Monday
December 1, 2008
Advertisement
News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
Feb. 13, 2006
David Horowitz Has a List
Caroline Higgins is 66 years old, and at 5’2” she’s not a daunting figure. Walking on the Earlham College campus last week, she ran into one of her students, a football player who very much towers over her. She mentioned that she was about to be named to a list of the “101 most dangerous academics in America.”
Related stories
- Faculty Are Liberal — Who Cares?, March 27
- A Call to Defend Academic Freedom, Oct. 23, 2007
- A Freewheeling Academic Freedom Debate, Jan. 5, 2007
- Investigation Over 9/11 Teachings, July 3, 2006
- The Footnote Police vs. Ward Churchill, May 19, 2006
Higgins said that her student just started laughing — and that for anyone who knows her, “dangerous” just isn’t the word that comes to mind. She teaches peace studies.
But today, with the release of David Horowitz’s new book, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America, Caroline Higgins finds herself in elite company. She makes the list along with such big name academic stars as Derrick Bell, Michael Bérubé, bell hooks, Noam Chomsky and Eric Foner. Horowitz, a one-time ’60s radical, includes plenty of ’60s radicals who didn’t have the conversion experience he did, so Angela Davis and Bernadine Dohrn make the list, of course, along with the likes of Ward Churchill and a who’s who in Middle Eastern studies.
Most of the 377-page book consists of short essays on each professor – they are in alphabetical order and are not ranked according to their relative danger levels, although there are cross-listings so a reader can jump to scholars with similar ideas.
Whether to laugh at the book, like Higgins’s student, or to take it seriously, has been the subject of much discussion among academic groups and those who made the list in recent weeks. Some fear taking Horowitz too seriously will only legitimize his sometimes breathless attacks. (The book jacket promises information about professors who “say they want to kill white people,” “support Osama bin Laden,” and “defend pedophilia.”)
Some professors worry that they really don’t gain much by discussing a book that can have them explaining that, no, they are not murdering, pro-terrorist, child molesters. And several said that they hoped the press would just ignore the book. Others who are named — and academic groups that represent them — disagree. They say that a book with blurbs by Harvard professors, a Congressman, and a talk show host is going to cause a splash. With Horowitz‘s list likely to outsell Derek Bok’s new book, academics who just view The Professors as a joke risk having their ideas distorted and losing credibility as Horowitz defines their work for large audiences of the people who don’t frequent faculty clubs.
On Friday, a new coalition of academic groups — called Free Exchange on Campus — issued a joint denunciation of The Professors as “a blacklist” that was attempting to intimidate leading thinkers on campuses. The coalition includes the three groups that represent more faculty members than any other organizations: the American Association of University Professors, the American Federation of Teachers, and the National Education Association. Others involved in the coalition include the American Civil Liberties Union and the United States Student Association.
Higgins finds her inclusion on the list both funny and disconcerting. She ‘s been teaching at Earlham since 1974 — focusing her academic career on the classroom, not publishing. Why, she wonders, is a low profile professor at a liberal arts college in Indiana worthy of being on Horowitz’s list? In The Professors, Higgins is criticized for classes that focus on peace and social justice movements and for encouraging students to apply the ideas they learn about in class in the local community. Horowitz criticizes Higgins for teaching courses that feature both reading lists and lectures from a liberal, pacifist, feminist, environmentalist perspective.
In some respects, Higgins replies that she is guilty as charged — she does have a point of view in her classes. But she rejects Horowitz’s larger analysis. “I object to the idea that students are passive and that I somehow indoctrinate them,” she said.
First of all, she noted that she puts her syllabuses online (that’s presumably how Horowitz learned about her classes). Higgins said that she believes students have a right to learn something about her ideas before they pick her classes. But what really strikes her as absurd is that she’s being criticized for teaching about peace and social justice, as if her students would prefer classes about combat strategy. Higgins pointed out that she teaches at a Quaker college and that Quakers are pacifists. A “self-selected group of students,” she said, wants courses with her philosophy at a religiously oriented college that takes its faith seriously. If students enrolled in peace studies at a Quaker college and didn’t find pacifism, she said, they might have reason to be angry (presumably in non-violent ways).
“I see a hegemonic culture with views that are quite different from mine, and a small number of colleges where you can learn from a different view,” Higgins said. “If I’m dangerous, it’s because education is dangerous. If you follow truth wherever it will lead, which is from Earlham’s mission statement, I guess you open yourself up to risk.”
That risk frustrates many of those named in the book. Joe Feagin, a professor of sociology at Texas A&M University and a past president of the American Sociological Association, is mocked in the book for his research on race, poverty and sexism.
“This appears to be a new type of McCarthyism. I remember McCarthy made up dangerous people lists too,” Feagin said. “I never thought, as a 1930s baby who lived through the Depression and World War II, that I would live to see this country sink so low as to have public attacks on social science researchers because of their research.”
Feagin said that Horowitz or anyone else is entitled to disagree with his findings. But Feagin said that his conclusions are based on a 43-year research career in which he has published nearly 50 books and 180 research articles. Before Horowitz and his allies attack him, Feagin said, he’d like to know: “What are their research credentials? Have they done 40 years of solid research on racial and gender issues?”
An undercurrent of the book — that Feagin and other scholars are somehow un-American for their views — is particularly grating, Feagin said. “I was taught by my folks, and still believe in, the old American values of liberty, justice and equality. Are these now ‘dangerous’ values?”
In an e-mail interview, Horowitz strongly denied that there was anything McCarthyite about his book. He noted that he writes in the introduction to the book that he believes all professors — liberal and conservative — have points of view and are entitled to interpret their fields according to their philosophies. Such expression, he writes, “is the essence of academic freedom.” In the interview, Horowitz said that a McCarthyite would never make such a statement, and he said that the only McCarthyism in evidence with regard to his book are those who criticize it with “a rash of misrepresentations” and without having read it.
Horowitz said that his purpose in writing the book was to expose the “political corruption” of higher education — a system that, he said, is dominated by “tenured radicals who are smarter and less extreme than [Ward] Churchill.” He said that these professors are trying to have their politics dominate the curriculum, and that there are “virtually no conservatives in the academy anymore.”
Trustees and legislators, Horowitz said, should take the book and “get a good look at the magnitude of the problem in our institutions of higher learning.” He said that he hopes they will create new “Offices of Intellectual Diversity and Professional Standards” to help deal with the problems Horowitz has identified.
At the end of the book, after the sections on the various professors, Horowitz writes that the professors he names are quite representative of higher education generally. Horowitz writes that the university is “by nature and structure a conformist institution.” Noting the way leading professors play a role in training graduate students (future professors) and in hiring and promotion decisions, Horowitz writes: “Far from being eccentric or peripheral figures the professors in this volume are integral to the intellectual life of the institutions they inhabit and to the course of higher education in America.” (In other parts of the book, however, he appears to have a different view — and in the e-mail interview, he drew attention to his sentence in the book that “It is a reasonable assumption that the majority of university professors remain professionals and are devoted to traditional academic methods and pursuits.”)
