Comments on Uniting Against Horowitz

• The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling!
• Posted by Chicken Little on March 17, 2006 at 6:05am EST

• Nothing does more to publicize and empower David Horowitz than the overreaction of academic interest groups.

• Even worse! Even worse!
• Posted by B.J.S. on March 17, 2006 at 7:35am EST

• I hear his people are trying to set up a national bulletin board for students to post MP3 audio clips! Like what happened in Aurora, Colo.! The sky is falling! Wicca, save us!

• Nanny State
• Posted by Jim Peterson on March 17, 2006 at 9:11am EST

• As a conservative, I am against most laws that tells us what we can and cannot do. This law included.

  But that doesn't mean that left wingers aren't stifling debate on campus and doing each other favors to control entire institutions.

  The federal courts just struck down the "Mail Order Bride Law" that the Democrats pushed so hard to get passed on Christmas Eve when the Republican politicians were all drunk I suppose (and Bush signed the law on 1/5 probably without reading it which turned me against him for the first time since 2001).

  That law, ostensibly meant to protect foreign women from evil Americans, actually made it a crime for an American to contact a foreigner without first sending a criminal background form plus a promise that he wasn't married and wasn't paying child support for any kids.

  The fact that the entire Congress voted for this law...shows that democracy simply doesn't work and thank God we live under a dictatorship of a benevolent court system instead.

  The federal courts would strike down any law that tells professors what to teach as well.

  Again...thank God for the judiciary branch.

  Horowitz should stick with exposing what professors say...and let the leftists' own words hang them.

• Liberal academics? Liberal media?
• Posted by Seth , Assistant Prof of English at West Chester U of PA on March 17, 2006 at 9:20am EST

• Folks:

  Every time we turn around, another Horowitzian fabrication/distortion is revealed. As much as we'd like to believe, though, that enough of these revelations will make his campaign go away, it won't.

  Think about it. For the last twenty years, the far right has marshalled allegation after allegation against the "liberal media," even though most people recognize that corporate media are hardly left-wing advocates. Why? Because even though that campaign hasn't persuaded people that the news media industry is propagating revolution, it has successfully induced mistrust of the news media writ large.

  In much the same way, the ABOR campaign isn't designed, I don't think, to really convince anybody that liberal academics are pushing for a revolution. It's designed simply to ensure that the whole educational system, primarily public higher education, isn't trusted.

  Why? It's not as simple as Grover Norquist's "let's shrink the government until it'll go down the drain" refrain, but that's the basic idea. People with lots of money and power benefit when public institutions (especially those designed to make sure that people with money and power don't get to determine the whole world and everything in it) suffer.

• Mail Order Brides?
• Posted by Bride on March 17, 2006 at 11:05am EST

• That's such a strange law. I mean, of all the silly laws that *shouldn't* be revoked, that actually sounds like a good one to keep. Who needs lying, cheating American guys sending away for mail order brides, anyhow? Buy a rubber doll or something!

  But back to David Horowitz. Why do you think the courts would strike down a Congressional ruling in his favor? The courts really don't seem to be on the side of Higher Ed rights these days, as we saw re: the Solomon Amendment.

  It's interesting about the MP3 files idea: that sounds like pretty high-tech stuff. Or maybe I am getting pretty old. Horowitz's web site is not super savvy, so I wonder if he has a team of tech-pros who can assist with the MP3 project. I would like to hear some really good sound bites of crazy professors ranting and raving and foaming at the mouth; it would be refreshing and entertaining.

  But the MP3 idea also raises questions about judgement: what sorts of comments will students decide to record and save and upload to the internet? There is such a selection to choose from, and what if you simply select some drab remark that does not evidence a political viewpoint or ideological arm-twister? Selecting choice quotations may prove to be as much work as writing good papers and choosing the appropriate documentation.

• Posted by Larry on March 17, 2006 at 2:25pm EST

• Jim, I am curious why you rely entirely on federal courts when state courts are just as capable of interpreting the US Constitution and their state constitutions.

