In case the melodrama in New Haven has escaped the notice of those preoccupied with Pennsylvania, here is a brief summary from today's New York Times:

Last week, Yale officials announced that Ms. Shvarts had admitted that her project, her senior thesis, was a fiction, and that she had neither inseminated herself nor self-aborted. But they said later that she had contradicted the denial. They said her project could not be shown unless she submitted an unambiguous written statement saying she did not inseminate herself or induce miscarriages.On Tuesday, Gila Reinstein, a Yale spokeswoman, said Ms. Shvarts had not signed a statement. Ms. Shvarts has declined repeated requests for an interview.

The whole dreary spectacle with various antecedents is laid out in fuller detail in the whole story.But, on the First Things site, a student at the Yale Divinity School reflects upon the absence of a moral language with which to articulate one's positions, even those of distaste and outrage. Here is his final paragraph:

If Aliza Shvarts did what she says she did, I think her actions were morally repugnant. If she didnt, her art is still faddish and hackneyed, and it paints a picture of a sharp young mind woefully corrupted. But the distressing thing is that, in her moral and aesthetic commitments, Shvarts is a genuine product of Americas elite culture. My classmates and teachers at Yale rightly recognize, on some level, the moral recklessness of the actions Shvarts describes, but the moral and aesthetic visions to which they are, for the most part, committed give them no rational grounds on which to condemn Shvarts performance. She is, if you will, a reductio ad absurdum, carrying contemporary artistic and moral ideologies past the point of politeness but not past the point of internal consistency. The Yale community is, understandably, unable to make sense of its own anger. It is a cause for sadness that, while the best and brightest of my generation can express their outrage, shock and disgust, they cannot think about why Shvarts was, and is, wrong.

But the entire post is well worth reading.