The list is in many ways not representative of higher education. Of the 101 professors, only one is at a community college. Most are at research universities, with Columbia University leading the way with nine. The sciences are hardly represented and the sole engineer is Sami Al-Arian, the former University of South Florida professor who is presumably little threat to students since he is behind bars, despite the lack of convictions in his recent trial.
An exact disciplinary breakdown is difficult because many of the professors do interdisciplinary work. But by far, Middle Eastern studies seems to be the most dangerous field to Horowitz, with at least 15 scholars on his list who do work on the subject. Many other professors on the list work in relatively new fields such as ethnic studies, gay studies, or women’s studies. But there are also plenty of people from traditional fields such as history, English and law.
Horowitz said in an interview that the fields that are well represented on his list are “most prone to the corruption I am describing.”
Juan Cole, a University of Michigan professor who is among the 101 and who is also president of the Middle East Studies Association, said that it’s not surprising that Horowitz would go after his colleagues. “He is an ideologue and he has a particular view of the Arab-Israeli conflict which cannot be sustained by anyone who studies the region with primary texts and a global perspective,” Cole said.
Cole said that he’s not particularly concerned that Horowitz will change anyone’s views. “I think he has no impact whatsoever,” Cole said. “He’s not relevant to our academic governance or the way we make decisions in the academy.”
At the same time, Cole had seen the section written about him and was ready to question it. He said, for example, that Horowitz falsely accuses him of stressing the Jewish role in the neoconservative movement, and of calling Israel a fascist state. Cole said that while he may have criticized individual Jews who are neoconservatives, he never calls that movement a Jewish one, in part because he doesn’t believe it reflects the views of most Jewish people. Further, while Cole said that he has said that the Likud Party has “fascist elements,” he does not call Israel a fascist state.
Asked to back up the claims in his book, Horowitz noted a reference in a Cole column to “Israeli fascists,” but that is, of course different from the claim in the book that Cole “routinely brands Zionism” as “fascist.” Asked to back up the book’s claim that Cole focuses on a Jewish neoconservative group whose views he disagrees with, Horowitz sent back a quote from a Cole column in which Cole criticizes “powerful Likudniks” within the U.S. government and also Paul Wolfowitz, But in the column, Cole does not identify who the “powerful Likudniks” are (and in fact many of the Likud’s most powerful supporters in the United States aren’t Jewish) and doesn’t refer to Wolfowitz’s religion.
Cole called the chapter on him “dishonest” and said that it is “if not libelous, then verging on it.” He declined to say if he’s planning any legal action.
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
Comments
The blogosphere on this kerkuffle
In general ..
http://blogsearch.google.com/blog...book+dangerous&btnG=Search+Blogs
And this ..
http://frontpagemag.com/blog/index.asp
Leading to this ..
BTW: could someone point me to the legal citations that state Crystalls, Shortells, Ward-o’s, el al., are allowed to criticize others (in sour, unpleasant, and long-winded diatribes) — without being criticized themselves?
Or not to come under fiscal oversight? Or is God/Allah/et al., just punishing non-tenured non-governmental employees? Thanks.
R.A. Shaw, Annoyed by unaccountability at Small private college, at 7:15 am EST on February 13, 2006
Horowitz discriminates against us
I am mildly irritated that only one community college teacher has made his “list". Since the community college system teaches more students per year than the research universities, it would seem that just numerically speaking we are the most dangerous teachers around at the level of higher education.
But as Socrates might well comment on such a list: “Those who think they know what in fact they do not are not wise at all”
Clyde Ebenreck, at 7:15 am EST on February 13, 2006
I don’t see what’s so “dangerous” about Derrick Bell. He’s a staunchly anti-union NYU law professor.
Melocoton, at 7:45 am EST on February 13, 2006
If you people can’t see what’s wrong with someone teaching peace studies at a Quaker college, then you’re all much further gone than I thought.
We owe Horowitz a profound debt for bringing these atrocities to light.
Art D., at 8:25 am EST on February 13, 2006
No shame
In the words of another Mainer who brought the light of sanity to era of witch hunts and persecution by right wing thugs before, “Mr. Horowitz, do you have no shame?”
John F DeFelice, Assistant Professor of History at University of Maine at Presque Isle, at 8:40 am EST on February 13, 2006
Art D. & Art D.
Note to all: aforementioned Art D. is obviously not as good-looking, kind, and intelligent as moi. Thanks — Art D., The First.
BTW: private colleges can do what they want, IMHO. But when big amounts of public dollars are involved — you think Democrats are going to do nothing if the Labor Studies program is criticized by Republicans? I mean, really .. join the rest of us, in this plane of reality.
Art D. (private college), Regular Guy at Private College, at 8:50 am EST on February 13, 2006
A Great Teacher
I’m reminded of a great Teacher of peace and social justice, Jesus Christ. He hung out with prostitutes and unbelievers, championed the poor, elevated women, and was considered a threat to the political and religious order of his day. I wonder if he belongs in Horowitz’s book?
Tom McCool, at 8:50 am EST on February 13, 2006
Horowitz’s List is Anti-Christian
Interesting how Horowitz’s list has so many Christian’s on it—albeit not fundamentalist Christian, but Christian none the less. Why is Horowitz hounding those who follow the teachings of Jesus?
Dick Schoenthal, at 9:00 am EST on February 13, 2006
Shotgun incidents?
I wonder if any on the list ever shot a hunting partner.
agerstle, at 9:05 am EST on February 13, 2006
jealous
I am disappointed that neither myself (nor anybody I know) is listed as a sexual deviant. (This would have been a great Valentines Day gift.) Strangely enough, if DH wanted to undertake serious critiques of scholarship, he probably would be quite effective in publishing serious papers. But this is hard and takes a lot of time, and being an intellectual is overrated and stupid.
Whatever the case, people will still send their kids to the same schools that are considered “elite” unless, because of bad parenting, their kids couldn’t get in.
Larry, at 9:25 am EST on February 13, 2006
Left-wing Bias in academia
For too long the academy has insulated itself to the detriment of higher education. Horowitz is spot-on in his criticisms and his academic freedom campaign foreshadows those changes yet to occur, but certainly on the way. Stay tuned.
Eugene A. Jewett, at 9:35 am EST on February 13, 2006
Ain’t it grand
While I agree that the subject matter of the book is absurd and Horowitz is terribly misled, ain’t it grand that we live in a country that allows him to say it??!! Somewhere, I am certain, someone will create a comparable “list” of equally dangerous conservatives. I’ll buy that book.
60’s survivor, at 9:35 am EST on February 13, 2006
Five Things ...
Needless to say, I cannot top Art D’s wonderfully succinct tribute to David Horowitz.
I have been teaching for forty-five years and am desperately struggling to extend the process. I was fired from my last position for being too radical ... educationally, not politically, although, these days, it’s often difficult to tell the difference.
Now for my five observations:
1. Approximately two-thirds of my career was spent in departments of mathematics, where, I think – and despite many exceptions – the majority of faculty tended to be liberal (but hardly dangerous left-wingers).
2. One-third of my career was spent in schools of business, where –and despite very few exceptions — faculty tended to be conservative (but hardly dangerous right-wingers).