  Bride, Like you, I read every decision to come from the Supreme Court, and most circuit court of appeals decisions (otherwise, it would be unethical and wrong to comment on them). FAIR v. Rumsfeld was not about “all” academics or “all” universities seeking to advance a right. It was about some academics who had some interests seeking to advance such a right. Indeed, to most academics the interests involved are beyond their comprehension, as employers don’t even try to recruit their students as aggressively as legal recruiters do. I would like to know what language in Fair v. Rumsfeld you re referring to that shows an abject hatred of academics on the part of at least eight of the Justices. All of the Justices have advanced degrees. Most of the justices have held academic appointments of some form or another. 7 or 8 of the justices have sent their kids to universities. None of the justices hire law clerks that were unable to play the academic game and distinguish themselves in higher education.

  Now, Bride, since you read every case from the Supreme Court, I wonder if you consider Gonzaga U v. Doe to pro or anti-higher education. The university won.

• You Try to Be Funny, and Look What Happens
• Posted by Bride on March 17, 2006 at 3:30pm EST

• Hi Larry,

  I was basically trying to make a joke in my posting about the "Mail Orde Bride" legislation, which just seems so bizarre and yet... compelling.

  I don't read too many Supreme Court verdicts, and frankly don't care that much about the Solomon Amendment: if gay people (or straight people) are audacious/crazy enough to join the military in today's conditions, that's their call. I think it stinks that the gov't is basically forcing universities to help discriminate against their own students, but I have no real interest in the Army, so it won't kill my pride or cast a damper on my parade.

• Eat the rich
• Posted by A.D. on March 17, 2006 at 4:30pm EST

• " .. People with lots of money and power benefit when public institutions .. suffer .."

  USA Today reports that public spending under GWB has grown faster than under the Great Society, even Rush Limbaugh is worried about GWB's spending, spending on Medicare/Medicaid has exceeded that for education .. who's suffering, again?

  Two-thirds of Americans don't go to college for various reasons, but tax-and-spenders want them to pay, anyway. Is suffering, in the eye of the sufferer?

• My lectures are copyrighted
• Posted by Giveme$$ on March 17, 2006 at 8:40pm EST

• If DH wants to give me a piece of the advertising action he gets at Discoverthe network or Frontpagemag.com, I'd be happy to supply as many MP3 soundbites as he cares to post. If he refuses to pay me my money, then perhaps a lawyer could shake Scaife's tree for me...
  Then again maybe I could win him over to my side of the fence -- intellectual copyright laws undermine free speech.
  Naw, never happen...

• Leftists?
• Posted by carla on March 17, 2006 at 8:40pm EST

• Just a quick note to Mr. Peterson. I have been looking in vain for an organized left in the US for years. If anyone has seen or heard of one please let us know where they can be found. In the absence of one however it is clear that Mr. H. has to make one up. So all those centrist liberals on campuses who quietly try to be fair in the classroom, teach all sides, etc. are skewered for being 'left'. Nice job Mr. H. I used to agree with 'Chicken Little' above that to ignore H. was the best policy. But Mr. H. is supported by wads of cash from fat-cat welfare-bum right wingers who don't pay taxes. So do we stand by?

• College doesn't hold the copyrights?
• Posted by L.L. Barry on March 18, 2006 at 3:40pm EST

• "My lectures are copyrighted .. If DH wants to give me a piece of the advertising action .."

  How odd -- I've rarely heard of any faculty at a college (public or private) who retained the copyrights to materials used in class.

  As the employer, the college usually holds those copyrights. Only in some extreme condition -- like a law professor at Harvard -- are copyrights retained by faculty.

• Odd, but delicious irony nevertheless
• Posted by Giveme$$ on March 18, 2006 at 10:45pm EST

• Under the Copyright Act of 1976 ("Copyright Act" or "Act"), copyright attaches automatically to a work at the time it is "fixed in a tangible medium." Therefore, any outlines or scripts used in connection with classroom instruction enjoy some copyright protection as soon as they are written. Similarly, the lectures themselves receive copyright protection once they are taped or otherwise recorded in a permanent medium.

  For works created by an individual, copyright lasts for the life of the author plus fifty years. For works created by an individual for someone else, i.e. "for hire," copyright lasts for a period of one hundred years from the creation of the work or seventy five years from its publication whichever is earlier. Publication involves loaning, leasing, selling or giving away copies of a work. It should be noted that, while satellite distribution of a work represents Public performance under the Copyright Act, it does not constitute publication. If, however, copies of the program are made and later distributed, this qualifies as publication.

