Search News


Browse Archives

News

Retractions From David Horowitz

January 11, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Many faculty leaders have worried that this week's hearings by a Pennsylvania legislative committee would turn into just the kind of professorial inquisition that they have feared the "Academic Bill of Rights" might set off.

But as hearings ended in Philadelphia Tuesday, critics of the Academic Bill of Rights were saying that they had scored key points. David Horowitz, the conservative activist who has led the push for the hearings in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, admitted that he had no evidence to back up two of the stories he has told multiple times to back up his charges that political bias is rampant in higher education.

In an interview after the hearing, Horowitz said that his acknowledgements were inconsequential, and he complained about "nit picking" by his critics. But while Horowitz was declaring the hearings "a great victory" for his cause, he lost some powerful stories. For example, Horowitz has said several times that a biology professor at Pennsylvania State University used a class session just before the 2004 election to show the Michael Moore documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, but he acknowledged Tuesday that he didn't have any proof that this took place.

In a phone interview, Horowitz said that he had heard about the alleged incident from a legislative staffer and that there was no evidence to back up the claim. He added, however, that "everybody who is familiar with universities knows that there is a widespread practice of professors venting about foreign policy even when their classes aren't about foreign policy" and that the lack of evidence on Penn State doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

"These are nit picking, irrelevant attacks," he said.

Others think that it's quite relevant that Horowitz couldn't back up the example, especially since there have been previous incidents in which his claims about professors have been debunked.

"So much of what he has said previously has been exposed to be lies or distortions that it makes any of his examples questionable," said Jamie Horwitz, a spokesman for the American Federation of Teachers. The lack of evidence about the Penn State and other examples "should give this committee and any committee anywhere in the country pause about considering an Academic Bill of Rights," he added. "The bottom line is that there's not a lot of there there."

The Academic Bill of Rights is a short statement that calls for colleges to respect the rights of students and professors to have a variety of political views and not to have their academic work judged on the basis of those views. While few professors object to such a statement, other parts of the Academic Bill of Rights, which call on faculty members to share a range of views with students, have been much more controversial. Many professors believe that this language could lead to lawsuits, legislative oversight and pressure to teach viewpoints like creationism or Holocaust denial that they believe have no place in a classroom.

The stories like the one about the Penn State professor who allegedly made his class watch Fahrenheit 9/11 have been an important part of the debate over the Academic Bill of Rights. Horowitz and many other conservative critics of higher education point to numerous studies that show that college professors are, on average, more liberal than the general public and that conservative academics are a minority group at most colleges.

While many faculty groups have criticized these studies, they generally haven't disputed the idea that academics lean to the left. What they have disputed is that these leanings result in ideological discrimination against students or professors who think differently. As a result, an example that would suggest bias -- like, say, a professor screening an anti-Bush film in a biology class -- have considerable political currency.

The other example Horowitz was forced to back down on Tuesday is from the opposite end of the political spectrum. He has several times cited the example of a student in California who supports abortion rights and who said that he was punished with a low grade by a professor who opposed abortion. Asked about this example, Horowitz said that he had no evidence to back up the student's claim.

In the interview, he said that he didn't have the resources to look into all the complaints that he publicizes. "I can't investigate every story," he said.

Horowitz noted that when he publicizes such stories, he does not print the names of the professors involved, and that he has stated many times that a professor involved in such an incident would be welcome to write a rebuttal that he would post on his Web site. "I have protected professors. I have not posted their names and pilloried them. My Web site is open to them," he said.

Even if these examples aren't correct, he said, they represent the reality of academic life. "Is there anybody out there who will say that professors don't attack Bush in biology classrooms?" he said. Horowitz characterized the debate over his retractions as a diversionary tactic by his critics. "First they say that there is no problem [with political bias]. Then they say I'm a McCarthyite. Then they say I'm spreading false rumors. Everyone who is in public life and makes commentaries makes mistakes."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Retractions From David Horowitz

  • Posted by John on January 11, 2006 at 6:27am EST
  • "Even if these examples aren’t correct, he said, they represent the reality of academic life."

    Doesn't that just say it all?

  • Liar, Liar
  • Posted by Christian Anderson , Graduate Student at Penn State on January 11, 2006 at 6:36am EST
  • Pointing out that Horowitz has fabricated stories is "nit picking" and "irrelevant"? Isn't he the one who is trying to take the high moral ground, claiming there needs to be a more fair and balanced environment for learning? Showing that Horowitz is using fabricated stories is not "nit picking"--it is simply showing that his claim of bias on campus is based on fables, not facts.

  • Horowitz at Temple Hearings
  • Posted by Daniel Tompkins , Director, Intellectual Heritage Program at Temple University on January 11, 2006 at 7:32am EST
  • David Horowitz put on quite a show at the hearings of the House Select Committee on Academic Freedom Pursuant to HR 177 at Temple University (January 10, 2006). He was called on the carpet for the misrepresentations above. He provided new misrepresentations that were quickly refuted by subsequent speakers. But what is most interesting is his personal demeanor: after proclaiming that "What we are devoted to today are manners," he interrupted panelists, even Republican ones, ignored their questions, and spoke far beyond his allotted time despite the tight schedule the legislators had requested, regaling them with stories of his daily swimming routine and other irrelevancies.

    A strong advocate of dialogue, he left the room before opponents responded.

    David Horowitz may have learned that that is how to influence a group of legislators: we'll have to find out.

    Dan Tompkins

  • Why yes -- academia is perfect
  • Posted by Art D. on January 11, 2006 at 7:43am EST
  • Ward Churchill doesn't really exist. Neither does T. Shortell, or E. Crystall, or Grover Furr, or Nicholas DeGenova, or Florence Roisman, or hundreds (thousands?) of taxpayer-funded alleged academics on ratemyprofessor.com.

    Or this empirical study --

    http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol3/iss1/art2/

    I'm reminded of the childish whining that I have personally observed at soft-side academia meetings. Thoughtful, reasoned comments like:

    "Fox is totally biased" (more Democrat air-time than CNN, due to talk-show format)

    "Bush is Hitler" (only one proven to exist, so far).

  • Going after Horowitz
  • Posted by Patrick on January 11, 2006 at 7:46am EST
  • "The Academic Bill of Rights is a short statement that calls for colleges to respect the rights of students and professors to have a variety of political views and not to have their academic work judged on the basis of those views."

    Anybody who has experienced the left-McCarthyite ostracism of liberal-arts academics knows that this kind of policy statement is long overdue. And yes, I have known professors who mark down students for their non-PC views and who have a declared mission in the classroom to "chip away" at students' religious faith. I sat in not long ago on a faculty panel discussion of "free speech," which students were required to attend, which consisted almost entirely of politicized attacks on the Bush White House (complete with predictable analogies to Hitler, etc.) There was very little "discussion" or dissent from a specific party line. We all know that these phenomena are not the exception; subtle and not-so-subtle political bullying are quite general in higher ed. The current "gotcha" campaign against Horowitz is a pathetic attempt to deny self-evident realities and maintain the status quo.

  • Posted by Andrey at Rutgers University on January 11, 2006 at 8:10am EST
  • Patrick,

    You cannot seriously be serious. Because if you are seriously serious, you serioualy need to stop. "Mark down students for their non-PC views"? "[D]eclared mission in the classroom to 'chip away' at students' religious faith"?

    Come on buddy, those fables are more full of shit than Horowitz's wildest dreams.

  • Horowitz
  • Posted by Jerry Pattengale , Ass't VP for Scholarship and Grants at Indiana Wesleyan University on January 11, 2006 at 8:28am EST
  • Scott et al,

    In an age given to academic prolixity, I'm becoming increasingly fond of your site's penchant for brevity--and the immediate format for response. The combination is both engaging and informative.

    On the subject of Horowitz, I'm reminded of his comment in Marquis' Who's Who in America:

    "Life is full of compromise, but to compromise principle is to give up your self respect. I don't want anyone to take me for a sucker, and I don't like to see anyone else taken, either. A lot of things are unfair in life. It's tough: That's the way it is. But by heaven, if you can do something about it, do it!"

    I'm also reminded of numerous stories and case studies through the years where the scholar in question didn't do his/her homework. And, of the more severe cases where lead scholars have fabricated sources under pressure to produce. Some individuals surface as having an uncanny ability to produce volumes of research and scholarship, and others few if any. I surmise that the latter often become the most severe critics (though I don't have any proof on hand to back this statement). In this case, Horowitz made mistakes and they need to be measured against the weight of the corpus of his materials--which are substantial. Michael Moore found himself in the same situation, and in both cases intentionality is a difficult thing to prove--but certainly a key issue. I think both have shown brilliance, both an indefatigable spirit, and both their humanness. Emmys usually don't go for mediocrity, so my first response is, as admitted, he made mistakes. When one produces as much as such individuals it must be difficult to check sources--but there's the rub, without authenticity there is no accuracy. As for the charges of hubris noted above--that could be a more difficult charge to overcome. When you have the courage to write "How To Beat the Democrats," or to produce "Roger and Me," and you forge the time to pull these tasks off, the question of arrogance is as weighty as authenticity and accuracy in persuasion. If the former brought down Greek heros, it'll certainly dismantle modern voices.

  • Middle East
  • Posted by Arthur E. Goldschmidt Jr. on January 11, 2006 at 8:43am EST
  • I tught Middle East history at a taxpayer supported institution for 35 years and was grateful that I had the protection of tenure because all parties to Middle Eastern disputes spread false rumors about my teaching, especially students who had never been exposed to a point of view other than their own. If there are genuine complaints about biased professors (or TAs) let the plaintiffs speak to deans or department heads, not to Horowitz or, God forbid, their state legislators.

  • Obvious Question
  • Posted by Federal Dog on January 11, 2006 at 9:12am EST
  • Well, this is a hell of an unhelpful turn of events. It certainly mucks up the waters and makes it harder to arrive at understanding of the problem. For that reason, let's leave everything that Horowitz has personally stated aside.

    Now, having discarded Horowitz's testimony in its entirety, those who are pretending that two claims made by him for which he has no evidence means there is no problem in the schools at all, on what logical basis are you dismissing all other testimony based on documented facts and first-hand experience?

  • A Paragon of Truthiness
  • Posted by Price at Firesign Theatre on January 11, 2006 at 9:12am EST
  • Horowitz has been held up to the highest standards of truthiness and though his lies are obvious, the media will keep him marching forward unimpeded.

    His entire public existence is based on the premise that accountability or facts don't matter, so this won't slow him down on bit.

  • What to do if treated unfairly
  • Posted by Dan Tompkins , Director, Intellectual Heritage Program at Temple University on January 11, 2006 at 9:12am EST
  • In today's climate, university administrators (I am half admin, half faculty right now) are more alert than they've ever been to accusations of faculty unfairness to students. This is a good thing. Students in the program I direct won't _learn_ if their teacher is intimidating them or forcing opinions down their throats.

    So I would say to Patrick, and to Art D., if you're students and a teacher is unfair, complain to the manager. If not satisfied, complain at a higher level. Managers can do things. If it's a personnel issue, they can't tell you exactly what they've done, of course. But it's certainly worthwhile to make your opinions known. Provide all the documentation you can, or corroborative witnesses.

    The problem with David Horowitz' allegations, and those of some of his supporters, is that he did not or could not do the homework required in the last sentence of the above graf. He should have, as a mature professional with an $18 million dollar budget -- that's $18M more than most students have.

    But yes: you have a voice and you have rights. If anything, students complain too _little_. And we administrators should be kept on our toes.

    Dan Tompkins

  • Retractions from David Horowitz
  • Posted by Feudi Pandola on January 11, 2006 at 9:14am EST
  • It is obvious that there is a very strong left wing slant among the faculty of postsecondary schools. The two examples that David Horowitz stupidly used without proof cannot cancel the dozens of other examples that are very real. Within just the past six months we've witnessed the Paul Mirecki Incident, Ward Churchill's continued employment, Noam Chomsky's claims that America is the worst terrorist nation on earth, the Homeland Security Hoax at Umass Dartmouth, etc, etc, etc.

    Sure, Horowitz can and should be criticized for academic lazyness but the thrust of his message is absolutely true, on target and correct. There IS left wing bias among faculty...Big Time!

    Gimme a break...

  • Attacking Bush in Biology Class
  • Posted by In Vino on January 11, 2006 at 9:36am EST
  • Horowitz's last quote is delicious. Given that Bush came out in favor of UnIntelligent Design, it seems not only appropriate but consistent with the topical pedadogical mission to attack him in biology class.

  • "Everybody knows . . . " (and its relatives)
  • Posted by Andrew Purvis on January 11, 2006 at 9:36am EST
  • Homework:

    Learn the definition of dogmatism.

  • Posted by Thane Doss on January 11, 2006 at 9:37am EST
  • "I have here in my hand a list of 57 people that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party, and who, nevertheless, are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department." etc.

    There's a reason the term "McCarthyite" pops up--Horowitz's belief that his assertions need no proof. That's also a reason that Horowitz has no business whatsoever discussing higher education, where one of the most important missions is teaching people how to find evidence and that assertions without proof are also deficient in meaning and value.

    And someone really needs to say this:
    Contemporary American conservatism has come to devalue not only evidence, but knowledge and the serach for knowledge itself so completely that it is nearly impossible to obtain a graduate degree without learning to think far more clearly and rigorously than contemporary American conservatism will permit. By default, such thinking makes one a "liberal," and the statement, "The campuses are full of liberal professors" is essentially equivalent to "The campuses are full of professors who have studied, continue to study, and value knowledge." Unlike Limbaugh and Horowitz, I tend to think that's a good thing.

  • Gub-mint workers never get it
  • Posted by Art D. on January 11, 2006 at 10:12am EST
  • The taxpayer-supported employees of Temple University make a brave noise. If they are so smart and brave -- why don't they just leave gub-mint service and start their own organizations for education, world peace, etc.? Then they wouldn't mean ol' Mr. Horowitz going after them.

    Answer: because they don't know how and/or lack to guts to do so. And until they get the guts to leave, they are subject to public review.

    People -- either get used to public review, or get out. Your choice. When you leave -- at least 50 qualified persons will apply for your position -- you are replacable.

    As for evidence -- here:

    http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.17443/article_detail.asp

    http://www.goacta.org/press/Press%20Releases/11-30-04PR.htm

    http://www.discoverthenetwork.com/individual.asp

    http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4364511,00.html

    http://www.nysun.com/article/15053

    If you need a couple thousand more citations -- please advise. Happy to post them for you, to increase your knowledge base.

    The aforementioned is a 10x better than the schumucks who went wild at the holidays about "FBI watching libraries," eh?