3. Across the board, the majority of my students have been somewhere between conservative and moderate ... and, I assume, reflecting their parents’ perspectives. Not nearly as many students as I would have hoped were dangerous people in the Horowitz sense.
4. I have looked at the Horowitz list; (see ...
http://info.interactivist.net/article.pl?sid=06/02/08/1417212),
and I can assure you – and quite independent of your political leanings – that anyone who believes those on his list are “dangerous” is both an academic and an intellectual wimp!
5. What inspires me to think it is Horowitz who is dangerous is the Horowitzian Manifesto that he would have governments impose on academe.
I have always loved that quotation of Winston Churchill ... “If a man who is in his twenties is not a liberal, he has no heart. If a man who is in his forties is not a conservative, he has no brain.”
Stupid me ... in the Churchillian sense I have gone through life backwards.
RWH, at 10:30 am EST on February 13, 2006
The “Liberal” Epithet
Now if only he had a brain. More of the “Liberal Academe” and Liberal Media” strawmen — how original.
David Horowitz has the perfect right to write what he wants (well, within legal limits) and if he can publish it and make some money, then good for him — that’s what free speech and the free market is all about. No doubt, some folks will use the “facts” he selects to call for even more changes in higher education — after all, we can’t allow those radicals to continue to expose our kids to democratic ideas like free speech and thinking for yourself...
Just Another “Radical”, at 10:30 am EST on February 13, 2006
Professional Conduct
I find it very interesting that professors such as Michael Berube refer to David Horowitz as “D’Ho.” I’m sure this highly professional term is helpful to female students and female professors everywhere: it’s great to see “sensitive” teachers who are purportedly concerned about issues of gender slinging the terms “whore” and “ho” about on their blogs, and encouraging others to do the same.
Those fearful of Horowitz obviously have good reason to be.
Fred Dickson, Studen, at 10:40 am EST on February 13, 2006
American Anti-Intellectualism
Horowitz and his ideological pals’ anti-intellectualism is simply the latest in decades of attacks by those who want to keep America stupid so that we can be further controlled by corporations. That America’s greatest minds can see through the lies of our leaders means that these minds must be attacked an neutralized.
Jackson Darkenwald, Chem. Prof., at 11:00 am EST on February 13, 2006
Excuse me?
” .. we can’t allow those radicals to continue to expose our kids to democratic ideas like free speech and thinking for yourself ...”
Excuse me? As if there’s no free speech on public colleges today? When you hear the F word every five seconds?
Give me a break, sir — what is needed are students who have a minimal amount of what used to be called good manners.
But that would take thinking, caring and discipline — sorry, those have been outsourced to Asia.
Art D. (private college), at 11:00 am EST on February 13, 2006
Slighted
Many of my colleagues and I feel slighted...some of teach at both the university AND the community college system. THAT, alone, should put us in the “repeat offender” category and at least give us an “(dis)honorable mention!”
Leonard, at 11:10 am EST on February 13, 2006
ummm...
Isn’t D.Ho a play on J.Lo (short for Jennifer Lopez)?
Anonymous, at 11:10 am EST on February 13, 2006
heh?
Art D, you’re so out of touch! So kids swear. So what? They always have. Do you think it’s a professor’s job to stop it?
Anyway, the issue of free speech here is what teachers are allowed or not allowed to say to their students, not what the students say to each other.
willie mink, Assoc Prof at Midwestern Midlevel U, at 11:25 am EST on February 13, 2006
McCarthy nothing
McCarthy made accusations without having names and named people on little or no basis. By contrast, many of the people that Horowitz names are self-described communists, socialists, anti-Americans etc. The issue is not inaccurate or irresponsible identification, but a difference in what action should be taken.
Kevin, Undergraduate, at 11:25 am EST on February 13, 2006
D’Ho
No, I don’t believe that “D’Ho” was intended in the spirit of playfulness of any sort on Mr. Berube’s blog.
I believe Berube was simply displaying more of his relatively frequent tendency to use his blog as a forum through which to insult his opponents (as whores, in this case, as his students interpreted his charming “D’Ho"), and to incite hatred and mockery.
Even in the most generous reading that someone has offered, (D’Ho as a cute play on J’Lo), this is still unprofessional and indicative of a wider problem. When men feel threatened by other men, they “feminize” them, or encourage others to view them as prostitutes.
J’Lo might be something you call your girlfriend or your kid, but it’s hardly a term that one professional uses to address another. At least Horowitz has been civil and respectful of people like Berube.
Fred, at 11:30 am EST on February 13, 2006
“Whore” is very commonly used in an essentially ungendered sense to mean anyone whose honesty and/or loyalty(not sexuality) is for sale. And I think most people feel that selling your honesty is a lot more dirty than selling sex, at that.
If I say Bush and Cheney are whores of special interests, I am certainly insulting them, but I am not feminizing them. I am simply saying that they’re happy to sell out the good of the nation and of the world for the personal benefit of themselves and a few friends (or “fiends,” if you prefer).
I personally have a problem with the idea that feminizing is necessarily negative. Fred’s “When men feel threatened by other men, they ‘feminize’ them, or encourage others to view them as prostitutes” sounds innately sexist to me.
Thane Doss, at 12:50 pm EST on February 13, 2006
Why do so many people get so upset about David Horowitz? I first encountered him in the 1960s, when he published a book entitled Free World Colossus. I had just gotten back from Vietnam, was considerably upset with LBJ and his bright boys for getting us messed up in a quagmire that otherwise would have amounted to nothing more than ethnic groups fighting among themselves and making common cause long enough to throw out the colonialist powers (France, etc.). DH’s book caught my fancy, because he was venting against corrupt government, idiocy, and exploitation of the weak by the strong. I thought it sounded pretty good. Born skeptical and trained as a scientist and engineer, however, I started digging into some of his claims. Mostly they turned out to be half-truths, over-simplifications, and deceptions. Somewhere along the way he shifted from the moral righteousness of a left-wing ideologue to the moral righteousness of a right-wing ideologue. Like most politicians, lawyers, PR people, advertisers, and so on, ideologues carve the facts to fit what they already know (i.e., think they know, or what other people to believe they know). When an ideologue is swept up in moral righteousness (whether on the left or the right, or at the center for that matter) he or she seeks admiration and even adulation. Failing to get enough of it, it’s an easy trip to shift from left to right (or right to left, though most who start as right-wingers know that moving left is a losing game, and so they tend to become even farther to the right). DH is no more reliable from the right than he was from the left. Frankly, I’d be worried far less about DH, however, and far more about politicians, etc., who think a government should spy on its citizens with impunity. Left-wing ideologues stand little chance against the power and authority of corporate capitalism, big government, Eisenhower’s “military-industrial complex” (remember Ike’s warning about that?). Right-wing ideologues can be far more dangerous, because they can mobilize that power and authority. But the DHs of our world are mostly just gnats, playing a media game. I’d be far more worried about the politicians who win elections, the PR people who sell dust and call it substance, the spin meisters who manipulate your mind so that you will think what they want you to think.
Ezra Gilgh, at 1:10 pm EST on February 13, 2006
If you’ve got a blacklist. . .
