was built upon the premises which I expect that they hold...not those which I hold, which would require rather more space to explain, leaving in fact no room to address the specific question. These people hold up science as the litmus test of truth... so show them that there is no basis, even on their own premises, for this conclusion. You can only do so much in 600 words.

I would have to agree that it would take quite a lot of space to fully explain the issue. These group studies are a waste of valuable funds. College should be about expanding one's horizons and learning new ideas (preferably conservative ones). When you study a group studies area, if you are a member of that group, you are not expanding your horizons, rather you are digging a deeper hole for yourself and sheltering yourself from others so to speak by surrounding yourself with things that you are comfortable with.