    Have a nice day.

  • Thane Doss
  • Posted by Charles Hackney , psychology at professor on January 11, 2006 at 11:31am EST
  • Your comments claiming that conservatism equals a disregard for knowledge while liberalism equals a search for knowledge is incorrect. A simple search of news items reveals that spinning, twisting, and outright lying in support of one's cause is by no means a predominantly right-wing phenomenon (for every campaign by someone like Horowitz or the Swift Boat crew, there is a campaign like NARAL's ad in August that falsely accused John Roberts of filing legal papers in suport of abortion-clinic bombing, an ad that was subsequently pulled after it was demonstrated to be false, or Andrew Sullivan's "false but plausible" Quran-flushing story), and if you don't feel like searching on your own, there are nonpartisan websites like factcheck.org that show distortions and lies on both sides of the aisle.

    It is quite common for people who deeply believe in their ideology to assume that their beliefs are The Way It Really Is, and that any reasonable person will of course agree with them, which makes anyone who disagrees with them an ignorant simpleton. Do try to restrain that impulse, though. It is entirely possible for two people to both be intelligent, well-informed, sane, compassionate human beings embarked on a search for knowledge, and still disagree with each other. When you assume that liberal=smart and so smart=liberal, you demonstrate the exact type of rigid one-dimensional thinking that you are claiming typifies your conservative opponents.

  • "Gub-mint" workers
  • Posted by Joe S. at Temple University on January 11, 2006 at 11:31am EST
  • Art D. has revealed his true colors, by referring to Temple University employees as "gub-mint" workers he demonstrates his racist and biased thought. If you are criticizing the Temple faculty who are overwhelmingly white why would you use a term that is clearly meant to mock African-American speech patterns. Furthermore evidence of liberal bias is highly exagerated. One of the tenets of liberalism is free, open debate and respect for dissent (mostly since liberals are often in dissent themselves and value being heard since they so often are not) as opposed to the dogmatic silencing of opposition, the shouting down of their views or the making of threats to the dissenting opposition in which the current president and his supporters consistently engage. Sadly, it is fair for every discipline (including science) to criticize President Bush because he has repeatedly abused science in his administration, from delaying approval for Plan B contraception based upon the report of a small minority of his own FDA panel, when a large majority supported immediate approval, to denying the evidence of global warming which has become something of a scientific, global consensus. Beyond this I am wondering just why faculty must remain silent on issues close to their hearts as long as they are also performing their duties in educating their students in the topic at hand. Ward Churchill is entitled to whatever opinion he desires no matter how offensive. That is his Constitutionally-protected right, another area where our president clearly needs an education and where professors of history, political science and law can clearly describe the discrepancy between the Constitution and the president's actions. It seems that conservatives are just angry that professors who spend their times studying issues in extreme detail with significant evidence often end up coming to conclusions that are "liberal." Though a visit to most economic and science departments would show that all faculty are not "liberal." The idea that most faculty are "liberal" does not prove at all that faculty are "biased." Those are two completely different things, but conservatives seem to believe that simply by asserting the "rampant" liberal beliefs of university faculty is enough to prove discrimination against their students. It isn't.
    However, titling your post to academic website "Gub-mint" jobs does clearly display discrimination and displays the type of racist bias against which liberals struggle each day in their classrooms, since a person who would toss around racial caricatured speech is clearly one who does not possess enough evidence or knowledge of real people to draw proper conclusions about their lives, hopes and dreams. He also seems to imply that the faculty of Temple are majority African-American by using racially slanderous speech, another "conclusion" for which there is no evidence. Clearly Art D. bases a lot of his opinions on perceptions and other people's opinions and not on evidence. No wonder why he supports Horowitz who seems to do the same.

  • Liberal / Conservative bias
  • Posted by Gabriel Austin on January 11, 2006 at 11:53am EST
  • Why in these discussions, it is assumed that student have no brains of their own? and cannot recognize when a professor is talking garbage? The conservations among students about their professors give a different impression.
    By the way [as I don't know how to get back to an item a couple of days old - that about having discovered the largest prime number] a mathematician friend writes: "Thanks for the delicious article about the big prime with its totally inaccurate definition of a prime [but correct definition of Mersenne]".
    Gabriel Austin

  • Posted by ML , Adjunct Instructor of Sociology at New York City on January 11, 2006 at 11:53am EST
  • What I beleive commentators like Mr. Horowitz and many of those who have responded to this article miss is that there is a difference between a liberal bias that affects the way one teaches (and in fact WHAT one teaches) and a liberal bias that is actually unfair to the students.

    As a sociologist, there is clearly a liberal bias throughout my feild--well, for one thing, we actually care about inequality as a subject to be studied! I am sure my own liberal bias comes through to my students, despite the fact that I always present multiple perspectives on a topic. I'm sure they can tell which perspectives I beleive and which ones I think are garbage.

    I have never downgraded a student, though, merely for having conservative ideas. But remember that in a feild where inequality is a fundamental subject of inquiry, you need to be able to engage with it. I tell the students that they need not agree with the answer, but they have to answer the question. I see no bias in that, but people like Mr. Horowiz do.

  • Relevant piece from Mark Goldblatt
  • Posted by Michael Greenspan on January 11, 2006 at 12:47pm EST
  • While he has reservations about the Academic Bill of Rights, Goldblatt offers anecdotal evidence, recently obtained, of higher ed's strong leftward tilt:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/goldblatt200601090758.asp

  • Posted by Cicero , Prof. of English on January 11, 2006 at 1:39pm EST
  • Mr. Doss’s unfounded assertion that conservatives are just not smart was well answered by Prof. Hackney. I will simply add the following possibility. Couldn’t it be the case that the liberal bias actually makes it easier for scholars of less intelligence to gain a place in the academy? After all, a Ph.D. candidate in some disciplines need not actually think about the subject matter at all but rather simply apply the “correct” political formula. As long as a student can mimic the correct political punch-lines and properly identify the good-guys from the bad, there is a place at the table of academia for her or him (probably not a great place but a place). Oh, I suppose the scholar will still have to be able to properly construct a bibliography, but that’s about the extent of the gate-keeping at some institutions.

  • Is this worth considering?
  • Posted by Melissa on January 11, 2006 at 1:41pm EST
  • Here's a fact to consider. The purported leftward tilt in actions, teaching, hiring practices, etc. have not been credibly demonstrated. We have some anecdotal evidence for and against.

    I suspect that some institutions are predominantly left and some right and that some departments and disciplines are as well. It should not be surprising that members of the Sociology community are liberal or that many humanists are since the domains comprising the liberal arts will no doubt inculcate its members to "liberal" values and beliefs. But, in my experience physical and life sciences, math, technology and economics faculty and students are largely "conservative", even if they are democrats. I think there is, however, virtually no evidence that these insititutional units practice political bias. If one wants to implement affirmative action one needs to bring actions against culpable units, not a profession, not academia. (AA actions aren't brought against economic sectors like "retail department stores" just because Sears is shown to be racist in its practices.) If we were to do that, I suspect the demonstrable cases of biases in departmental and institutional hiring practices etc. would be about equal in terms of left and right--and they'd be quite rare.

    As an aside, to say that someone who is a democrat in the US is "liberal" is completely fallacious. And, if we are going to have inclusive political affirmative action in universities, how many spots does Horowitz plan to keep open for Socialists, libertarians, greens, communists, fascists, anarchists etc.? Suffice it to say the continuum described by the American republicand democratic parties is not the full spectrum of political thought. Lastly, making every public institution politically "balanced" is one, very narrow, kind of equality. Why should that be the version we use? If we require that university professors be equally distributed between left and right, are we then obliged for military generals and officers to be similarly balanced in political representation? How about law enforcment personnel or K-12 educators? Or, the bureaucratic "branches" of state and federal government (as I recall, a study revealed that these unelected members of government are disproportionally conservative)?

    In short, the principles upon which this "take back higher ed" movement are really not principles that can be widely applied in a sensible and useful way from the point of view of those who advocate them. That indicates to me that they are not principles at all, but a tool (or some might say weapon) for certain people to gain power in an influential institution. That aim, I think, knows no political party boundaries.

  • "Gub-mint" is racially slanderous speech?
  • Posted by Rose on January 11, 2006 at 2:06pm EST
  • Gub-mint, gummint, guvmint--these variations and others are often used to refer to "the government" in a pejorative way. Here in lily-white rural Oregon folks say it all the time; nothing racial about it.

    Great example, though, of vilification of The Other and martyrization of The Self (or those with whom The Self would like to identify, and thereby attain a kind of proxy martyrdom). Happy halo hunting, dude!

  • For Melissa, Pane, Joe, et al.
  • Posted by Art D. on January 11, 2006 at 2:38pm EST
  • Dang .. once is not enough .. OK, here we go again ..

    http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=11315

    http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1080568316.shtml

    http://www.themontclarion.org/media/paper374/news/2005/03/24/Opinion/No.Ones.Callin.For.Stalin-901801.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.themontclarion.org

    http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-continetti033103.asp

    http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2002/april_2002_3.html

    http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm

    Got hundreds more, if you'd like ...

    Joe .. how do you know, I'm not black? And a writer for Chris Rock? And did you take your medicine today? Get a grip, dude .. gub-mint work is so vicious, because so little is really at stake, sayeth Dr. K.

  • More homework
  • Posted by Andrew Purvis on January 11, 2006 at 4:17pm EST
  • Learn the definition of Card Stacking.

    Find at least two examples of it in articles or in responses to articles on this site.

  • Posted by Federal Dog on January 11, 2006 at 4:17pm EST
  • "In short, the principles upon which this “take back higher ed” movement are really not principles that can be widely applied in a sensible and useful way from the point of view of those who advocate them."

    This is *obviously* false. There is a single principle on which the movement to reform the schools is based: People are properly held accountable for their conduct. This principle of individual accountability "can be widely applied in a sensible and useful way," despite your false contentions.

    So no one can respond to my question? Not even one person can state what logical principle dictates that all testimony beyond Horowitz's two unsubstantiated claims must be dismissed out of hand?

    Is anyone else concerned about the complete inability of people to respond to basic factual and ethical questions in this matter?

  • Lighten Up!
  • Posted by MV Abbott on January 11, 2006 at 4:17pm EST
  • I dare say NONE of the comments in this chain would have been necessary if the writers had paused to consider that the marketplace of ideas and the clash of interests are features of a healthy democracy. Lighten up! And none other than Ronald Wilson Reagan brought the term "gubmint" to the vernacular.

  • Posted by Hoosier Prof on January 11, 2006 at 4:42pm EST
  • Okay, people, let's calm down now and move on. The left-wingers have had their opportunity to gloat at David "Fudge the Facts" and the right-wingers have reminded us all that "there's STILL a left-wing bias in academia!"

    So instead of continuing to REACT to the recently delegitimized ole Fudger, let's instead be PROACTIVE and propose our OWN agenda for answering the question of bias.

    Let's start with the question. I propose the following: "If public opinion polls suggest that most faculty vote left, what does that mean for the student?" Feel free to propose your own.

    And how do we answer the question? Should those of us who care about COLD HARD FACTS start collecting our own records? How about the following: "I criticized/supported the American Presidency x times this semester, the criticism/support was/wasn't relevant to the course content, and I had x students comment on it, x positively, x negatively" ?

    You're free to rip this apart (yes, I know you want to) with one caveat: you cannot criticize without proposing a better wording or other additions.

  • Clearly not so obvious
  • Posted by Carolyn on January 11, 2006 at 4:47pm EST
  • I can't help but notice that the nature of warrants for many of the claims being made on this thread are "obviously" (e.g feral dog), "clearly" and the like. If the sum total of your argument in support of your claim is "obviously", then you are not going to persuade anyone. What's more, a lack of evidence or suppport for a point where some is called for is a good indication to a critical reader that none can be marshalled by the writer. Unsupported claims have the effect of weakening one's argument for oppostional arguments. Forgive the rhetoric lesson, but if we are actually going to discuss these issues substantively, then we need some substance to talk about.

  • Rebutting a Horowitz story
  • Posted by Gary Kennedy , Associate Professor of Mathematics at Ohio State U. (Mansfield) on January 11, 2006 at 5:04pm EST
  • "Horowitz noted that when he publicizes such stories, he does not print the names of the professors involved, and that he has stated many times that a professor involved in such an incident would be welcome to write a rebuttal that he would post on his Web site."

    That's a nice offer, but first you'd have to realize you were the professor involved, not an easy job if you don't even recognize his version of the event. An even harder job if the story is just fabricated!

  • Posted by Eric on January 11, 2006 at 6:37pm EST
  • This is imbecilic.

    > Not even one person can state what logical principle dictates that all testimony beyond Horowitz’s two unsubstantiated claims must be dismissed out of hand?

    Nobody's dismissing anything out of hand. You're insisting that there's a vast amount of credible stuff being ignored. If Horowitz had lots of better examples to use, why did he use these.

    Another point, guy, that you may be missing. In academia, making statements that you can't document is taken seriously. The essence of scholarship is backing up what you say. If someone like Horowitz is waving his hand saying that professors are bigoted, getting facts wrong is not a piffling formality, it's a major offense. It will come as a surprise, but deliberately falsfiying information, or spreading dubious information whle making no effort to check it is something that can get a professor fired-- even a professor with tenure.

    The fact that he is able to pick up his screeching after being called on fakery without even an apology -- just a mumble that it's no big deal -- is a s complete a refutation of his intellectual style and integrity as is possible. Except for someone who doesn't seem to regard truth as anything but a political label.

  • Horowitz
  • Posted by David on January 11, 2006 at 6:37pm EST
  • Horowitz must have egg on his face due to the "Bradford Affair" at IUPUI. Any investigator worth his salt should have paused with the discrepency between what Bradford said about his service record verses what the record showed. Horowitz steamed forward with all barrels blazing, into a morass.

    But what about FIRE? http://www.thefire.org/ Why has it become necessary to form such an organization? For an institution such as higher ed?

    Some observations: liberals and conservatives don't even have the same definitions of many important words such as, "justice", "diversity", "equity", "equality", "gender/sex", "fairness", to name a few. So there is no commonality.

    The hard truth is that Americans seek solutions, being the pragmatic sort. So they see a problem in higher education (most folks don't realize that the main purpose of American education has always been "conformity" since its inception). Conservatives and liberals want control of the, "hearts and minds" of youth. To date, we have the worst of both ideologies reflected in them.

    Perhaps a radical change is needed. A downsizing of higher education. Vertical dispersment, much like the demands of international trade has forced upon multinational corporations. I do admire those who have undergraduate degrees from small colleges more than the larger universities. More open-minded, as a general rule.