Rowman & Littlefield is well represented on David Horowitz’s list, just as we would be on the comparable list of dangerous conservative professors mentioned previously. To quote Billy Bragg, “if you’ve got a blacklist, I want to be on it.” To me, this is the essence of independent publishing.
Jonathan Sisk, publisher at Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., at 1:10 pm EST on February 13, 2006
The reasonable reaction to this piece:While Horowitz may have a history of making some unsupported accusations, his point that academe has a leftward tilt is nothing new. Professors know this, students know this, and parents know this. It’s as a side-effect of the fact that people with higher education levels have been shown to be more liberal, and of course professors are among this group. Those who abhor the liberal tilt in academe are fighting a losing battle against a long-standing, basic relationship between education and partisanship. In other words, this book adds little to what we have long accepted.
Unfortunately, if the tone of the book is as I suspect, it will lead some to target those named for harrassment. Horowitz isn’t inciting violence, but I would not be shocked if we see more of the type of encounter experienced by the University of Kansas prof. In the longer term, some students or their parents may use the book in conjunction with PickAProf or RateMyProfessors.com, pursuing a course of study that helps them avoid ideas that might conflict with what they thought when they entered college.
This will most certainly get in the way of trying to convince students that the point of college is not to escape with your pre-existing ideas (or your parents’) intact, but rather to confront new ideas with an open mind.
QuakerProf, at 1:30 pm EST on February 13, 2006
Is This About Whores?
That this discussion has degenerated into a discussion of whores (or hos) must tell us more than a little about both our abilities to focus and our attention spans.
Nevertheless ...
“It may not be until the end of the eighteenth century, with the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, that a thinker would again so radically oppose happiness [in comparison] to virtue. Already in Prodicus’s time, Socrates and his followers undertook to unite them, to make them coincide. Few since have dared to call happiness a whore.
Darrin McMahon“Happiness: A History” ... 2006
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. Don’t imagine that for years on end you can make yourself the boot-licking propagandist of the Soviet regime, or any other regime, and then suddenly return to mental decency. Once a whore, always a whore.”
George Orwell“Tribune” ... 1944
For God’s sake, let’s talk about David Horowitz!
RWH, at 1:30 pm EST on February 13, 2006
Staying on Focus
I think it’s importaant to stay on focus, and to emphasize how this demeaning discourse of whoredom shuts down true engagements with the topics at hand, not to mention doing violence to its readers.
I feel that those who ignite and promote such discourse have serious issues to confront : sexism, misogyny, as well as a general unwillingness to deal with critiques that clearly threaten them. It seems there is something about Mr. Horowitz that some people find daunting, and it may be that he tells the truth about them: they are dangerous, but for reasons other than we might suspect.
Student, at 1:50 pm EST on February 13, 2006
Expectations
I find the tenor of these comments fascinationg. As in the culture at large, conservatives defend themselves & are defended, even by liberals, as take-no-prisoners tough guys; but when liberals talk tough to conservatives, using the same sort of rhetoric that Coulter, Malkin, etc. use routinely, liberals are tagged as “uncivil.” Poor little David Horowitz—that dangerous Professor Barube called him a “ho.” Get the smelling salts & the fainting couch, I think I feel a spell coming on.
Joseph Duemer, Professor, at 3:25 pm EST on February 13, 2006
Just for the record, I didn’t — and don’t — call anyone a “ho.” I think poor Fred needs to watch the Simpsons, myself. Though I suppose certain liberals could be pilloried for associating Horowitz and Homer. D’oh!
At any rate, the idea that Horowitz has treated me with respect is quite delusional, as is the notion that my blog has anything to do with my students.
Michael Bérubé, at 3:45 pm EST on February 13, 2006
Read Your Blog
I believe you will find numerous references to David Horowitz as “D’ho” on Mr. Berube’s blog (authored by him). And you will also find comments from female students saying that the terms “ho” and “whore” normally bother them, but because they admire Professor Berube, it’s “okay” to use those terms this time.
That *does* seem to make your blog about your students, Mr. Berube. And your blog does seem to foster a climate where references to “whores” and “hos” become acceptable, even to those who normally find those terms noxious.
You may have called Horowitz “D’ho” to be cute and funny. However, you also encourgaged others on your blog to continue the verbal assaults. This is not in the spirit of what I would like to think that professors do; this is more in the spirit of what mob leaders do.
And on the contrary, I think Horowitz is very polite and civil towards you. I wish you could say the same.http://www.frontpagemag.com/blog/index.asp
Fred, at 4:05 pm EST on February 13, 2006
Irony
I find it ironic that Professor Berube reproaches people for using the term “idiot” on his blog, yet openly encourages “ho.”
Today he wrote an entry on disabilities, saying that he has a disabled son. We can understand why “idiot” might bother someone with a disabled son, but shouldn’t “ho” bother someone with a wife and female students who presumably look up to you?
We try to eliminate this term from rap lyrics, yet leading academics toss it around like common greetings.
Female Student, at 4:45 pm EST on February 13, 2006
I Refuse To Give Up
As long as we are unalterably opposed to discussing the subject at hand, I guess I’ll join in.
At the university where I taught last year, we did not have disabled students. Ours were physically challenged. Nor did we have foreign students; ours were international students. I once referred a student as a sophomore, but was chastised by a colleague who told me the student was a second year student ... because sophomoric had become a pejorative term. An even graver mistake was when I referred to an Asian student as an oriental student. I’ll never do that again.
My son, who plays baseball, has asked me to tell my friends he is an altitude-challenged-stop, and he reminded me that being a second baseman or, God forbid, a third baseman is not a demotion in rank from being a first baseman. And then my daughter told me I should be saying first baseperson, etc.
So you can see, all of this evolution of language is difficult for a politically correct senior citizen like I to fathom ... let alone stay abreast (ouch, may I say that?) of.
Anyway, I’m going to retire to my position out there in right field.
RWH
RWH, at 5:25 pm EST on February 13, 2006
I find it fascinating that professors in all variety of academic disciplines think nothing of using class time to call the President of the United States a murderer, racist, war-monger, idiot, homophobe, fill-in-the-insult but when their own name appears in a book that they feel the need to cry “foul!” This habit of calling everyone who disagrees with the Left the reincarnation of Senator Joseph McCarthy, is laughable. David Horowitz, as loud and provocative as he is, is not the United States Senate. He is someone doing the very same thing they are: a private citizen who disagrees with someone, and does it publicly using their name. That is a far cry from a government investigation, let alone a threat to our republic.
A. Mused, at 5:35 pm EST on February 13, 2006
Attention All Faculty
All faculty employees at the Ministry of Truth will assemble on the Quad at 11:00 and yell “Horowitz” for two minues as a show of protest against the Academic Bill of Rights.
That is all.
Stu Gittelman, at 6:55 pm EST on February 13, 2006
Well, these comments could be the result of a sincere misunderstanding, but something tells me otherwise.
But, as long as we’re talking about the really important issue here, let me dispose of a few canards that may — just may — be the result of misunderstandings or first-time blog readers.
First of all, the term “D’ho” and its cognates have been floating around the Internet for a couple of years now. The first I heard of it was here— http://web.grinnell.edu/sandb/arc...er_24/opinion/eclectic_rathod.html— but it’s fairly common. It has even appeared on Inside Higher Ed in the past, and I don’t believe it has ever drawn (or merited) these complaints. I believe it originated as an allusion to J.Lo. and Homer Simpson. But as for me, I prefer to call David Horowitz “David” and “Horowitz,” as capable readers will discover for themselves if they read what I’ve actually written.
More important, however, the claim “you will also find comments from female students saying that the terms ‘ho’ and ‘whore’ normally bother them, but because they admire Professor Berube, it’s ‘okay’ to use those terms this time” is an outright falsehood. I have gone over all 322 reader comments since Friday, and there is no comment like this anywhere on my site. Indeed, there are no female students among my commenters. So I’m tempted to conclude that Fred is arguing in bad faith here.
“Female student” is similarly deceived. I have never “openly encouraged ‘ho,’” nor have I reproached anyone for using the term “idiot,” though I once wrote a post suggesting that the English language is replete with fun epithets that speak to performance rather than capacity.
Again, I don’t think these are sincere misunderstandings, but I offer this brief explanation just in case they are. And I invite readers to my blog to check out the plausibility of the claims made here.
Now, as for the delusional claim that Horowitz has treated me respectfully. His entry on me in “The Professors” consists of one lie after another (as I’ve explained on my blog), and his claim that my “entire political focus since 9/11 has been in getting our terrorist enemies off the hook” is quite close to slander. Perhaps Juan Cole and I can get together and talk about this kind of thing. Because honestly (and I use the term advisedly), accusing someone of what amounts to treason during wartime is far, far more serious than allowing blog commenters to use a common locution that links David Horowitz with J. Lo and Homer Simpson.
Michael Bérubé, at 6:55 pm EST on February 13, 2006
Only female Hos?
Get thee multitudes of provincial, backwards, only-partially politically-correct persons of both left and right (and undecided) persuation to a CINEMA!
YAY sayeth Hollywood from the pulpit atop Brokeback Mountain; it is a new millenium and highly permissible to publicly announce the latest obvious truth: Ho’s be NOT only of the female or transgendered type.
Word up!
Dr. F. Gump, at 7:30 pm EST on February 13, 2006
Free Speech For Me....
In academia free speech is all very well unless it offends a liberal mascot. Especially you know who....
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/02/13/century
Grant Jones, at 9:15 pm EST on February 13, 2006
To All Academic Gutless Wonders
As a regular reader of Inside Higher Education and a fan of (and occasional contributor to) its commentary feature, I feel compelled to comment on the commentaries. I invite the reader to look over the numerous comments on a controversial piece like this one, and to note how many of the authors of comments conceal their identities behind pseudonyms, some cute, some not. To be frank, this offends me. I believe strongly in vigorous and critical academic debate of ideas. I also believe strongly in the obligation of participants in academic debate to take personal responsibility for the views they express and the positions they take. This obligation is particularly strong among those academics who have been blessed with the protections of tenure, primarily to protect their ability to meet such obligations. If a commentator cannot muster the courage to attach his/her name and institution to a comment, I believe the editors should reject it.
Donald N. Langenberg, Professor at University of Maryland, at 9:20 pm EST on February 13, 2006
From a gutless, cash-poor academic wonder
We’re off-topic here. But if someone wants the non-tenured to step forward with their real identities — are they offering to pay our bills if we’re fired for speaking out? Wouldn’t that be fair and courageous?
B.J.S., at 9:50 pm EST on February 13, 2006
Blog Page
I believe I’ve found the discussion on Mr. Berube’s blog to which Fred referred earlier today. I am providing a link to that conversation, as well as the relevant passage where a female reader comments on Mr. Berube’s use of “D’Ho” and the derogatory terms this conjures for her. I am omitting her name for her own confidentiality, though the blog page is still active, and I assume it is in the public domain.
http://www.michaelberube.com/index.php/weblog/comments/752/
I haven’t protested when Michael calls David Horowitz “D. Ho” even though whore and ho are words that bother me, because in context I know his intentions are okay. I definitely, like most people, think we all have great room for improvement of our clodlike tendencies, and it’s perfectly appropriate for people point to them out, as Michael has done sotactfully and nicely in this post. But my own view of freedom of speech, both legal and normative, resists vesting individual words with power exclusive of context.
Reader, at 11:00 pm EST on February 13, 2006
How Quickly We Forget
How quickly we forget the words of our female students and readers. Does this commentary ring a bell, Michael Berube?
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cac...hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
I have a friend who has hypomania, and she winces at the word “maniac.” Everyone has unique sensitivites and insensitivities, that’s why I try to focus on (and urge others to focus on) intent wherever possible. I haven’t protested when Michael calls David Horowitz “D. Ho” even though whore and ho are words that bother me, because in context I know his intentions are okay. I definitely, like most people, think we all have great room for mprovement of our clodlike tendencies, and it’s perfectly appropriate for people point to them out, as Michael has done so tactfully and nicely in this post. But my own view of freedom of speech, both legal and normative, resists vesting individual words with power exclusive of context. Posted by Ann Bartow on 10/24 at 03:15 PM#
Fred, at 11:00 pm EST on February 13, 2006
Fred, posting under the name “Cool Dad,” has also left this comment on my own blog. Though I don’t believe his name is Cool Dad — or Fred, either — and though he has left a number of quite vicious comments on my blog in recent days, I think he’s brought up a good point. Here’s my response (another version of which also can be found on my own blog):
The term “D’ho” and its D-Ho, D. Ho variants has been around for a long time now. It was not invented on this site, and it is hardly exclusive to this site. As you’ll see if you read through all my (many) remarks on Horowitz, I usually call him “Horowitz,” “David Horowitz,” or “David.” Still, I have indeed used the term in the past, and I have never objected to its use by anyone else.
But thanks for calling my attention to Ann Bartow’s comment from five months ago. I had, indeed, forgotten it. She is not my student, however, as you claim. She is a law professor at the University of South Carolina. For the record, I think she was mistaken about reading “D. Ho.” as a reference to “ho” and “whore,” just as I thought — and said at the time — that she was mistaken in thinking that I was trying to reproach anyone for using the term “idiot.” What I said, in response to her comment, was this: “even though my wife and I are retiring ‘idiot’ for now, I don’t mean to put such terms utterly off limits.”
Of course, the pressing question about that October 24 post — as any blogger would know — was how best to handle the many comments of the person calling himself “Mister Toad.” So I probably under-read Ann’s second comment at the time, which appeared after I’d replied to her remark about whether I was putting “idiot” off limits. Mea culpa.
Last but not least, Ann is also mistaken in calling me a cool dad in her response to my most recent post. I’m not even in the top 101 Coolest Dads in America, as either or both of my children will tell you.
Michael Bérubé, at 11:25 pm EST on February 13, 2006
One Final Thing
I would like to underscore that I do not believe Mr. Berube meant “D.Ho” in a vulgar or demeaning way. I think it was probably an innocent joke. However, his readers did read those connotations into the term, and seemed to accept them because they respect his authority. And I admit he’s a smart guy.