  • Horowitz evidence
  • Posted by P on January 11, 2006 at 6:37pm EST
  • Horowitz's evidence is shoddy at best, irresponsible at its worse. Unverifiable, individual student hearsay, is not proof.

    However,there's evidence abound and Horowitz could use the following: First, a basic search of legal cases involving colleges/universities and cases involving professors and students who got grades because of political bias can easily be found in Westlaw or other similar databases.

    Second, Judicial Affairs officers are another source of information pertaining to such cases.

    Third, ombudspersons are another source of information pertaining to such cases.

    Fourth, in-house legal attorneys at colleges/universities are other sources of information.

    According to the experts in Law and Higher Education, such cases are few and far between based on the evidence outlets above.

    Internally, there are several methods students can protect themselves from retribution concerning reporting of professors that grade them because of political bias or other similar actions.

    Horowitz's claims don't pass empirical scrutiny; he should have to present evidence akin to a legal court case to back up his assertions.

  • Aw, c'mon
  • Posted by Militant Moderate , underemployed Ph.D. on January 11, 2006 at 6:37pm EST
  • I have little sympathy for Horowitz's Academic Bill of Rights, and I'm not surprised at his inaccuracies. But c'mon, is there anyone in academia who seriously questions the idea that Higher Education is wildly tilted toward the left? Like hires like, and there is no prospect that anyone who disagrees with the current majority will be hired.

    Alas, it was ever thus. In the old days, Marxists and minority group members couldn't get jobs. Now there are plenty of Marxists and minority group members in faculty positions, and--alas--they turn out to be just as intolerant and power-hungry as the people they replaced.
    When I was in school, I heard a graduate student criticize Hilary Clinton because she was "so conservative." A group of listening grad students just nodded in agreement. No one seemed to think there was anything funny about this.
    Personally, I think most liberal arts college professors, AND the David Horowitzes of the world, are nutty extremists whose facts are one-sided at best and wildly inaccurate at worst. Most of mud that each side hurls at the other sticks to the targets like glue.

  • Another False Accusation
  • Posted by Clifton Snider , Dr. at California State University, Long Beach on January 11, 2006 at 7:38pm EST
  • As a person who has been targeted by name by David Horowitz through columns by my ex-student, Marissa Freimanis, I can attest to another false accusation. In her piece, “Is This An English Class?? [sic],” posted on 27 October 2004 in Horowitz’s Frontpage.com (http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15678), Freimanis says this regarding the English 100 (freshman composition) class she was taking with me:

    The last three class meetings have been spent watching Fahrenheit 9/11 and writing on the moral issues that Michael Moore rises [sic] in the film. This assignment consisted of each student writing a paragraph on a single moral issue in the film, and then listing all the evidence that Michael Moore uses to prove it.

    The moral issue I chose to write my paragraph about was "the controversial decision made by President Bush to lead the United States into a pre-emptive war against Saddam Hussein." I stated that in the "documentary" Michael Moore argued that President Bush made this decision in great haste and failed to investigate the true threat that Iraq posed to the United States. I then went on to describe the "evidence" that Michael Moore uses to prove his point as " a single advisor saying that he overheard President Bush" and " inserting a series of clips of President Bush on his Texas ranch". I wrote my paragraph very tongue in cheek and purposely ridiculed the insufficient evidence that Michael Moore used in his film. However, when I received my paragraph back, I found it marked up in red ink by Dr. Snider with comments like, " You miss the point of the film", or that advisor "was Richard Clark… a terrorist expert!" I was blown away by these comments. I didn’t realize that I was being graded on the way I interpreted the film! From what I understood about our in class paragraphs, Dr. Snider was only supposed to grade grammar, spelling, and mechanics, of which I had no corrected errors. Funny though that I still received the lowest grade in the class on this assignment (after receiving all A’s on past assignments), while papers with numerous spelling errors and mechanical corrections but with an anti-Bush perspective received A’s.

    Freimanis, who is the contact person at Cal State Long Beach for a Horowitz-backed group called Students for Academic Freedom (http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/), has, I gather, been chosen to be a national spokesperson for SAF and Horowitz. The story she tells above, however, apparently wasn’t strong enough, so she further changed the facts. Appearing with Horowitz on Paul Gigot’s The Journal Editorial Report on the 23rd of September 2005 (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/journaleditorialreport/092305/briefing.html), she continued to claim she had a “straight-A record” in the class, only now the paragraph had become an “essay”:

    "I got the lowest grade in the class," says Freimanis (as reported by Lisa Rudolph). "He told us that we would be writing an essay on FARENHEIGHT 9/11. The reason that we write these papers is for him to correct our mechanical and grammatical mistakes that we make of which I had none. The only thing that he wrote on my paper, in big red maker, was that I had missed the point of the film.

    (The transcript then implies that I am a professor who dismisses students who disagree with me by telling them, “'You are ignorant or you don't know anything.'" If you view the video, you’ll notice that a different student, not mine, expresses this view.)

    Despite numerous attempts to present my side of this story to Gigot and The Journal Editorial Report, no one ever responded to my letters. I am therefore taking this opportunity to set the record straight.

    I have the grade book in front of me for the class Freimanis took with me, and it clearly shows she did not have a “straight-A record” when she wrote the paragraph (not the essay she later claimed it was) on Fahrenheit 9/11. The paragraph was worth 10 points; she got an 8, the equivalent of a B, based on factual error. For example, she clearly did not know who Richard Clarke was. More to the point, I have never graded only on “grammar, spelling, and mechanics.” Read my syllabus for English 100 and you will see that those kinds of errors (including stylistic errors) account for only about a third of a grade. Freimanis had written two full-length, 50-point papers when she wrote the paragraph and had received the equivalent of an A- and a B.

    The paragraph the class wrote on the Moore film was in preparation for a full-length paper on a movie of the students’ choice. According to my records, Freimanis got a solid A on her full-length essay.

    I could go through her various complaints that have appeared in cyberspace (and, indeed, in one of our university student newspapers) and dispute her point by point. And I am certain were Horowitz to reply to my corrections of the record he would claim that the Iraqi war and Bush shouldn’t be discussed in an English class. Were he to do so he would reveal his ignorance as to what, at CSULB, English 100 is supposed to entail, and that is critical thinking and writing. It includes an argument paper which by definition must deal with controversial issues. In the class Freimanis took, I let students know on the first night that I thought the war immoral, but I also encouraged anyone who disagreed with me to speak up. Freimanis and another student did speak up and they were never penalized because they did so. To claim that I was unfair to her because of her views is an insult to my professional integrity which I am glad to correct now.

  • Why M. Moore?
  • Posted by Bart J. on January 12, 2006 at 4:30am EST
  • Dang .. all these viewers for Mr. M. Moore's 9/11 (which, BTW, I have refused to watch, I know the ending) ..

    Let's think about common sense. What would Grover Furr think if a solitary English professor used "Red Dawn" in a class? The same reaction as Shrub's pals about Moore's 9/11? Of course -- get real.

    You want a 1st Amendment shoving match? Not hard to start one, today. Just don't start crying and whining when the other side pushes back -- you have to smarter than that (hopefully).

  • Academia’s Failing Grade
  • Posted by Sirseth on January 12, 2006 at 4:31am EST
  • Academia’s Failing Grade
    By American Council of Trustees and Alumni --12/14/05

    Washington, DC, (December 12, 2005) -- In spite of a statement by 30 higher education organizations recognizing the importance of intellectual diversity, a recent survey by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni shows that not a single institution has taken concrete steps to further that goal.

    On June 23, 2005, the American Council on Education and 29 other institutions of higher education issued a “Statement on Academic Rights and Responsibilities” affirming support for “intellectual pluralism and academic freedom.” The statement responded to growing national concern, underlined by a number of studies, about the one-sided political and ideological tilt of many college and university campuses. The groups hoped to head off legislative intervention by pledging that the universities would fix the problem themselves.

    In September 2005, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni sent a letter to all 30 signatories, heads of major public universities in each state, as well as the presidents and chancellors of the top 25 National Universities and the top 25 Liberal Arts Colleges ranked by U.S. News & World Report, asking them to document statements made about the important ACE statement. ACTA also requested information about any steps taken to implement the principles of the ACE statement.

    Not one of the more than 100 institutions who received ACTA’s letter reported specific concrete steps to implement the principles. Instead, most respondents cited existing policies as already satisfactory. The most proactive was the University of Oregon where President David Frohnmayer reports that his deans had a “work session” on the ACE principles. He did not report any upshot of the session. The president of one of the signatories, the American Association of Colleges and Universities, promises to issue a statement that will be “consistent” with the ACE statement, but does not promise any steps to implement it.

    “It’s all talk and no action,” said ACTA president Anne Neal. “Higher education simply can’t have it both ways. Colleges and university presidents say they, alone, are able to correct the situation in the classroom, but then they refuse to do anything but offer lip service to the idea of intellectual diversity. If the academy were faced with just one study showing racism or sexism in the classroom, they would take immediate actions to address the problem. Here we see study after study pointing out a breathtaking lack of intellectual diversity on campus and nothing is done about it. The double standard is outrageous.”

    In a report made available today entitled, Intellectual Diversity: Time for Action, ACTA outlines steps universities could take to encourage a mix of ideas on campus and to respond to the growing public concern about the lack of intellectual diversity. The report recommends adoption of the ACE Statement of Academic Rights and Responsibilities and urges administrators and faculty to undertake an institutional self-study on academic freedom and intellectual diversity.

    “Education happens only when students are presented with a variety of perspectives and encouraged to think for themselves. Yet this report is the first serious effort to begin thinking about ways to achieve greater intellectual diversity that are consistent with academic freedom and other academic norms,” Neal said.

    The report warns that if trustees fail to ensure a robust exchange of ideas in the classroom they will abdicate their fiduciary responsibility.

    Numerous trustees of major universities welcomed ACTA’s report and recommendations.

    “ACTA deserves great credit for highlighting the critical issues of intellectual diversity and pluralism in American colleges and universities, and for doing so in a way that scrupulously safeguards academic freedom,” said Benno Schmidt, chairman of the City University of New York Board of Trustees.

    “I applaud ACTA for tackling this tremendously important issue that goes to the very heart of a modern liberal arts education,” said Todd Zywicki, trustee of Dartmouth College. “ACTA’s study contains numerous useful suggestions to strengthen academic freedom and self-governance and provides a guide for discussion and action on these important questions.”

    “It isn't fair to students to bring them to campus for four years and expose them to only one point of view,” said Tom Lucero, University of Colorado regent. “It is up to the university to make sure that doesn't happen.”

    “In my state, young people and their parents sacrifice so they can go to college,” said Drew Miller, regent of the University of Nebraska. “As a trustee, I have an obligation to ensure that we give them an education, not indoctrination.”

    “Universities have been aware of the growing lack of intellectual diversity and, for the most part, looked the other way,” said former Harvard Corporation member Judith Richards Hope. “This report has the right idea—it is indeed the time for action.”

    “Universities should not neglect the diversity most important to education—the diversity of ideas,” said Velma Montoya, former regent of the University of California. “Hopefully, this report will hasten a much-needed reform effort.”

    Survey results and the report are being sent to college and university trustees, state legislators, and Members of the higher education committees of the U.S. Congress.

    The American Council of Trustees and Alumni in a national nonprofit dedicated to academic freedom, academic standards and accountability in higher education. ACTA works with hundreds of college and university trustees and alumni across the country. For more information, contact Anne Neal at 202-467-6787 or go to www.goacta.org.

    Highlights from

    Intellectual Diversity: Time for Action

    A Report by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni

    – The most serious challenge for higher education today is the lack of intellectual diversity. It is serious … because it lies at the heart of what education is all about. [I]t has been made much more serious because for decades higher education leaders refused to acknowledge the problem. They were simply in denial. … There still is little thoughtful discussion about proper remedies. This publication seeks to change that. …

    – In simplest terms, intellectual diversity means a multiplicity of ideas. In the college setting, it is the foundation of a learning environment that exposes students to a variety of political, ideological, and other perspectives. As the American Council on Education, in a statement joined by 29 other higher education organizations, has acknowledged: “Intellectual pluralism and academic freedom are central principles of American higher education.”

    If they are to be more than just empty words, however, principles must lead to policies. The fact remains, that in the world of higher education, diversity has come to mean a preference for a diversity of backgrounds, but not a diversity of views. When it comes to social, political, religious, and ideological matters, academe has shown a pronounced preference for only one end of the spectrum.

    – Faculty imbalance, combined with the idea that the "politically correct" point of view has a right to dominate classroom and campus discussions, has had fearful consequences for university life.

    – Many of our campuses have become, as one observer put it, islands of oppression in a sea of freedom. There is no way this kind of one-sided, coercive atmosphere can be conducive to a solid education. Students are not empowered to think for themselves by being given only one side of the story. The lack of intellectual diversity is depriving an entire generation of the kind of education they deserve.

    – Based on social scientific evidence as well as discussions with professors, administrators, trustees, and higher education experts, it is clear that:

    (1) Today's college faculties are overwhelmingly one-sided in their political and ideological views, especially in the value-laden fields of the humanities and social sciences; and

    (2) This lack of intellectual diversity is undermining the education of students as well as the free exchange of ideas central to the mission of the university; and

    (3) It is urgent that universities effectively address the challenge of intellectual diversity. Some ways of addressing it are explored below.

    – A major obstacle to change has been a fear that any effort to encourage intellectual diversity would violate one or another academic norm. ACTA has been sensitive to this concern and has discussed it with professors, administrators, and trustees. Based on these discussions, we have pulled together a set of concrete, practical ideas that provide a starting point for discussion for universities looking for ways to address the problem. Hopefully, discussion on each campus will develop and refine these ideas and also explore other avenues for improving intellectual diversity.

    1. Conduct a self-study to assess the current state of intellectual diversity on campus and identify areas for improvement. …

    2. Incorporate intellectual diversity into institutional statements and activities on diversity. …

    3. If the university has a speech code, eliminate it. …

    4. Encourage balanced panels and speaker series. …

    5. Establish clear campus policies which ensure hecklers or threats of violence do not prevent speakers from speaking. …

    6. Include intellectual diversity concerns in university guidelines on teaching. …

    7. Include intellectual diversity issues in student course evaluations. …

    8. Amend hiring, tenure, and promotion guidelines. …

    9. Amend student grievance guidelines. …

    10. Use visiting professors to achieve greater diversity. …

    11. Encourage departments to diversify. …

    12. Establish new academic programs. …

    13. Ensure student press freedom. …

    14. Prohibit political bias in student-funded groups. …

    15. When hiring, seek a commitment to intellectual diversity. …

    16. Create a university ombudsman. …

    … [T]hese suggestions should be sufficient to demonstrate that intellectual diversity is not just something desirable in theory. The means are there to encourage it. Is there the will?