I think we should be able to talk about Mr. Horowitz without resorting to such terms, even though I personally am fine with whores. At least they perform a valuable service. But nevertheless, I hope people can move on from this an engage in serious conversations about the controversial issues that Mr. Horowitz’s book raises without making it even more difficult to talk about those issues.
Reader, at 11:25 pm EST on February 13, 2006
That final thing
And I thank Reader/ Fred/ Cool Dad for that gracious comment, and for having the patience to explain to me the basis of his earlier remarks. I’m sorry I referred to one of his earlier claims as a “falsehood,” because even though Ann Bartow is not a student (and my students have never appeared on my blog, to my knowledge), I had indeed forgotten her October 24 comment about the possible offensiveness of “D-Ho” and its variants.
I have asked my readers to retire the term.
Michael Bérubé, at 11:50 pm EST on February 13, 2006
I read the parallel construction of DHo and JLo as referring to the alleged commonalities between the two individuals, primarily thirst for fame and lack of talent.
As regards one commenter’s sense that it was intended as an insulting feminization of Mr. Horowitz: that presumes that the user considers any equation of any man to any woman as an insult to the man. It is a regrettable truth that in this day and age there are still people who think that way. I’m not about to change my linguistic habits to assuage such misguided feelings.
Chris Clarke, at 11:50 pm EST on February 13, 2006
something other than berube?
i’m a berube fan. but can we please actually discuss something else?
simone eastman, at 4:10 am EST on February 14, 2006
[noting the comment immediately above my last] But if Dr. Bérubé’s asking people not to use the term on his blog, of course I’m happy to comply. And of course I understand Ann Bartow’s criticism, and will consider it seriously.
But cowing because some Horowitz defenders consider it an insult to even accidentally be called a girl? That’s the argument people raise, insulting 51 percent of the population, to tell US we’re not being civil? Less than persuasive.
Chris Clarke, at 4:10 am EST on February 14, 2006
I just want to thank Fred for his sincere interest in promoting women’s rights and equality. I’m sure that his harping on the not-uncommon internet abbreviation of David Horowitz’s name to “DHo” is entirely motivated by his undoubtedly impeccable feminist credentials, and is no way a bad-faith attempt to dismiss Michael’s arguments against DHo through cheap and intellectually dishonest ad hominems, nor an equally bad-faith employment of arguments that, in any other context, Fred would be the first to ridicule.
bitchphd, at 4:10 am EST on February 14, 2006
More irony
I just wanted to return from the dead briefly to say that I find the term “bitchphd” profoundly offensive. We try to eliminate this term from rap lyrics, yet leading academics toss it around like common greetings. Shouldn’t “bitchphd” bother someone with female students who presumably look up to you?
Betty Friedan, at 6:50 am EST on February 14, 2006
Farewell to Fred
Thanks Dr. Berube for your apology, and for retiring “D’ho” from your blog. I apologize in turn for my less than civil tactics. It took a while to realize what was actually bothering me about your Horowitz entries.
For those concerned about Fred and the sincerity of his feminist convictions, I should let you know that “Fred” is actually a female graduate student who has held these beliefs from around the first time she entered university. If anyone wonders why Fred would spend a whole day on this forum hounding Berube about “ho” and “whore,” you now have your answer: I think the university is one of the last bastions— or bastards, however you want to view it— of “freedom.” And that freedom, broadly defined, should include a place where women don’t have to feel conflicted about terms such as the ones that Ann Bartow refers to in her post.
I feel a little like Tina Faye playing the school teacher in MEAN GIRLS, telling high school-aged women to stop calling each other “whores” and “bitches” because it makes it easier for men to call them that.
Only in this case, instead of high school girls, I’m basically asking *academics* to show a little more respect for one another (and even for people we don’t seem to like very much, such as Horowitz), because if we don’t, it makes it so much easier for the dominant culture to mock us and point out our abuses to us.
I don’t have a solid opinion on Horowitz yet; he was not on my radar until about a year ago, when I first caught wind of the “Academic Bill of Rights.” At the time, I had a knee-jerk reaction to the proposal and thought it was absolutely ridiculous. Now, however, I am no longer so sure. I am against the legislation he proposes, but in favor of professors actively using their own discretion to prevent students from feeling silenced or oppressed. I was pretty ticked yesterday when Professor Berube initially suggested I was a liar, and wondered how that would have played itself out in a classroom conflict situation: He said versus she said; Tenured professor versus female grad student.
I think more people should do like Professor Kirstein has done, and invite Horowitz to explain his unusual views in public forums. I often find that by reaching out to people who feel alienated, you can better understand their positions, and hel resolve their grievances before they turn into legislation or threats of legislation.
That’s just my two cents, though. Again, thanks to Professor Berube for *your* patience with my rudeness, and for doing what I think is the right thing in retiring the term. Finally, to bitchphd, much as I admire women who reclaim negative terms, I sort of agree with Betty Friedman that your name is not my favorite one. But what the heck, it;s your chosen name, so be proud of it.
Best wishes,Fred/Wilma
Fred/Wilma, at 9:40 am EST on February 14, 2006
Gutless Wonder, Reporting for Duty
I’d just like to add to B.J.S.’s response to Prof. Langenberg by inviting the professor to recall that a very large portion of the academic workforce as it stands now is, in fact, NOT protected by tenure—or, for that matter by such things as a reasonable level of job security, fair pay, or health insurance.
There are very good reasons why non-tenured workers in academia feel the need to maintain their anonymity. And, in fact, anonymity is one of the only ways in which many of us feel free to speak at all. Would Prof. Langenberg prefer that we simply stay silent?
Ancrene Wiseass, at 11:41 am EST on February 14, 2006
Purely academic
Knowing my profession, I didn’t think much of it when my perfectly reasonable comment ON THE HOROWITZ LIST was ignored in favor of some exchanges on the use of a nickname for David Horowitz.
Now, approximately 22 posts have dealt with this nickname as compared to 25 that actually refer to the Horowitz controversy. Isn’t that a bit excessive?
At every holiday gathering, I must endure endless pokes and prods from my wife’s family about the insulated academic world. How can I defend our profession when we seem to be busy with exactly the kinds of activities that Aristophanes described in his comedy about Socrates and the academy, “The Clouds"?
For once, let’s be a bit -less- academic, hm?
QuakerProf, at 12:20 pm EST on February 14, 2006
Academic Freedom? What freedom?
Let’s face facts: David Horowitz is a tick in the crotch of American culture. He’ll go on Hannity’s and Savage/Weiner’s radio shows and “Hannity and Corpse” on Fox TV, get the rightwingnuts all in a tizzy, and boost his book sales. Will he have any effect on what I can say in the classroom? No...because reliance on student satisfaction surveys alone for decisions on tenure and promotion at my community college-trying-to-pass-itself-off-as-a-university already has accomplished that. Oh, I have “academic freedom” alright, but if I don’t please the “customers” and get high ratings, I’ll never get ahead. So let the Horowitzes of the world rant. As long as I have predomonantly under-achieving conservative students, I’ll watch what I say.
Stealth Progressive, Inmate at Small VA “university”, at 12:30 pm EST on February 14, 2006
In case some of the sarcasm above clouds the point, I want to second Michael’s note about being able to control the infamous “Mr. Toad.” Under a variety of pseudonyms, he stalks certain pockets of the internet and unleashes torrents of prose which would only be improved by the appearance of the word “whore.” An anatomy of this particular troll can be found here:
http://acephalous.typepad.com/acephalous/2005/11/anatomy_of_a_tr.html
Scott Eric Kaufman, UCI, at 12:30 pm EST on February 14, 2006
Horowitz’ List
The only thing that is frightening in this dustup is that there are people—pro or con—who take David Horowitz as seriously as he takes himself.
Historian, retired, at 12:35 pm EST on February 14, 2006
I for one am extrememly upset that pressure to self-censor has taken place on this board. I am a feminist and a teacher of popular culture. Not for a minute did I think “whore” when I read D’Ho. Creating such name abbreviations is very common today. Popular culture is a pervasive influence on our lives and one cannot and should not expect it to be locked out by the walls of our institutions. As for bitches, I was a punk rock grrrl in my younger life and I take no offense at bitch in certain social contexts. In fact relations between the sexes are much more equal in dog and wolf packs. Alpha bitches are tough, assertive, aggressive, and in control. I don’t think that is a bad thing. I understand the connections between words, their past uses, and politics, however, language is constantly evolving and we have to pay attention to how they are used today.
Feminist Who Isn’t Bothered, at 1:40 pm EST on February 14, 2006
Fred/Wilma is not “Mr. Toad”
Just a clarification in case anyone out there confuses Fred/Wilma with the “Mr.Toad” character from Dr. Berube’s blog.
I didn’t start reading Dr. Berube’s blog until this year, in January of 2006. I’d never heard of him before that time (gasp!) so the comments of Mr. Toad that were left in his blog a few months ago are not my own.
While I have recently impersonated a “Troll” or two on Dr. Berube’s blog, I am by no means responsible for all of the writings and ramblings of the various “Trolls” who dance and sing along the alleys of the internet.
And I agree with the poor man who keeps begging to talk about David Horowitz and his issues: why do the rest of us seem to avoid wanting to do that? Maybe David Horowitz is saying a thing or two that might interest us about those students whom we fail to hear the first time around, the ones who feel like their voices don’t matter, the ones who eventually get angry enough to write books and start talking to politicians?
Just a thought from a Troll. :)
Fred/Wilma, at 2:25 pm EST on February 14, 2006
Student: “I’ll tell you, but you must believe these things are Mysteries. Just now Socrates was asking Chaerephon how many of its own feet a flea could leap. For after biting Chaerephon on the eyebrow, it jumped onto Socrates’ head.”
Strepsiades: “How did he measure it?”
Student: “Most shrewdly. He melted some wax, then took the flea and dipped two of its feet into the wax; as it cooled, Persian slippers grew around them. He took these off and was measuring the space.”
Strepsiades: “O Zeus the King, what subtlety of the wits!”
_____________________
Let’s stop obssessing about measuring the leaping distance of flies, hm? Let’s talk about the real issues with the Horowitz list.
QuakerProf, at 5:35 pm EST on February 14, 2006
okay, do it then
Why are so many people now saying “Let’s talk about the matter at hand, please!” instead of just going ahead and talking about the matter at hand?
I’ll start: what can we do, collectively, to fight the Horowitzian onslaught? (Those of us, that is, who think it should be fought, rather than joined.) I don’t think he and the wave he’s riding represent a mere irritant—it’s a threat to academic freedom that’s growing larger.
willie mink, at 6:00 pm EST on February 14, 2006
Real issues
” .. Let’s talk about the real issues with the Horowitz list.”
Real issues, IMHO:
1. Those on the list from private colleges (like Quakers) have little to be concerned with Mr. Horowitz (NOT Dho) — he can bring maximum impact ONLY on public, taxpayer-owned colleges. Example: I don’t see Noam Chomsky, posting to these boards — he’s private college, as well as certifiably rich.
2. The taxpayers are angry and unhappy. They want to know what they are getting for their tax dollars in public higher education. Contrary to what they believe are smart-aleck remarks by certain faculty, the tax-paying public OWN those public college buildings. They will decide how those tax-funded buildings will be utilized, thank you.
Those taxpayers see an an alleged Indian trickster, Mr. Ward Leroy Churchill, M.A. — for whom DH has focused on — and they want to cut funding for public higher education. They believe WLC has a constitutional right to free speech — and they have a constitutional right to cut off his funding if they think he is producing worthless material. They will not be ignored by Mr. Ward Leroy Churchill and his academic-freedom absolutist supporters — just ask Dr. Betsy Hoffman, former president of CU.
Those taxpayers hear about lower-cost alternatives like accredited online. They are considering them, if only to avoid possible bankruptcy. It is their children that are carrying the student loan debt burden.
3. Public higher education has a choice. Either explain (in plain English, 500 words or less, please) and justify the public’s continued investment in public higher education — or face further cuts and possible diversion of tax funds to charters and vouchers.
Art D., at 6:55 pm EST on February 14, 2006
D’Ho
Why do we mock a fine entertainer like Don Ho?
Hawaiian, at 8:20 pm EST on February 14, 2006
C’mon Where are the Five Colleges?
I’ve looked at Horowitz’s list and was shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you—to find there wasn’t a single prof from the 5 Colleges—Amherst, Hampshire, Mt. Holyoke, Smith, and UMass—of Western MA. I’m really offended that Horowitz couldn’t find a dangerous prof here and I’d like to challenge my colleagues: C’mon folks pick it up. We can do better! With some real effort we can make the list next year.
I’d also like to point out that “c’mon,” so far as I know, does not refer to any sexual activity that is illegal outside of Reno, NV. If someone knows that it does, please tell me so I can start a blog, offend Horowitz, and make a run at his list for next year.
Rob
Rob, at 5:05 am EST on February 18, 2006
Effect of book
... So what exactly is all this argument about the word Ho coming from? Really... Forgive me for being a little dense, because I can see from reference it refers to someone who is sexually promiscuous, but when I first read that I thought D’oh? And I’d like to mention that Santa clause says “ho, ho, ho” A great deal. I suppose he is making it an O.K. term as well. Is that feminizing people, or insulting people?
As for the subject of the book, so a conservative book was published. Boo hoo. Freedom of speech people. He can say whatever he wants; we just don’t have to listen to it. “I may not agree with what you say, but I will die to protect your right to say it.” Personally this list just intrigues me about the aforementioned professors, at least as a high school student. I’ll probably end up attending Earlham, so I’ll make sure I get into this “controversial class". I’ll also make sure to read some of these people’s works.
Really this country has gotten so bi-partisan that anything that the conservatives publish encourages the liberals to do what they say the liberals should stop doing, and vice versa. It is both insane, and inane. This two party system is what happens in Brazil when they are under military dictatorships. Otherwise they have far more groups, and people can freely switch! What I’d like to see is a book revealing the ridiculousness of this whole “conservative vs. Liberal” debate, and the very idea that there are only two viewpoints on any matter.
Le Blue Dude, Student at Scattergood, at 10:30 pm EST on February 20, 2006
Scary that the one prof is demanding real names...