    – Trustees may be told that any proactive steps by the board would violate academic freedom. That is not the case. Academic freedom is essentially the right of professors to pursue knowledge in their fields and to share the results of that inquiry with their students and the public. It is a right granted to professors in exchange for a sacred trust—that they will use the freedom they are given over the classroom and over academic policy, for valid educational ends, not to pursue their own pet causes or personal politics. The board has not only a right, but a duty, to ensure that the faculty lives up to these responsibilities, and to insist on remedial action when it does not. It is a duty, in fact, that has been affirmed strongly by the higher education community and raised as the critical reason why legislative intervention is unnecessary. … Any board that fails to guarantee the free exchange of ideas and the student’s right to learn on its campus is simply not doing its job.

    Where should the board begin?

    – First, it could endorse the American Council on Education's statement on academic freedom and intellectual pluralism.

    – Second, it could adopt the first of the suggestions in the previous section and ask for an institutional self-study of the condition of intellectual diversity on the campus, leaving it to the faculty and administration to determine the details. It might say, for example:

    “The board endorses the American Council of Education statement on Academic Rights and Responsibilities and directs the administration and faculty to conduct an institutional self-study to determine how well the university is living up to the principles of intellectual diversity enunciated therein.”

    – Third, it should set a reasonable timetable for such a study and review information provided in the self-study. If the self-study is a whitewash or omits critical issues, the board should ask for a follow-up study. …

    – The law is a blunt instrument and state legislatures and the federal Congress are not well-positioned to prescribe specific remedies. But state and federal legislators can provide a valuable service by holding hearings to educate the public and making it clear to the universities that they are expected to ensure the free exchange of ideas and classrooms free of political abuse.

  • Snider's comments
  • Posted by Michael Barton on January 12, 2006 at 4:33am EST
  • Prof. Snider, If I were your Dean, I'd call you into my office immediately and ask for an explanation. I'd want you to tell me why you revealed in public a student's grades and performance in class. Hasn't anyone told you that's private information, protected by law? And what makes you think that students need to know your opinion about the war in Iraq, even if the class is discussing the war? Do you really believe that students are going to offer their candid opinions on the war or the Moore film after you've told them you think the war is "immoral"? Wouldn't you think that expressing your opinion at the outset of the discussion might have something of a chilling effect on discussion--or perhaps worse yet, it might improperly encourage students to agree with you? On the basis of your own statement, I think there is little doubt that you have used your classroom as your personal political soapbox, and if I were your Dean I would insist you stop that. What we would need to discuss further is just how artless a teacher you might be and how we can improve that.

  • Posted by David Horowitz on January 12, 2006 at 5:33am EST
  • The questions to me which occupy the entire InsideHigherEd report on the academic freedom hearings at Temple took up two minutes of the eight hours or so of testimony. This is no way to report an event that will affect higher education not only in Pennsylvania but throughout the country. Readers interested in the actual issues can find them aired at
    www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org

    It is misleading to conflate the two stories about classroom incidents in the way your article does. In the case of the leftwing student, I merely posted an article he wrote about his case. I would have posted a reply from his professor if the professor had submitted one. The point of this particular story is that I defend both conservative and leftwing students. So I have no vested interest in inventing stories like the Farenheit 9/11 claim, because my agenda with the Academic Bill of Rights is not to attack "leftwing bias" as my critics claim, but to take politics out of the classroom whether the politics comes from the left or the right.

    The AFT's Jamie Horwitz claims that "much of what [Horowitz] has said previously has been exposed to be lies or distortions..." What is his proof that I have ever lied? ("Distortions" is so subjective in politically contentious zones as to be meaningless.) Jamie Horwitz has no evidence or proof that I have ever lied. I guess that makes him a liar by his own standards. His organization is on record lying about the Academic Bill of Rights, as is the entire business meeting of the American Historical Association (not a single member of which has stepped forward to claim the $10,000 reward I offered if they could prove their claim that the Bill would "impose a political standard" on curricula and hirings). Since the Bill can be read by anyone, all 70 of these historians are liars too, by the same standard.

    Obviously unless I sit in on the class where these incidents are alleged by students to have taken place or the professor admits that he or she called George Bush a moron or criticized the war in Iraq that was not in a class on the presidency or the war in Iraq, I can't prove that this happened. But these very incidents have been described to me by hundreds of students. Are they all lying? Is that the claim of Jamie Horwitz and his friends?

    The fact is that my opponents in Philadelphia had no case to make against our claims, except to throw smoke in the eyes of those not present with these little sideshows. We will continue. And in the end we will prevail because everyone familiar with today's campuses knows that professors do vent their anger on political issues in their classrooms in ways that are unprofessional and that are also violations of students' academic freedom.

    David Horowitz

  • Volokh
  • Posted by Steve J. on January 12, 2006 at 6:05am EST
  • Art D. -->

    The Volokh post you cited shows that there was no discrimination found by the Civils Rights division of the Dept. of Education.

  • Churchill/Rocky Mt. News
  • Posted by Steve J. on January 12, 2006 at 6:05am EST
  • Art D.-->

    Your citation of the article about Prof. Churchill deals only with issues of academic honesty, such as plagiarism and fabrication, and not bias against students in the classroom.

  • Serious Flaws in Horowitz' Campaign
  • Posted by David Applebaum , Professor at Rowan University on January 12, 2006 at 7:12am EST
  • The problem with the Horowitz approach is less about the well-documented failures as a scholar than it is about his analysis of what is needed to maximize student and faculty freedom. The first cause of the current crisis is the ever-increasing ability for students to have a seat at the table. Exclusion from classrooms is the most profound and significant causes of the loss of academic freedom. A real remedy and bill of rights must address individual and familial budget limitations associated and build up opportunity by increasing scholarships and loans.

    The second cause of the current crisis is the reduction in the number of full time, tenure-track positions. Horowitz proposed a reshuffling of the deck chairs on the Titanic - creating new departments and shifting budget lines. This makes little or no sense if one wants to create a community where the fullest range of scholarly pursuits engaged in discussion and debate.

    There is no doubt that scarcity has increased the rigor of selection as well as the standards of excellence in scholarship and teaching. There is no doubt that the pool of talented and well qualified scholars forced into part-time work is expanding faster than the number of positions that offer full academic freedom, protected by the guarantee of tenure.

    Perhaps the most glaring problem in the campaign mounted by Horowitz is his ignorance. His premise, that students are susceptible to indoctrination is undocumented. Undergraduates are not infants or sponges. Classrooms and courses do not have a monopoly on course content. Instructors do not have the capacity to be dictators in an age where the Internet provides multiple sources. The disputing processes and safeguards for fairness associated with evaluation has never been more vibrant.

    Horowitz has little understanding of the changing boundaries and borders among and between academic disciplines. If, for example, one works on a curriculum for a team of Engineers Without Borders, the range of topics covered, as well as the interconnections among the disciplines requires dismantling of the artificial and obsolete rules that constrict teaching and learning. Failure to do so undermines the ability to succeed in meaningful work and pragmatic projects with practical value.

  • Eric
  • Posted by Federal Dog on January 12, 2006 at 7:12am EST
  • "Nobody’s dismissing anything out of hand. You’re insisting that there’s a vast amount of credible stuff being ignored. If Horowitz had lots of better examples to use, why did he use these."

    I was talking about all the other witnesses and first-hand accounts related. Horowitz was only a small part of this matter (and only two claims of his are at all contested because he cannot furnish evidence to support them). What about those other witnesses? I see no basis in facts or logic on which to dismiss out of hand witnesses with forty years of first-hand experience with this problem in the schools. What about you?

  • Carolyn
  • Posted by Federal Dog on January 12, 2006 at 8:07am EST
  • Here is what I said:

    “In short, the principles upon which this “take back higher ed” movement are really not principles that can be widely applied in a sensible and useful way from the point of view of those who advocate them.”

    This is *obviously* false. There is a single principle on which the movement to reform the schools is based: People are properly held accountable for their conduct. This principle of individual accountability “can be widely applied in a sensible and useful way,” despite your false contentions."

    The fact that you intentionally misrepresented my post and engaged in name-calling instead of addressing my point in no way speaks well for you. You only demonstrate why the profession is arguing about this topic here and elsewhere. In any event, your mispresentation and and name-calling in no way constitute a "rhetoric lesson." Quite the contrary.

  • Everything is fine -- remain calm
  • Posted by Art D. on January 12, 2006 at 8:24am EST
  • "Your citation of the article about Prof. Churchill deals only with issues of academic honesty .."

    S.J.: look up Mr. Ward Leroy Churchill, M.A., in --

    http://www.ratemyprofessor.com.

    He's not just a deceiver and scam artist. Also, the faux-Indian meta-site:

    http://www.pirateballerina.com/index.php

    All this dreck about "anyone with a problem can contact the dean." That's the same ridiculous, bureaucratic excuse Detroit used to use about Toyota, Honda and Nissan.

    What are you people being paid for -- to clean up messes? Or ensure quality?

    Vouchers and charters, people. Vouchers and charters.

  • Posted by Hoosier Prof on January 12, 2006 at 10:32am EST
  • Oh, puh-leeze, David! You haven't lied, but you have posted lies and rumor manufactured by others, without substantiating them? You have attempted to ruin careers, relying on the lies of others to do it? Can you spell "disingenuous"?

    However, my biggest problem with this discussion is not the Horowitz political agenda, since fortunately it has suffered a nice setback. It's with those posters who continue to argue that the political preferences of faculty damage students. We have plenty of evidence that faculty are disproportionately liberal. SO WHAT???
    (credit to Jordan for posting the same observation yesterday).

    So c'mon people, where's the beef? I want to see cold hard evidence that faculty damage student learning by inserting politics where it does not belong. Until you produce this, I'll just believe you're sore losers, can't tolerate diversity and dissension, or have some other unrealistic and illogical idea that we should all think alike.

  • Evidence?
  • Posted by Federal Dog on January 12, 2006 at 10:41am EST
  • Do you have any evidence that anyone, including Horowitz, has lied? If so, why didn't you post it? If not, why do you think no one will immediately notice that fact?

    http://www.goacta.org/press/Press%20Releases/11-30-04PR.htm

  • Wha .. ? Diversity?
  • Posted by Art D. on January 12, 2006 at 11:03am EST
  • " .. can’t tolerate diversity and dissension .."

    Wha ..? This, from groups that viciously fight vouchers and charters that would create diversity of academic thought?

    Who's zoomin' who? We have diversity, by locking out other suppliers?

    What a load of unadulterated crap.

  • Posted by Hoosier Prof on January 12, 2006 at 11:03am EST
  • Federal Dog, right now, I don't have any evidence that you understood my post.

  • Mr. Horowitz, a question
  • Posted by Andrew Purvis on January 12, 2006 at 1:24pm EST
  • I cannot say, having not spoken to the "hundreds of students" (we have at least one person here who has claimed to have documentary evidence numbering in the thousands, but that may only be the number of stories, not incidents) who have addressed you personally. I do have to ask this, however: do you accept every student's claim at face value?

    Every day, students claim that teachers, instructors, and professors grade them down based upon certain criteria, despite their not having clear evidence to prove such claims, which is not to say that such cases can never be made.

    I do not doubt that such incidents take place or that they take place with some measurable frequency. I am still waiting to see what that frequency is amid the background noise of all students in this nation, however. While I do not believe that the loss of even one class is insignificant, I cannot support the use of legislation to change the landscape unless this issue is demonstrated to be extreme.

    Let me put it this way: Is this a serious enough problem that we MUST legislate it if 250 students per year make verifiable reports of bias that include a failure of the campus to provide remedies? The Department of Education lists around 10,000 post-secondary institutions, and even after factoring out those that do not offer degrees, we still have handily over 5,000. Consider that of the hypothetical 250 claims, there is overlap with the faculty, and therefore also with the institution (how many claims might, since people seem to enjoy mentioning him, might Ward Churchill garner? and thus how many for UCB before anyone else on that campus?) Add that there are usually hundreds, often thousands or even tens of thousands of students on campuses, and suddenly these cases—not one of which should have ever happened—appear relatively few in the larger context.

    Are such cases in need of remedy? Yes. Is legislation the way to go? I doubt it. Challenge my figures (I know someone is already itching). What is the magic number? 2,500? 25,000? At what point does this become a problem that is so large it demands legislation because no other remedy exists? Have we actually reached that point in this country (and if you think we have, could such a claim come with a definition of that line and argument for why legislation, rather than other forms of remediation, is the best course of action)?

  • ACTA
  • Posted by Andrew Purvis on January 12, 2006 at 1:46pm EST
  • Federal Dog,

    That ACTA link is quite popular. I have to say that the information is interesting, if less than valuable. It takes a fair number of exceptionally broad figures and proposes links between them that are not supported by any clear methodology in evidence on the site, though valid methodologies may well be present behind it.

    Allow me to demonstrate how dangerously vague the information is with this part:

    —46% say professors “use the classroom to present their personal political views.”

    Which views are those? If students, in a year, take courses from an average of six professors, half of them will have a conservative professors. If conservative professors were to proselytize out of proportion to their non-conservative colleagues, it would be possible for students to be complain almost exclusively about conservatives. Let's not even consider, in that, that the ACTA study does not account for the reasons people affiliate with different parties, nor does it account for any registration beyond Democrats and Republicans (and therefore not for those of us who refuse to affiliate with any party).

    Let's take, however, Mr. Horowitz at his word when he says he wants to defend all students from bias. OK, but I have difficulty with the gap between what students report and what students suffer. Students will report what they feel is bias, but that does not mean that there is bias in every case. The ACTA study utterly fails to address the gap between student reports and verified cases, so we have no way of knowing what real value those figures have.

    I don't mind that people want to hold up these ACTA numbers as a sign that there is an issue, but I would like to see people using the information that is there, not the best use of spin desire to make the numbers appear to say something that they cannot directly support. Could some data support the claims you are making? In theory, yes. The ACTA figures, however, are not that data.

  • Andrew
  • Posted by Federal Dog on January 12, 2006 at 1:46pm EST
  • Your post is a reasonable and civil one. I wonder, however, what "other forms of remediation" you have in mind? No one likes the idea of the state coming in and meddling in classroom concerns, but what alternative do you propose? Given that individuals involved did exhaust their institutional remedies to no avail, what happens when the schools refuse to monitor themselves for abuse? That's the question here.

    I also wonder what evidence you would require before a student's account of improper classroom conduct may be taken seriously? Eyewitnesses relating first-hand information routinely constitute good, admissible evidence in court. Unless we simply posit that the students in question are lying, on what basis do we dismiss their accounts as false or unreliable?

  • Again to Andrew
  • Posted by Federal Dog on January 12, 2006 at 2:36pm EST
  • A link at the ACTA site shows where to secure the full questions and data involved. sirseth's post is also useful in this regard: ACTA, ACE, and other institutions have been asking the schools to end the problem without external intervention for years now.

    My point is this: Some people have stated that no studies show that a problem exists, and that contention is false. That was the sole point of that link (and of sirseth's post, I gather).

  • Posted by Hoosier Prof on January 12, 2006 at 2:36pm EST
  • A useful post, Andrew. Federal Dog, ACTA is hardly a neutral party, and the conclusions they arrive at using a single, methodologically sound but very limited study should be taken with a large grain of salt.

    So far as I can tell using ACTA's own press release on the study, the survey in question has two principal limitations: it samples elite schools only so does not represent the views of all U.S. students and, as far as I can tell, it only attempts to count incidences of partisan faculty rhetoric in the classroom rather than assessing its impact (anyone with the full set of survey questions, please set me straight with a URL if you can).

    The real question is still about IMPACT, and none of the posters today who defend the ABOR have yet met my challenge to prove that faculty bias harms student learning.

    What about those faculty who use partisan discussion is a teaching tool, to foster debate and encourage students to use evidence to defend their POV? What about the students who appreciate inflammatory rhetoric because it gives them something to get passionate about, gets them out of their seats, and motivates them to engage in the course material, and to become better at formulating and defending an opinion? Who ever said learning and personal growth was comfortable?

    I knew a Marxist who taught at a military school for many years. Over the years, his students and colleagues wrote very kind things about his ability to stimulate debate, student learning, and argumentation skills based on logic. He also expressed his opinion when asked. Where would he show up on the ACTA survey -- as a villain or a hero?

    But rhetoric in the classroom can also cause students to change their opinions... and there's the rub. No self-respecting neocon wants to give faculty a chance to open students' minds when it means they might go 'blue'. Hence the cooptation of the ABOR by the right.

    From Donald Lazare, in the July 2005 issue of Cultural Studies (19/4): "Any attempt by teachers to challenge that conformity and oblige students to support their opinions with evidence and reasoned argument is apt to cause defensive students to complain they are the victims of liberal ‘bias’."

  • Posted by Federal Dog on January 12, 2006 at 4:28pm EST
  • "No self-respecting neocon wants to give faculty a chance to open students’ minds when it means they might go ‘blue’. Hence the cooptation of the ABOR by the right."

    Oh, boy. I see you've got the whole plot figured out.

    Well, have a nice day.

  • Chill, IP
  • Posted by Art D. on January 12, 2006 at 5:18pm EST
  • " .. I’m a person, not a group. And I happen to support vouchers. .."

    Dude .. chill. Your arm-flapping is just making the case for Mr. Horowitz.

    I would have been happy to direct my comments at you directly. But then we get into the dreaded "ad-hom" bitch (a.k.a., knee-jerk reaction when one cannot thing of anything logical).

    How one can (a) be for the Public College Monopoly and (b) yet be for vouchers is beyond me. Next time I see Gov. Daniels, I'll mention this to him, that there is support for college vouchers and charters.

    Have a nice day. Have a stiff drink -- it can help, sometimes. Or a long walk, with a friendly dog.

  • Bravo
  • Posted by Justin on January 13, 2006 at 4:33am EST
  • I think it's safe to assume that anything David Horowitz says or does is utter b.s. The sad fact is that whether any of what he said is true or not, it may as well be true, because the masses who have heard that so called liberal professors have an agenda is going to sink in as the truth. They have heard him talk about it, I'm sure O'Reilly and Co. have hammered the fallacious point down. While this proves that all of what Horowitz said was bunk, it's a minor victory, because the media coverage of his so called Academic Bill of Rights has magnified these false facts to such a point that most people will believe them anyway (or worse yet, see any objective analysis of these claims as an agenda by the liberal "elite").

    Proof is there is hardly any evidence that any professor in any college, has used political points in a non political setting, nor is there evidence that a professor has penalized a student for not following their political views. Sure, as a student, one does develop a certain theory of what the teacher wants to hear, which is probably more of a student's anxiety to get a good grade than it is an actual professor's belief.

  • Horowitz article
  • Posted by G. Newton on January 13, 2006 at 4:34am EST
  • I was reading an article by David Horowitz on his web site FrontPageMag.com and was directed to this web site. I am a fan of his so I'm biased toward his point of view. But that aside, I had an experience when I was an undergraduate at the University of South Florida at Tampa. My major required a course that was taught by the worst teacher in the department. I say the worst because he didn't lecture or come prepared with notes, but just sat and BS'd with the students about any and everything. He bragged about having gone to Moscow University and made it obvious that he was proud of being on the left. Actually, at the time I was pretty naive about all this left and right business, as I was busy working and going to school and had very little time for politics. But I remember how angry I was in his class for having to sit and listen to his nonsense. And to this day I still believe he never read a single paper that was turned in, but gave out grades based on who knows what. So, in my opinion I think there should be a Student Bill of Rights to protect kids from being indoctrinated by teachers who have a political agenda.

  • Truth, Lies, and Horowitz
  • Posted by Keith on January 13, 2006 at 4:35am EST
  • Federal Dog asks, "Do you have evidence that anyone, including Horowitz, has lied?" (Yes, momentarily.) Horowitz himself says, in the opening article here that "Jamie Horwitz [of the ATF] has no evidence or proof that I have ever lied." (I do.)

    He further says, "I have protected professors. I have not posted their names and pilloried them." Now see the post above by Dr. Clifton Snider of CSULB in which he clearly states he was named by Horowitz in his frontpagemag.com and smeared with lies and distortions by his then student.

    I myself have in hand a hard copy of a post from Sept 11, 2004 at studentsforacademicfreedom.org (Horowitz' web site) by the same student in which Snider's name (with email address) is posted and pilloried by a multitude of distortions and unsubstantiated claims.

    In point of fact, the original posting by Ms. Marissa Freimanis (She originally posted anonymously, but since launching her Internet and TV career has been using her name) is full of untruths of a factual nature, and the attack is clearly motivated by bias as it was laden with antipathy to not only the professor's liberalism but also his "sexual perversion," and to "his own gay literature"--information about his work that is easily gleaned from Snider's web pages. Her claims are twisted and exaggerated to inflame like-minded prejudice. Much is simply false.

    Horowitz admits he can't prove his alleged incidents of professorial abuse happened. "I can't investigate every story, " he says. Yet why should that stop him from going ahead and publishing them anyway, without checking the facts--like a responsible journalist or columnist might be tempted to do--along with the professor's name and email address. That may do the job as well, or better, than the truth, so thinketh the true believer.

    So Horowitz didn't lie, he merely spoke an untruth when he said he has not posted the names of professors, and it wasn't him doing it, it was his web site, and look! there goes another flock of pigs.

    If the the details are wrong, I thinkI have a right to be skeptical of the broad brush landscape Horowitz would abstract for the public. It is unbelievable to hear him claim that his objective is not to get liberal bias out of the classroom but rather to protect students on both the right and the left. Look up idealogue in the dictionary, and there is David Horowitz' picture. Under synonyms, see propagandist.

  • Posted by William N. Otis , Business owner on January 13, 2006 at 7:57am EST
  • I have been following this issue for some time. I have read posts and articles by critics of David Horowitz, and read David's responses to his critics.

    Sorry, but I have to say that Mr. Horowitz's wins the argument hands down. There has been no credible evidence put forth by any of his critics that he has ever lied, or "cooked up" any of these stories. What would be the point?

    Further, David Horowitz is not the only person who has written about this problem in our colleges and universites. He may be the only one who has set out on a course to correct it, so that our son's and daughters are not taught what to think, but how to think, and that they are not penalized or subject to ridicule if their views or conclusions are in disagreement with a professors.

    What is the purpose of education?

    I would think that those in the teaching profession would be interested in seeing to it that the highest standards of education are upheld, and that critical thinking skills and intelectual honesty be the goal, not the the cloning of a professors political views. Sadly, it seems this is not the case, as most of Horowitz's critics have instead responded only with personal attacks on his character and motives, and denied that any problem exists.

    Finally, I thought that in liberal circles it was the "seriousness of the charge" that was important. Apparently there is a double standard in education as well as in politics.

  • Turn About Is Fair Play
  • Posted by Rob Weir on January 13, 2006 at 11:27am EST
  • Intersting that Horowitz argues that the substance of his examples are true even if the actual example is not.

    Let me see, didn't Michael Moore make that same case when conservatives jumped all over his films? And didn't the same conservatives scream that his explanation wasn't good enough and dismiss everything he said as ideological fakery?

    Hey, turn about is fair play and the sooner that people get the idea that Horowitz is a right-wing hack who preys on fear rather than responds to reality, the better.

  • Right-wing hacks, screaming and jumping conservatives, etc.
  • Posted by Federal Dog on January 13, 2006 at 12:06pm EST
  • Neocon plots, right-wing hacks, screaming and jumping conservatives, etc.: And you people pretend that no political bias exists in the academy? What exactly has gone wrong with your thinking skills??

    Again, set Horowitz aside and **deal with all the other witnesses** without the mindless name-calling and hysteria. Is Stephen Zelnick a screaming and jumping conservative hack neocon mind-controller too? Really??

    SHEESH!

  • Horowitz's argument is hopelessly flawed
  • Posted by David Dimwitz on January 13, 2006 at 2:14pm EST
  • The premise at the heart of Horowitz's call for AA for conservative faculty is completely specious. Taking a liberal position on issues is not merely a political stance, but in many, if not most, disciplines it is also an intellectual one. Economists, sociologists, political scientists, environmental scientists, city planners, engineeers, philosophers, etc. who take a liberal stance on issues in their field are not simply expressing their political views, they are staking their intellectual commitments. Legislating quotas on political affiliation is tantamount to legislating the intellectual content of the disciplines themselves. That's not "affirmative" anything. If conservative intellectuals want to get equal footing in these disciplines, make compelling arguments, don't try to go 'round the backdoor because you couldn't win in the marketplace of ideas. That's duplicitous.

    No other public institution hires on the basis of political affiliation, and notice none of these ranters are calling for similar measures in other public institutions. To take but one related example, the federal Department of Education has no requirement that employees be hired or appointed in equal proportions according to party affiliation. (Saying that a Republican administration is in power so they get to choose who they want does not hold water in this argument, it's still a public institution not an administraionn's feifdom). If Horowitz and his defenders are concerned with "bias" any bias in education, not just a position other than their own, and are concerned about the impact on students, to be consistent they should direct their attention to the DOE and similar institutions. After all, the DOE controls the purse strings and more and more frequently is getting involved in curriculum and evaluation. What are the political affiliations of those in decision-making positions of the DOE? Is it a balanced distribution? Of course not. They must be politically and religiously biased, then (there's PLENTY of evidence for that claim), so Mr. Horowitz, I've found another target for you.

    What Horowitz, Art D, federal dog, etc. are actually angry about is that most of the intellectually best and brightest (if that's who ends up at our institutions of higher ed) are liberal and are unlikely to stifle the knowledge they've gained that led them to be in their teaching and writing. That's it, there's no principle or moral cause. The proof of this is that their supposed guiding principle is at stake in lots of institutions, but they are not concerned about it in those situations because it is not politically expedient to do so.

  • 'Dimwitz' says it all
  • Posted by Art D. on January 13, 2006 at 2:54pm EST
  • "What Horowitz, Art D, federal dog, etc. are actually angry about is that most of the intellectually best and brightest (if that’s who ends up at our institutions of higher ed) are liberal .."

    'Dimwitz' says it all. John Roberts, A. Scalia, George Will, S. Alito, et al., they all really faked their way through college. While Teddy Kennedy studied hard (at two colleges -- guess why?).

    Reading that crap is like listening to Jane Fonda's twin-sided apology for supporting the Viet Cong while John McCain was being tortured. But at least Jane isn't on the public dime.

    Great job, Dimwitz. You're a real IQ-93.

  • Stop misrepresenting things
  • Posted by Federal Dog on January 13, 2006 at 2:54pm EST
  • Horowitz has never suggested or demanded affirmative action for conservatives. It is unethical, to say the least, that you continue to spread this misrepresentation, especially after several unanswered requests for proof of your accusations. The ABOR expressly forbids using politics as the basis for grading, hiring, and promotion.

    Deal with the facts. Either post the language in the ABOR that demands AA for conservatives, or stop spreading falsehoods.

  • Lay off my dog, "Dude"
  • Posted by Hoosier Prof on January 13, 2006 at 3:24pm EST
  • Federal Dog and Art -- it's an interesting reflection on you that you have chosen to attack the political opinions I've shared with you and not to address the substantive questions I've posed and facts I've shared. Frankly, my politics are none of your business, and your ranting and raving don't change a thing. So the drink's on me. And keep my dog out of it -- she's innocent, "Dude."

    On the matter of whether a right-wing agenda has attached itself to Horowitz's bandwagon, you would have to be living in Lalaland not to notice the strong attachment of the neocons to this cause. Go read about ACTA, its founders and its agenda. I find it sad -- sort of a right-wing spin on what's happened to Cindy Sheehan -- but there it is.

    Mr. Otis, good points, but if we don't yet agree on the "charge," how can we advance to assessing its "seriousness"? It is clear from these posts that we don't even agree on the problem. Some (those who would have us all think alike, I guess) say the problem is liberal bias among faculty. Others say it's political bias of any kind. Others say it's those who cannot keep any kind of politics out of the classroom. For others, it's rhetoric that has a negative impact on students (i.e., stifles debate and student learning).

    Did I get them all? I'm plum wore out.

  • Horowitz wants diversity in faculty hiring
  • Posted by Keith on January 13, 2006 at 6:55pm EST
  • Federal Dog,

    Your outraged call for evidence that Horowitz' has suggested affirmative action for conservatives in the academia is touching. But first a small correction: David Dimwitz, above, does not say that ABOR calls for affirmative action for conservatives. He does say that Horowitz is calling for conservative faculty. So, here you go, from the Students for Academic Freedom:

    "It is the goal of Students for Academic Freedom to secure greater representation for under-represented ideas and to promote intellectual fairness and inclusion in all aspects of the curriculum, including the faculty hiring process, the spectrum of courses available, reading materials assigned, and in the decorum of the classroom and the campus public square."