...I think I know why he is demanding names—to make life miserable for untenured profs or to fail a student that is not towing the liberal line (I have personal experience with the last one).
Isn’t it interesting that the only place today in the United States where you can actually be punished for what you say—is in the bastion of leftism that is the modern University?
Isn’t it also interesting that you will hear a far greater diversity of opinion on the Fox News Channel than on any University campus in the country?
Just an “evil neocon”, at 8:00 am EST on February 21, 2006
Congratulations to Caroline Higgins...
As a former Earlham grad I think a round of applause is due to Caroline Higgins. To get on the list of someone like Horowitz is quite an honor.
It’s akin to having someone like Fidel Castro criticize you for having crazy democratic ideals. I would take that “compliment” anyday.
Considering the source, Caroline Higgins should consider this a badge of honor. She has obviously ruffled the feathers of someone who does not truly appreciate the teachings of Christ or even the Founding Fathers of our country.
Given that, I hope she holds her head up high secure in the knowledge that those who would see our country diminished intellectually and spiritually find her to be a “threat".
Congratulations Caroline!
Bill AschEarlham Grad — 1993
P.S. I never had Caroline for a class, but always found her pleasant to talk to during my time on campus.
Bill Asch, at 1:20 pm EST on February 23, 2006
In answer to Art D.’s question on why public universities should be recieving tax payers money, it considerably lowers tuition for students who cannot afford to enjoy a private education. The in-state tuition is low enough for people like myself to be able to afford further education as well. I just want to say, on behalf of my fellow students, thank you to all the tax payers allowing me to attend law school without the additional student loan debt.
Boilermaker, Oh the madness at Purdue University, at 7:40 pm EST on February 23, 2006
The Lesson of Lord of the Flies
I am just a homely high-school teacher. I find it interesting that according to the Horowitz Social Plan, “Teachers should teach their subjects. They should not teach peace or war or freedom or diversity or uniformity or nationalism or anti-nationalism or any other agenda that might properly be taught by a political leader or a talk-show host.”
Yes, I am here today to tell you that I have considerable competition in my classroom, competition from the rightful teachers of opinion, the talk-show hosts. No matter that they are manipulative purveyors of absolute idological trash, the 15 year-old students, some of them, have a strong allegiance to said hosts, and a non-existent allegience to me. Regularly I tell these students how the TV loves them however I, and their families, are meaningless to them, utterly useless, not worthy of attention, we are unloving. But the person on the TV knows them and loves them, for it is all a part of the Horowitz Social Plan.
In William Golding’s Lord of the Flies, Jack Merridew sees his chance. He recruits hunters and promises them protection from “The Beast from the Air.” This makes Jack singularly very powerful. Soon one small waif boy sees that the Beast from the Air is just the corpse of a downed pilot. He is not able to share this information because he returns to the other boys, but during one of Jack’s night-time blood and fire orgies on the beach. The boy is immediately gored to death, he himself must be the “Beast from the Air.” Next, Sweet-hearted Piggy declares it was an accident, the boy was not murdered. Next, Piggy’s eyeglasses are stolen by Jack and Piggy is mocked. When Piggy needs them to see, he too is murdered.
Mr. Horowitz, will you protect me and my students from the “Beast from the Air?” Will you teach us to hunt and have fire orgies on the beach? Let us again recognize that the rightful professors of opinion are talk-show hosts and politicians. Professors are to follow strict pre-exisiting guidelines featured in an upcoming book from Mr. Horowitz. Now you no longer need to wonder “What’s next?” What’s next is Marshall Law and a Big Promotion for Mr. Horowitz and the Horowitz Social Plan.
Now I spit up some flem from the fifth flu I’ve had this year since I get whatever the student populace gets, and I go to work to arrive at 6:15 a.m. Did I mention I do not have health insurance and I avoid the doctor? This month I will pay Educational Testing Service $195. for a test to show that I can write an essay, about the same I pay for a month’s heating bill. My take home pay is just over the $10./hour I made as a security guard, about $1600. a month. Following this model, $1405. this month, after paying for the test to show I can write an essay.
What was that Mr. Horowitz? I’ve no time for you, I have to drive across town to work and pay my bills. I just hand it over to you. You decide what’s best for me.
Private Citizen, at 4:45 am EST on February 24, 2006
Horowitz takes aim at two PSU profs
More dangerous profs: Michael Berube and Sam Richards...
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/14027085.htm
Bob, at 6:15 am EST on March 6, 2006
David Horowitz
I believe that there is no place in the classroom for political leanings being expressed. Playing devils advocate is okay as a teaching tool to spur debate. But consistently advocating a particular position and refusing to listen to alternative views is the epitome of a tyrannical academic enivornment in which indoctrination trumps education.
Tom, at 5:00 pm EDT on April 7, 2006
You Prove His Points Perfectly
Professor Sami al-Arian of the University of South Florida just pled guilty to a felony count of conspiring to help members of a terrorist organization and will now be deported. I guess Horowitz isn’t so crazy afterall. And here is the NEA and the AAUP and other radical professors defending him. No surprise there!
Cory Davenport, at 8:40 pm EDT on April 17, 2006
Advertisement
Jobs Related to David Horowitz Has a List
or search for jobs directly.
Professor/Dept Head Computer Science and Engineering
Mississippi State University
Professor/Department Head Computer Science and Engineering Mississippi State University see job
Collections Representative
Corinthian Colleges
Everest Institute, a respected member of the Corinthian Colleges’ network of schools, is dedicated to helping students ... see job
IT Quality Assurance Analyst
Weill Medical College of Cornell University
Founded in 1898, and affiliated with what is now New York-Presbyterian Hospital since 1927, Weill Cornell Medical College ... see job
Web Developer/Qatar
Weill Medical College of Cornell University
Founded in 1898, and affiliated with what is now New York-Presbyterian Hospital since 1927, Weill Cornell Medical College ... see job
Assistant/Associate Professor of Accounting
Loyola Marymount University CA
Located on the west side of Los Angeles overlooking the Pacific, Loyola Marymount University seeks professionally outstanding ... see job
Spanish (Adjunct) Instructor
Hillsborough Community College
Hillsborough Community College is a public, comprehensive multi-campus, state-supported community college located in the ... see job
It Sr Project Leader
University of Pennsylvania
The nation’s first university, Penn is a world-renowned leader in education, research, and innovation. Situated on a ... see job
Business Administration Faculty
Bethel College — KS
Business Administration Faculty position open. see job
Post-Doctoral Associate-Blanket
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Language and Foreign Studies ASSISTANT OR ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR (TENURE-TRACK)
American University
American University is an independent liberal-arts university located in Washington, DC with 12,000 students. The faculty are ... see job
Home
| Sign up | Log in
| About us
| Work for Us
| Press Releases
| Rights and permissions
| Contact us
| Advertise
| Partners
| RSS 
| Podcasts
| Links
| Privacy
| My Account
© Copyright 2008 Inside Higher Ed
Keep laughing
Then read the next article on the main page. The public is finally getting wind of what has happened in the colleges. Things are changing, and it’s about time.
Bad English, at 7:15 am EST on February 13, 2006