    To repeat: ". . . including the hiring process."

    Looks like a fairly clear suggestion to me. Horowitz and company would like more conservative hires. Okay?

  • Hoosier Prof: funding terminated
  • Posted by Art D. on January 13, 2006 at 8:41pm EST
  • The anti-ABOR people remind me of an idiot senior asst. dean (SAD), trying to defend a set of professors who, when challenged about their generalized grading rubric, could NOT provide any specific, real-world examples. The SAD whined and complained about everything (funding, staffing, astrology) -- but never addressed the main issue, lack of specific examples.

    Let's assume we agree to disagree. At this point, given how useless I see the world according to the Grover Furr-Ward Churchill axis, I'm going to use my constitutional rights to divert funding from public higher education to vouchers for private colleges.

    You had a chance to fix things but didn't -- this is on you. Good luck with your career at Starbucks. Have a nice day.

  • Unbelievable Bald-Faced Deception
  • Posted by Federal Dog on January 13, 2006 at 8:41pm EST
  • Some statement by Students for Academic Freedom is obviously NOT the ABOR. Here is the ABOR, to prevent you from trying to deceive people again:

    Academic Bill of Rights

    I. The Mission of the University.

    The central purposes of a University are the pursuit of truth, the discovery of new knowledge through scholarship and research, the study and reasoned criticism of intellectual and cultural traditions, the teaching and general development of students to help them become creative individuals and productive citizens of a pluralistic democracy, and the transmission of knowledge and learning to a society at large. Free inquiry and free speech within the academic community are indispensable to the achievement of these goals. The freedom to teach and to learn depend upon the creation of appropriate conditions and opportunities on the campus as a whole as well as in the classrooms and lecture halls. These purposes reflect the values -- pluralism, diversity, opportunity, critical intelligence, openness and fairness -- that are the cornerstones of American society.

    II. Academic Freedom

    1. The Concept . Academic freedom and intellectual diversity are values indispensable to the American university. From its first formulation in the General Report of the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure of the American Association of University Professors, the concept of academic freedom has been premised on the idea that human knowledge is a never-ending pursuit of the truth, that there is no humanly accessible truth that is not in principle open to challenge, and that no party or intellectual faction has a monopoly on wisdom. Therefore, academic freedom is most likely to thrive in an environment of intellectual diversity that protects and fosters independence of thought and speech. In the words of the General Report, it is vital to protect “as the first condition of progress, [a] complete and unlimited freedom to pursue inquiry and publish its results.”

    Because free inquiry and its fruits are crucial to the democratic enterprise itself, academic freedom is a national value as well. In a historic 1967 decision ( Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York ) the Supreme Court of the United States overturned a New York State loyalty provision for teachers with these words: “Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, [a] transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned.” In Sweezy v. New Hampshire, (1957) the Court observed that the “essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities [was] almost self-evident.”

    2. The Practice . Academic freedom consists in protecting the intellectual independence of professors, researchers and students in the pursuit of knowledge and the expression of ideas from interference by legislators or authorities within the institution itself. This means that no political, ideological or religious orthodoxy will be imposed on professors and researchers through the hiring or tenure or termination process, or through any other administrative means by the academic institution. Nor shall legislatures impose any such orthodoxy through their control of the university budget.

    This protection includes students. From the first statement on academic freedom, it has been recognized that intellectual independence means the protection of students – as well as faculty – from the imposition of any orthodoxy of a political, religious or ideological nature. The 1915 General Report admonished faculty to avoid “taking unfair advantage of the student’s immaturity by indoctrinating him with the teacher’s own opinions before the student has had an opportunity fairly to examine other opinions upon the matters in question, and before he has sufficient knowledge and ripeness of judgment to be entitled to form any definitive opinion of his own.” In 1967, the AAUP’s Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students reinforced and amplified this injunction by affirming the inseparability of “the freedom to teach and freedom to learn.” In the words of the report, “Students should be free to take reasoned exception to the data or views offered in any course of study and to reserve judgment about matters of opinion.”

    Therefore, to secure the intellectual independence of faculty and students and to protect the principle of intellectual diversity, the following principles and procedures shall be observed.

    These principles fully apply only to public universities and to private universities that present themselves as bound by the canons of academic freedom. Private institutions choosing to restrict academic freedom on the basis of creed have an obligation to be as explicit as is possible about the scope and nature of these restrictions.

    1. All faculty shall be hired, fired, promoted and granted tenure on the basis of their competence and appropriate knowledge in the field of their expertise and, in the humanities, the social sciences, and the arts, with a view toward fostering a plurality of methodologies and perspectives. No faculty shall be hired or fired or denied promotion or tenure on the basis of his or her political or religious beliefs.

    2. No faculty member will be excluded from tenure, search and hiring committees on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.

    3. Students will be graded solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects and disciplines they study, not on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.

    4. Curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences should reflect the uncertainty and unsettled character of all human knowledge in these areas by providing students with dissenting sources and viewpoints where appropriate. While teachers are and should be free to pursue their own findings and perspectives in presenting their views, they should consider and make their students aware of other viewpoints. Academic disciplines should welcome a diversity of approaches to unsettled questions.

    5. Exposing students to the spectrum of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects examined in their courses is a major responsibility of faculty. Faculty will not use their courses for the purpose of political, ideological, religious or anti-religious indoctrination.

    6. Selection of speakers, allocation of funds for speakers programs and other student activities will observe the principles of academic freedom and promote intellectual pluralism.

    7. An environment conducive to the civil exchange of ideas being an essential component of a free university, the obstruction of invited campus speakers, destruction of campus literature or other effort to obstruct this exchange will not be tolerated.

    8. Knowledge advances when individual scholars are left free to reach their own conclusions about which methods, facts, and theories have been validated by research. Academic institutions and professional societies formed to advance knowledge within an area of research, maintain the integrity of the research process, and organize the professional lives of related researchers serve as indispensable venues within which scholars circulate research findings and debate their interpretation. To perform these functions adequately, academic institutions and professional societies should maintain a posture of organizational neutrality with respect to the substantive disagreements that divide researchers on questions within, or outside, their fields of inquiry.

    Op. cit., p. 50

  • Posted by Dan D. on January 13, 2006 at 8:56pm EST
  • Temple University workers are not “Gub-mint” workers. Only about 15% of the operating budget is supplied directly from government funds.

    See:

    http://www.temple.edu/controller/treasurer%27s_reports/FY05%20Consolidated%20Final.pdf

  • Oh -- really?
  • Posted by A.D. on January 14, 2006 at 5:02am EST
  • "Temple University workers are not “Gub-mint” workers .."

    Then why hasn't TU gone private, sir? And tell David H. to go to Heck?

    Oh -- and who holds title on TU's properties? Is TU paying market-level rents?

    Either fish or cut bait. Whining gets you nowhere.

  • Diversity in hiring and in the classroom
  • Posted by Keith on January 14, 2006 at 5:03am EST
  • The proposed legislation called ABOR is but one part of Horowitz' dream of re-shaping the academy. The statement regarding the goal of Students for Academic Freedom to affect "the faculty hiring process" is from their web site, the part titled "Students for Academic Freedom Mission and Strategy." Take a look. It's their statement. In ADDITION to what is in the ABOR, Horowitz would like to see a more diversified faculty through the hiring process. It's such a small thing to admit.

    As to the legislation, the burden of proof is on those who claim universities are abusing the rights of students or faculty, or are failing to follow their own policies, now in place, for academic freedom and the redress of grievances. That is why false claims matter. The burden of proof to provide credible evidence is on Horowitz & friends.

    Having attended several colleges and universities, both private and public, religious and secular, conservative, liberal and in-between, in three states, I have been the grateful beneficiary of a wide academic diversity. Sometimes I learned the most from those with the most divergent positions from my own. I certainly would not have liked to see any of my professors with a state legislature wagging its finger in their syllabi. The benefits of big government aren't what they're sometimes cracked up to be.

  • Exactly my point: It's not there
  • Posted by Federal Dog on January 14, 2006 at 9:58am EST
  • Now that you are faced with the actual language in play in both schools and legislatures, you try to deceive people again by insisting on some statement by some student group that has nothing to do with anything, hoping people are too stupid to notice your ploy. No one put any student group statement to any vote. No student group statement is before any school or legislature. Stop trying to deceive people. Neither Horowitz nor the ABOR demands AA for conservatives, and your inability to do anything more than post off-topic remarks by some irrelevant student group proves it.

    If you had received a decent education, you'd have been able to make a honest, decent argument here instead of repeated deception.

  • Posted by Dan D. on January 14, 2006 at 9:59am EST
  • A.D.:

    When temple rents (or leases, like TUCC) property, Temple obtain the same pricing as any similarly-sized corporation.

    A substantial portion of Temple properties are owned by Temple. Temple operates as a private institution.

  • Posted by Hoosier Prof on January 14, 2006 at 9:59am EST
  • Art is "going to use [his] constitutional rights to divert funding from public higher education to vouchers for private colleges."

    Wonderful! By the way, did I ever mention that I work in the public sector?? I don't think so. The problem with debates is that they don't work when one side makes inaccurate assumptions or uses faulty logic.

    So I'm going back to my secure, private sector job now, Art. Stopping in at a Starbucks on the way, perhaps. Have fun making up whatever comes into your head. Just don't expect us to understand what you're saying.

  • Clarification
  • Posted by Federal Dog on January 14, 2006 at 12:13pm EST
  • "Neither Horowitz nor the ABOR demands AA for conservatives, and your inability to do anything more than post off-topic remarks by some irrelevant student group proves it."

    I feel badly about posting the above language: The students in question are clearly not irrelevant. On the contrary. Students bear the direct brunt of classroom abuse, and therefore know better than anyone what that abuse consists of. What is irrelevant and offensive is people trying to deceive others into falsely believing that a statement made by any student group bears any relation to Horowitz or to the content of the ABOR as it has been presented to schools and legislatures. That misrepresentation of the content and scope of the ABOR is both false and unethical.

    I wanted to clarify my meaning in the event that anyone from Students for Academic Freedom is following this thread. You are far from irrelevant, and I regret my sloppy amd unwittingly disrespectful language.

  • Got a dog in this fight?
  • Posted by Art. D. on January 14, 2006 at 12:23pm EST
  • For the second time (see previous) --

    The alleged Hoosier Prof (professor? or professional?) leaves it unclear what he actually does. He seems to indicate he is in private sector, but is violently against ABOR, for reasons unknown.

    IMHO, ABOR has been focused 99.99% on public colleges -- because the public's money is involved. Also, engaging a private insitution would be several times more difficult.

    Again -- why someone is violently against ABOR but in the private sector is beyond my comprehension. Could schizophrenia involved?

    As to this -- "So I’m going back to my secure, private sector job"

    Where could that be, today? Ford? GM? IBM?

    Hoser buddy, you're just bizarre. When you get back to Planet Celestia, thank them for us, for taking care of you. Have a nice day.

  • Deception?
  • Posted by Keith on January 14, 2006 at 1:07pm EST
  • There's no ploy and no deception. Not on this end. So let's break it down.

    You said, and said it with great moral outrage: "Horowitz has never suggested or demanded affirmative action for conservatives." That was the simple claim I was addressing.

    Now, do you understand that Students for Academic Freedom is Horowitz' organization, the mouthpiece through which he advances his reform agenda?

    I showed you that in their Mission and Strategy statement SAF (that is, Horowitz, and I doubt you'll get him to disavow his own Mission Statement) -- SAF said it was their aim to diversify the academic marketplace of ideas, in part by affecting “the faculty hiring process.”

    This is clear simple logic. I understand that you have a drum to beat (ABOR, ABOR, ABOR) and will continue to do it single-mindedly, but you must read others' comments carefully and honestly if you want to be taken seriously when you start shrilling "ploy" and "deception."

    I was not talking about ABOR, but rather your claim about what Horowitz has or has not suggested. Now, please ignore this and resume your chant.

  • Temple & ABOR - how odd
  • Posted by Art D. on January 14, 2006 at 1:07pm EST
  • As to this: "Temple operates as a private institution."

    From the first line of --

    http://www.temple.edu/about.html

    "Temple University, of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education, is a comprehensive public research university .."

    Should the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office be notified? Public property being used as if it was privately owned?

    For the second time -- if Temple really wants ABOR off its back, it should go private and take its financial responsibilities off the backs of the taxpayers of Pennsylvania.

    Otherwise -- Temple is expected they will have to do what the laws require or accept the consequences -- Temple's choice. (And if they do -- please, no whining. It was your choice.)

    As to this: "A substantial portion of Temple properties are owned by Temple."

    See aforementioned. If I have to make it any simpler, I'll be at 7th-grade level.

  • Posted by Hoosier Prof on January 14, 2006 at 1:26pm EST
  • Oh, pshaw, Art -- you're spending so much time and effort on me, I'm positively blushing. You still don't have my story straight (nope, not close) but I'm hardly worth more energy. Unless, of course, you have no other way of engaging in this debate except to poke holes in arguments by continuing to make personal attacks. Most grownups know, however, that arguments are not removed from debate by attacking the credibility of the individuals who make them.

    Wait a sec ... neocons who spend their time and energy poking holes in the credibility of the individuals who make valid, well-reasoned arguments about U.S. foreign policy... Golly, that sounds familiar. Isn't that where we started?

  • Your repeated, intentional deceptions
  • Posted by Federal Dog on January 14, 2006 at 2:29pm EST
  • Students for Academic Freedom is not Horowitz's mouthpiece. Now *you* are being not only disrespectful of the students, but your disrespect towards them is intentional. They are not puppets, or mouthpieces, or political dupes, or anything of the sort. They are students committed to their education who are dissenting from political abuse in the classroom. You simply got caught lying about Horowitz, and once faced with concrete evidence of your lie, you are trying to compound it by taking what some student organization said, reducing the students to some mindless puppets being played for political stooges by Horowitz, and trying to plant the words in Horowitz's mouth that way.

    Unethical. You are completely unethical and lacking in decency. I only hope that you have nothing to do with classroom instruction in any capacity anywhere, given what you have shown yourself to be here.

  • P.S.
  • Posted by Keith on January 14, 2006 at 6:46pm EST
  • I'm suddenly reminded of an old joke about the building inspector, from my years in the construction industry (as well as academia): Arguing with an inspector is like wrestling with a pig in the mud. After a while you begin to realize on that he likes it.

    Well, sometimes you have to do it. Argument--civil argument--is good. But for criminey's sake, be honest! Tell the truth as best you can and admit the facts when faced with them.

  • Posted by Dan D. on January 14, 2006 at 6:46pm EST
  • Art D:

    Pennsylvania has 14 state-owned institutions; Temple is not one of them.

    There are 4 privately-owned, state-affiliated institutions (“of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education”) in Pennsylvania: Lincoln University, Penn College, Penn State University, and Temple University.

  • Unethical? Check the facts
  • Posted by Keith on January 14, 2006 at 6:46pm EST
  • I was beginning to think Federal Dog was simply ignorant about the connection of David Horowitz and Students for Academic Freedom. Now I as I see him continue to insist it is just “some student organization,” I have to conclude he is being intentionaly deceptive, full of mock rage and false charges. Reason and truth are, however, stronger than propaganda.

    For anyone interested in the facts, Students for Academic Freedom was founded by David Horowitz in June 2003. It is affiliated with David Horowitz, the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, and Frontpagemag.com. SAF was created as part of a campaign by David Horowitz to pass the ‘Academic Bill of Rights’ and combat liberalism and Democrats on college and university campuses and to promote intellectual diversity.

    Sources:
    People for the American Way
    http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=16227

    Source Watch, a project of the Center for Media & Democracy
    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Students_for_Academic_Freedom

    Also, check the SAF web site.

    I recommend doing a little research before continuing to make outlandish and false charges.

  • David Horowitz, SAF, and Clifton Snider
  • Posted by emilyh on January 14, 2006 at 6:47pm EST
  • Anyone who doubts the connection between David Horowitz and Students for Academic Freedom should visit these sites:

    http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/reports/RepliestoCritics.htm

    http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/index.asp

    I found these simply by doing a Google search using the words "David Horowitz Students for Academic Freedom”.

    Reading this thread, I notice no one, apart from Jordan and Keith, has acknowledged the evidence offered by Dr. Clifton Snider of California State University, Long Beach, that Horowitz did indeed lie when
    “noted that when he publicizes such stories, he does not print the names of the professors involved” (see article above). If the example of Dr. Snider and the others which Horowitz admits he has no evidence for are typical, Horowitz does not have a case, for these false examples taint all his others.

    Over and over in this thread commentators have suggested that to support his case Horowitz needs adequate and verifiable evidence, yet Federal Dog and others fail to address this vital issue. If a student in my classes did what Horowitz admits he has done he/she would get a failing grade on the assignment he/she did it on. Doris Kearns Goodwin and Stephen Ambrose got into big trouble for smaller scholarly infractions. And James Frey, author of "A Million Little Pieces," is now learning the importance of telling the truth.

    To return to Dr. Snider’s example, I have followed his case closely and read Marissa Freimanis’s comments closely, both when she was still Snider’s student and when she was no longer his student. I noticed a distinct refinement (I will not say improvement) in her writing style. She began to echo the language of those who I can only assume were her mentors. In fact, in my first online comment about this matter I wrote:

    “This particular student [Marissa Freimanis] seems to have been reading the comments of other, more practiced writers of right-wing diatribes, for she echoes and/or uses some of their exact words. Referring to Snider's list of books for the book review, she writes, "My favorite examples . . ." whereas [Mike] Adams, referring to the argument topics, writes, "my favorite entries . . ." and The Washington Times, referring to the same list, writes "Our favorite . . ." Am I going too far to wonder whether Ms. Freimanis is guilty of plagiarism?” See

    http://www.democrats.us/beta/forum/view_topic.php?id=2118&forum_id=3&page=1

    As I wrote in the same thread last November, “ this episode should have
    ended with the 2004 fall semester,” but Freimanis, backed by Mr. Horowitz, chose to continue telling lies about my friend, Dr. Snider, on the Internet and on TV. It is time for her either to “shut up” (to use the language of one of her supporters) or to produce proof that she had a “straight-A record” that was broken by her score on the paragraph on Fahrenheit 9/11. I know that for Snider that is the main issue, the fact that his professional integrity has been smeared by someone who is unable to prove her charge.

  • Emily
  • Posted by Federal Dog on January 14, 2006 at 9:40pm EST
  • The SAF site contains many links to _Inside Higher Education_ too (as well as to the NYT, Haaretz, WashPo, etc.). Does that fact establish that Scott Jaschik controls SAF and that its statements are directly attributable to SJ? No: all the links posted on that site, including Horowitz's, involve the topic of academic freedom. That's the reason they are collected there. If you have proof that statements issued by that student group come from Horowitz, please prove it.

    As for the PFAW allegations in a prior post, given the _extremely partisan nature of that organization and site_, its obvious political intent, and the fact that nothing whatsoever independently corroborates its allegations, they establish nothing beyond a desire to damage Horowitz (which is exactly why its unsubstantiated accusations are being abused in this thread). You might as well cite to the DU.

    If people want to trash Horowitz, that's their business. But surely they can find his own words to trash him with? No, apparently they can't: they therefore simply invent stuff or deceptively attribute third-party statements to him.

  • Sign Off
  • Posted by Federal Dog on January 14, 2006 at 9:42pm EST
  • I will sign off with this. Find where in the following language (the ABOR, **which alone has been in question all this time**) discriminatory treatment in favor of conservative political orientation is mandated. Good luck!

    1. All faculty shall be hired, fired, promoted and granted tenure on the basis of their competence and appropriate knowledge in the field of their expertise and, in the humanities, the social sciences, and the arts, with a view toward fostering a plurality of methodologies and perspectives. No faculty shall be hired or fired or denied promotion or tenure on the basis of his or her political or religious beliefs.

    2. No faculty member will be excluded from tenure, search and hiring committees on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.

    3. Students will be graded solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects and disciplines they study, not on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.

    4. Curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences should reflect the uncertainty and unsettled character of all human knowledge in these areas by providing students with dissenting sources and viewpoints where appropriate. While teachers are and should be free to pursue their own findings and perspectives in presenting their views, they should consider and make their students aware of other viewpoints. Academic disciplines should welcome a diversity of approaches to unsettled questions.

    5. Exposing students to the spectrum of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects examined in their courses is a major responsibility of faculty. Faculty will not use their courses for the purpose of political, ideological, religious or anti-religious indoctrination.

    6. Selection of speakers, allocation of funds for speakers programs and other student activities will observe the principles of academic freedom and promote intellectual pluralism.

    7. An environment conducive to the civil exchange of ideas being an essential component of a free university, the obstruction of invited campus speakers, destruction of campus literature or other effort to obstruct this exchange will not be tolerated.

    8. Knowledge advances when individual scholars are left free to reach their own conclusions about which methods, facts, and theories have been validated by research. Academic institutions and professional societies formed to advance knowledge within an area of research, maintain the integrity of the research process, and organize the professional lives of related researchers serve as indispensable venues within which scholars circulate research findings and debate their interpretation. To perform these functions adequately, academic institutions and professional societies should maintain a posture of organizational neutrality with respect to the substantive disagreements that divide researchers on questions within, or outside, their fields of inquiry.

  • Really? (Pt. II)
  • Posted by Art D. on January 14, 2006 at 10:00pm EST
  • D.D.: If you are so sure of yourself, provide the name of at least one human and/or corporate shareholder of this alleged "private" entity that you cite. NOT more verbage -- names and facts.

    I don't think there are any shareholders. If Temple were really private -- like a Duke, or an Ivy -- it would tell Mr. Horowitz to get off its private property.

    Temple appears be a quasi-GOVERNMENTAL entity that receives substantial state and federal governmental tax dollars. NOT private -- gub-mint.

    Have a nice day.

  • Speaking truth to ignorance
  • Posted by Art D. on January 15, 2006 at 6:04am EST
  • One tries to treat the Hoser prof from Planet Celestia professionally, gets up-ended, then responds with this --

    "I would have been happy to direct my comments at you directly. But then we get into the dreaded “ad-hom” bitch (a.k.a., knee-jerk reaction when one cannot thing of anything logical)

    Which, after hours of NOT reading the thread, the Prof (???) answers with this --

    " .. Unless, of course, you have no other way of engaging in this debate except to poke holes in arguments by continuing to make personal attacks .."

    The more things change, the less they do.

    All the alleged "fair-minded" academics who "conveniently" showed Mr. Moore's 9/11 just before the 2004 election (w/o their Kerry buttons on) are lucky they are in the U.S. In many countries, they and Mr. Moore would be in jail -- or missing.

    They're all for free speech -- as long as it is just their version -- viz., Pravda. (BTW: I don't need Mr. Moore to explain Pravda to me -- I've read the originals and rejected them as pendantic.)

  • Where Federal Dogs Lie
  • Posted by emilyh on January 15, 2006 at 6:04am EST
  • First, are you pretending that David Horowitz did not found Students for Academic Freedom? Is this a deliberate lie on your part or are you just ignorant?

    Another quick Google search reveals the following scholarly/academic article that identifies David Horowitz as the "founder" (it uses that word) of Students for Academic Freedom: "Reviving the Cultural Wars on Campus," AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, Vol. 2, No. 4, April 2005, p. 3. I teach your strategy of argument under logical fallacies in several of my communications classes. It’s called circulus in probando. Look that up in your Funk & Wagnall.

    Second, you still refuse to acknowledge the fact that Horowitz lied about not mentioning professors’ names and that he acknowledges using examples for which he has no evidence.

    Until you do so, I have nothing further to say.

  • Logic
  • Posted by saintknowitall , Logic is flawed on January 16, 2006 at 3:59pm EST
  • So let me get this straight, there have been no "problems" in the past with professors (liberal or conservative) indoctrinating students. So what is the problem with having standards that say that very thing?

    There is NOTHING in the Academic Bill of Rights that mentions conservative or liberal. Now, since the only people who seem to be protesting are liberal, logic tells us there is an issue.

    I think you protest too much.

  • Connect the dots
  • Posted by saintknowitall on January 16, 2006 at 4:58pm EST
  • EMilyH said the following: "First, are you pretending that David Horowitz did not found Students for Academic Freedom? Is this a deliberate lie on your part or are you just ignorant?"

    I am not sure who founded the Students for Academinc Freedom has to do with the issue of political bias on college campuses. There is either a problem or there isn't. Given the other testimony, it would appear there is. And the fact that there is one reported instance, probably means there are many more that are not reported. And the fact remains that a conservative business professor that denegrates Clinton in his/her classroom would be equally affected by the Bill of Rights.

    So what is the beef, Emily?

  • Confirmation at last
  • Posted by saintknowitall on January 16, 2006 at 4:58pm EST
  • Hoosier Professor said: "So c’mon people, where’s the beef? I want to see cold hard evidence that faculty damage student learning by inserting politics where it does not belong. Until you produce this, I’ll just believe you’re sore losers, can’t tolerate diversity and dissension, or have some other unrealistic and illogical idea that we should all think alike."

    Thanks for confirming what has been said about teachers political agendas. Horowitz has been redeemed.

    For the record professor, you have not been hired to "insert politics". You have been taught to present ALL relevant information. So thanks again, your post demonstrates the point very well.

    And your demand that "proof" be provided that someone has been harmed; that is absolutely ridiculous.

    And finally, your comment about supporting diversity is one of the most ironic statements I have ever heard.

  • Still looking for facts, not ideology
  • Posted by Hoosier Prof on January 18, 2006 at 1:50pm EST
  • Art, you really should check your facts more carefully and you definitely owe D.D. an apology: Temple is (mostly) a nonprofit organization. Nonprofits don’t have shareholders. And Temple receives most of its direct revenue from earned income, not the gubmint (unless you count the indirect value of their tax-exempt status, but that’s for another thread).

    Saint KnowitAll: I can’t stop you from attempting to discredit those you disagree with by putting words in their mouth (pen? keyboard?) but it’s a childish ploy that most readers can see through. As you would know if you had read the entire thread, my comment about inserting politics in the classroom addressed the reasons that OTHER faculty (not myself) might have for introducing controversial ideas in the classroom: e.g., to provoke discussion, debate, and encourage critical thinking. No Horowitz supporter on this thread has yet been able to explain to me why using political controversies to motivate students to learn – and to form independent political opinions, right, left or center – is a bad idea.

    Wow, I’m flummoxed by the ease with which you ridicule my “demand that ‘proof’ be provided that someone has been harmed”. In your neck of the woods, are people you disagree with guilty until proven innocent? And if you’d like some ironic comments about diversity, here’s a better one, written by Frederick Douglass: “Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the powerful roar of its many waters.”

    Now it’s your turn, Art, Fed Dawg and SaintWhatever: how much experience do each of you have with teaching? Do you understand what it takes to get students to learn? Or are you just in this thread to bash liberals?

  • Puh-leeze
  • Posted by JBM on January 18, 2006 at 2:11pm EST
  • It is irrational to claim that the proposed legislation requires affirmative action for conservatives. It forbids such a thing and very clearly.

    Here's my question for those of you so terrified of the bill. The way I run my classes, these problems of bias and mistreatment have never arisen in over twenty-one years. I would therefore never feel the impact of the proposed legislation, so what do I care if it is adopted? What are you doing in class that makes you so terrified of schools adopting this thing? Is it really preferable to turn the matter of responsibility over to the state?

    People need to grow up.

  • Emily
  • Posted by JBM on January 18, 2006 at 3:40pm EST
  • We can feel your outrage, but do you have proof that Horowitz made that statement? I have been a faculty sponsor for several student organizations over the years, and the kids always drafted all their own stuff. I may have approved it (that it, checked it for anything improper or illegal), but that fact in no way makes any statement made by the organization my own. It also doesn't imply my personal beliefs in its contents: I just didn't find anything overtly improper or illegal in the organization's statements.

    So what is your point? Do you or do you not have proof that Horowitz made that statement? If not, I see no reason to think that anyone but the kids wrote it. Do you know the term for that fallacy too?

  • The status of Temple.
  • Posted by Joe S. at Temple on January 18, 2006 at 5:31pm EST
  • I am glad that Art D. asked me about my medication but since this is a matter for so much debate let me explain to the group how Temple operates as a quasi-public institution. Temple University was founded as a private Baptist university in the 1880s. In the higher education reauthorization of the 1970s, the state of PA began to give funding to all state universities including the Ivy League University of Pennsylvania. At Temple the state appropriates a lump sum of money for the university each year which, because of the youth of this school, constitutes a more significant portion of the operating budget than at say UPenn. For their money, the state governments gets to appoint 6 Trustees to our Board of trustees, 2 each by PA House, PA Senate and PA Governor. These six trustees are outvoted by the 12 Trustees elected by the alumni of the institution, thus the university is still predominantly a private institution and the state money is used exclusively to subsidize the education of PA state residents who elect to attend here rather than one of the state-run institutions like Kutztown, Muhlenberg etc. Incidentally, there are no "shareholders" at Harvard University either or any of the Ivy League schools so Art D's premise about shareholders is painfully misguided. Harvard has a "Corporation" which manages the the financial affairs of the university exclusively (though alumni elect Board of Overseers who make policy decisions about the university) but does not do so on a for-profit basis. At the moment the major for-profit universities which do have "Shareholders" are Strayer University, University of Phoenix and DeVry University and like some more which I do not know. The idea of "vouchers" for public colleges is ludicrous since state residents already receive subsidized education at all state universities including quasi-public ones, while the University of Pennsylvania will subsidize all of its students up to the level at which they can pay if they were worthy enough to merit admission to the institution. I would like to thank those who responded.
    I see I was mistaken in my reaction to "gub-mint" (and it wouldn't matter if Art D. was Black though he clearly is not) that it was not a racial thing though in racially- charged Philadelphia I am sure I would not be the only person to have such a reaction, but if it is indeed a statement that poor white Oregonians make then it nonetheless points to a condescending attitude which Art D.'s subsequent posts have further demonstrated (along with a propensity for name-calling better suited to an elementary school playground).
    It was good of Horowitz to post up his remarks here but they seemed to be post in anger and imply a "call to action" that the overwhelming majority of the student population is unmoved by lest they'd be taking to the streets as University students have done for centuries.

  • To JBM
  • Posted by emilyh on January 19, 2006 at 6:35pm EST
  • Since you don't say what statement I said Horowitz made, I have to assume you're referring to Scott Jaschik's article which prompted this thread. Jaschik says, as I quoted above, "Horowitz noted that when he publicizes such stories, he does not print the names of the professors involved . . . ." However, as Dr. Clifton Snider demonstrates, this is simply not true.

    I notice that Horowitz's own comment on this thread, which comes after Snider's, does not dispute Snider. Nor does he dispute Jaschik. However he implicitly corroborates Snider's claim that he lied about not printing the names of professors when he writes, "In the case of the leftwing student, I merely posted an article he wrote about his case. I would have posted a reply from his professor if the professor had submitted one."

    Link to the following to find out what kind of treatment from Horowitz the professor might have got had the professor submitted a reply:

    http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=19211

    Now read what the AAUP has said about the group founded by Horowitz, SAF:

    http://www.aaup.org/statements/SpchState/Statements/comaclass.htm

    The AAUP statement concludes:

    "Controversy is often at the heart of instruction; good teaching is often served by referring to contemporary controversies even if only to stimulate student interest and debate. If these watchdogs have their way, a professor of classics, history, ethics, or even museum administration could make no reference to the Iraq conflict or to George Bush—in their courses on the Roman Empire, colonialism, the morality of war, or trade in the artifacts of ancient civilizations—because the "subject" of these courses is not this war or this president. Contrary to defending academic freedom, the project is inimical to it and, indeed, to the very idea of liberal education."

    Horowitz objects to being compared to McCarthy, but his ad hominem tactics of intimidation are exactly the kind of tactics McCarthy used. Horowitz questions Professor Michael Vocino's qualifications to teach the class his university assigned him to teach; he implicitly attacks Vocino for his sexual orientation: "I understand that gay rights are important to you, and I agree that the humane and respectful treatment of gays is important to our society, as well. But these are not the subjects of the courses you teach or of the course that Nathaniel signed up for." Meaning: don't come out in class; don't say anything about your sexuality in a class that doesn't deal with sexuality. If heterosexual professors followed this, they would in class never refer to their wives or husbands or opposite-sex partners; they wouldn't refer to the children they've had with said partners; they would never allude to anything dealing with sex or love between males and females unless the class was specifically about heterosexual sex/love. Do I have to explain the logical contradictions here?

    The fact is Horowitz lies. Nobody on this thread who has actually read the thread from beginning to end has been able to contest the evidence presented. That's my point.

  • You first, sir
  • Posted by Art D. on January 20, 2006 at 7:48pm EST
  • " .. Now it’s your turn, Art, Fed Dawg and SaintWhatever: how much experience do each of you have with teaching? .."

    Sir, you were asked, a long time ago, to clarify your situation (prof or professional).

    You first -- how much experience do you have? Given how frightened you are of Mr. Horowitz, it's probably questionable.

  • Down to 4th grade level -- put up, or sit down
  • Posted by Art D. on January 21, 2006 at 11:19am EST
  • Sweet Mary & Joseph -- Joe's 500-word reply, like his friends', keep missing the main point.

    Temple takes major amounts of GUB-MINT money -- which require public supervision.

    Temple wants to get rid of mean ol' Mr. Horowitz -- DON'T TAKE so much gub-mint money -- go back to being 100% private, non-profit.

    How much more simple can it be? SHEESH!!

    In fact -- why not try it for a while? Stop taking gub-mint money for a year and see what happens? First -- no more Mr. Horowitz.

    As to EmilyH -- Madam, if you have proof of civil or criminal fraud by Mr. Horowitz -- bring it on. Litigate. Hire Larry. Otherwise -- you're just another Lyndon LaRouche.

  • Evidence and allegations
  • Posted by Seth in PA , Ass't Prof of English on January 26, 2006 at 2:41pm EST
  • As I read through these posts, I see lots of folks making the point that many of Horowitz's and SAF's allegations are unsubstantiated. However, people keep drawing what I see as a relatively useless conclusion--that they therefore shouldn't be taken seriously or shouldn't "count."

    Horowitz and his ilk, I'm pretty convinced, aren't presenting unsubstantiated allegations because they're too lazy (or too busy) to substantiate them. Neither are they presenting cases without names (when it happens that way) because they want to "protect" the faculty members. Instead, this tactic is a classic (and carefully crafted) case of insinuation. They can't *prove* that any of these instances happened, but they claim evidentiary value for them by arguing that we can't *disprove* them. As a result, they get to mount allegation upon allegation, and then say "Even if we don't know these are true, they can't ALL be false."

    It's an incredibly sophisticated political maneuver. On my darker days, I wish some of these conservative tacticians were playing for my team. Then I remember that I have ethics.

  • Been in both worlds
  • Posted by Hoosier Prof on January 26, 2006 at 4:11pm EST
  • Time to call your bluff, Art. Seven years as a college instructor/professor. Sixteen years as a professional, including six in management consulting.

    Put up or shut up, Art. Tag, you're it.

  • pro-capitalist bias at US business schools
  • Posted by Derel Kinlaw on January 28, 2006 at 11:40am EST
  • I'm really concerned that our young people are being indoctrinated by pro-capitalist faculty in our business and engineering programs. In the name of academic freedom and intellectual honesty, we must stop this travesty!

  • A Couple of Thoughts
  • Posted by LeoStrauss on January 29, 2006 at 5:25am EST
  • Okay, so I’ve spent an evening reading through the thread here, and I’d like to clarify an issue.

    Many perceptive participants on both sides of the debate have noted that there’s little agreement about some of the basic stakes of the fight between Horowitz and the leftist conspiracy.

    I think that one which I haven’t seen clearly mentioned is the implicit marketization of the higher education model. The proponents of the ABOR couch the issue as one of academic expression, but the persistent use of the phrase “free marketplace of ideas” suggests that they really mean a very specific model of that freedom.

    Not to tread too heavily on Hayek-inspired sacrosanct notions that completely free markets are the best and most efficient way to organize every aspect of social life, but I think a big issue here is whether or not we really want a true “marketplace of ideas” in higher education.

    Now let me be clear: I am NOT saying that one set of views or ideas ought to automatically have dictatorial power over another. What I am saying is a little different: if we assume that there is to be this free marketplace of ideas, who are the consumers? Most of the proponents seem to argue that it’s the undergraduate students themselves, but there is an important problem here, because one of the presumptions of higher education is that students are not always prepared to judge the merit of different debates. That’s a part of what being a student is about (and this is what opponents of the ABOR describe as “critical thinking skills.”)

    So there are two models. Higher education is either about (1)A marketplace in which students grasp skill-based information meant to help them succeed in economic activities. Optional bonuses: a good sports team, nice networking opportunities, and a good location. In this model, political opinions, and critical thinking, don’t have as important a place, because the emphasis is laid primarily on practical skills for jobs (this is true even of English, for example. It is important to learn to write business letters!) It’s also noteworthy that professors are highly interchangeable in this model.

    Model (2)is an older, more elitist model. It is based on intellectual companionship, and generally has a power and knowledge inequality between the student and professor built into it. It is important not to romanticize this model, but it is often pictured as one in which budding intellectuals are nurtured by caring faculty. Faculty are one-of-a-kind, and the educational enterprise is about crafting a “whole person” and critical thinking skills (learning how to learn rather than learning how) are of paramount importance.

    I would put to you that a large subtext of this argument is the clash between these two models of higher education. One reason for this clash is structural; most universities, especially large public ones like where I work, are beginning to operate by model (1), yet most faculty as least idealize their roles as being part of model (2). The majority of the reports of “bias” which Mr. Horowitz cites are exaggerations by undergraduates based on a clash of expectations between the two models. The power implicit in model (2) can often look like “liberal bias” in model (1).

    By this point, MY bias ought to be clear. As I said, I work at a large, public university whose conceit is still that it operates by model (2), even though its political economy is arranged around model (1)—large undergraduate classes emphasizing the skill sets that will make the students “successful” and launch them into pre-professional programs.

    Let me close by saying two things. First, I think that one reason this issue is so charged is that faculty have an obvious, vested interest in maintaining model (2) because it’s there that they’re most important. But it’s also important not to overlook the benefits of that second model for students. If part of what being a college student is is being challenged by people who know a lot more than you do about a particular subject in ways that are occasionally uncomfortable but which stimulate growth, then the second model is indispensable. If, on the other hand, higher education is merely about skills for the “real world”, then let’s all enroll in Phoenix online.

    My second closing comment is that spirited, open-minded political debate is certainly possible in model (2), and it’s much, much harder to make that debate happen in a personal way in model (1). Of course, any faculty-person worth their salt would tell you that one of the most stimulating things in the world is meeting an enthusiastic undergraduate capable of and willing to challenge YOU and make you think. That’s what professors WANT. What faculty don’t want is a regurgitation of lines form townhall.com, or cribs from the columns of George Will or Ben Shapiro. Above all, what they don’t want are students who are unwilling to challenge their own ways of thinking. That’s just as lazy as doctrinaire Marxist students, who, incidentally, are just as boring to teach.

    So I hope that helps clarify the issue at hand: is this really a clash of worldviews? Do we really want every aspect of social life to work like a market? (If so, what about the military? I’ve always wondered about that: Smith thought it ought to be protected…along with education…though to be fair he pilloried Universities pretty badly…hmmm…)

    (PS. I wonder, for my pro ABOR friends…what do you do with Leo Strauss? It seems like the line there is pretty fine between his task as a teacher and as an in-class political advocate. And he seems to have operated, by the way, by my model (2).)

  • Sorry about your job
  • Posted by Art D. on January 30, 2006 at 9:02am EST
  • "Time to call your bluff, Art. Seven years as .."

    Equal to you -- plus a successful dot-com that created (and destroyed) thousands of jobs. If your job was one that was destroyed -- hey, life goes on, Napoleon Dynamite.

  • teaching experience?
  • Posted by Hoosier Prof on January 30, 2006 at 5:30pm EST
  • This isn't a pissing match, Art. Care to share your teaching experience more specifically, including your teaching philosophy and your thoughts on what helps students to learn?

  • No time for speaking truth to schmiels
  • Posted by Art D. on February 1, 2006 at 7:35pm EST
  • One of the things I remember about Wall Street is during conference calls when a speaker's speech would go "off the road." The MDs and VPs would mute the call and start making jokes about the speaker.

    Well, I'm wiser now. I'm turning on the mute button, and going to get some beers. I've got better things to do than yammer 25,000 words about singing Kubaya around campfire -- but never accomplish anything in the real world.

  • experts vs. ideologues, part deux
  • Posted by Hoosier Prof on February 7, 2006 at 9:31am EST
  • Well, friends, it appears that we have called Art's bluff. Anyone else who wants to join the discussion, please indicate whether you are just here for the liberal-bashing, or actually know what the heck you're talking about. There's nothing worse than trying to engage with someone who has no expertise in the subject matter but refuses to admit it.

  • EXPERT VS. IDEOLOGUES, PART TROIS
  • Posted by emilyh on February 7, 2006 at 5:10pm EST
  • To Hoosier Prof,

    "There’s nothing worse than trying to engage with someone who has no expertise in the subject matter but refuses to admit it."

    You are so right. C'est dommage.

  • the terrible truth
  • Posted by tod on February 14, 2006 at 10:40am EST
  • If in fact there is a leftward tilt to college faculty, which I do believe there is, what explains this?

    Could it be that education, especially advanced education, simply leads to more liberal thought? Certainly law, business, and med schools, the so-called first professional schools (also known as trade or vocational schools) lean more to the right. Could that be because there is less drive to open inquiry?

  • Horowitz fabrications - Penn State Biology
  • Posted by Douglas Cavener , Professor and Head of Biology at Penn State University on April 13, 2006 at 11:00am EDT
  • As Head of the Department of Biology at Penn State, I quickly became aware of this allegation and investigated as to whether or not the story was true. This investigation included a discussion with Gibson Armstrong who admitted that he had heard the story from a student but hadn't bothered to verify it. He told me that he would contact the student and get back to me, which he never did. We now know that this was a pure fabrication done for political motivation. I am outraged that this false allegation was made and repeatedly stated as fact by David Horowitz. He even criticized Penn State for not reprimanding the professor (never identified) who allegedly showed Fahrenheit 9/11! I completely agree with Horowitz that it would be completely inappropriate for this film to be shown in a biology class, but I am dismayed to think this false allegation lead many to believe that we condone politicizing the teaching of biology. I do not see this as "nit-picking"; this was a smear campaign to damage the reputation of my department and our faculty.

  • David Horowitz vs. Cary Nelson
  • Posted by feudi pandola on April 1, 2007 at 3:30pm EDT
  • I watched a recent debate between David Horowitz and Cary Nelson. Mr. Nelson represented the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). At one point, Mr. Nelson atually bragged that he knew of one physics professor who had not received a raise in over 20 years due to his continually violation of academic standrds in his teaching methods....Twenty YEARS!

    Mr. Nelson saw nothing at all wrong with the fact that this tenured professor was permitted to continue in his position for so long a period of time when it was obvious to everyone that he was a terrible professor. No problem at all with the fact that the tenure system kept this goof ball in place, and teaching students for over two decades!

    ...and THAT is what's wrong with tenure.