  During the period of copyright protection, copyright owners have the exclusive right to (1) reproduce the copyrighted work; (2) prepare derivative works based on the copyrights work; (3) publish the work by distributing copies to the public by sale, rental, lease or lending; (4) publicly perform the copyrighted work; and (5) publicly display the work. Copyright owners may transfer these exclusive rights to others, either as individual rights or as an entire "bundle of rights."

• Employment contract?
• Posted by L.L. Barry on March 19, 2006 at 8:45am EST

• You've forgotten a major point. What does your employment contract with your college state?

  You've left that out. You may be for a very large surprise.

• In the digital age it is incumbent...
• Posted by Giveme$$ on March 19, 2006 at 3:05pm EST

• ...upon each and every professor to make sure they know exactly who holds the copyright to their intellectual property. At private colleges such as the one I work for it can be negotiated, and some of us with prior experience in the commercial publishing world enter into these relationships with our eyes open. I do not know the details at R1s, community colleges, etc. Alas, the poor souls at Phoenix and its clones have sold their rights away, but I suspect we'll all be following them into the online grading mills soon enough given the changes in Federal Student Loan policy. My point, which you seem hellbent on nitpicking to death, nevertheless stands. If DH is going to be posting MP3s he will either be paying somebody for the rights or breaking the law...

• Posted by Leslie Bary on March 20, 2006 at 4:30am EST

• Giveme$$ is right, and I notice people in general are very confused about copyright, fair use, etc. I'm not an expert but: read your school's copyright handbook, most schools have them. The general default on what you create (except for items such as pamphlets describing the major in your department) is that you retain copyright. That includes your lectures and your research. This is true from community colleges through R1s. If your field is in some sort of R&D, and you use vast amounts of school money to do your research, you may need to negotiate with your school. But as far as lectures go, if an administrator tells you they're the school's property, that administrator will most likely be trumped by system policy and state/federal law, all of which will take your side.

  Back to Horowitz: getting him on copyright violations would be fun.

• What about the Harvard Law case?
• Posted by B.J. on March 20, 2006 at 10:35am EST

• http://www.google.com/search?as_q=+Harvard-Law+Concord&num=100&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Arthur+Miller+&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images

  If Prof. Arthur Miller of Harvard Law School can get into a IP rights dispute with his employer -- anyone can.

  As to the MP3 issue -- the MP3 in the kerkuffle at the Aurora, Colo., high school is cited in 21,800 Web sites, according to Google. Anyone planning to sue 21,800 Web sites, better bring plenty of energy bars.

• Copyright + Horowitz
• Posted by Leslie Bary on March 20, 2006 at 9:05pm EST

• Yes, the Harvard case is famous, and problematic in its own way, but Giveme$$ was talking about lectures, not standardized course materials created for a specific curriculum and situation.

  Anyway, glad to see Carla's post: it is true, there's no left, really, and Horowitz has nothing to fear; is trying to intimidate the center. Yes, H. is irrational and you'd think nobody would listen. But this is precisely why he has power.

  I told one of my classes today that the U.S. had been complicit (if not active) in Operation Condor. This is documented historical fact and was relevant to the discussion--of a text not chosen by me but adopted department wide. H. would probably say it was biased of me to say this, since it doesn't put the U.S. in a good light. Who's biased... ??? H. needs to be fought, before it's too late.

• Oh, the Horrorwitz
• Posted by Joe Weber on March 21, 2006 at 11:55am EST

• All Horowitz does essentially is quote the professors. So?

• Seeking "truth?"
• Posted by J. Swift on March 21, 2006 at 7:30pm EST

• ".. quote the professors."

  Yeah. What happened to "seeking the truth?" Only works with cases like Rodney King? Good for the goose -- not the gander?

• what harm, the truth?
• Posted by Mark on March 21, 2006 at 8:15pm EST

• Yes, all Horowitz is trying to do is to uncover the truth...just like Joe McCarthy. Why all the fuss?

• Who cares about facts?
• Posted by J. Swift on March 22, 2006 at 4:25am EST

• " .. just like Joe McCarthy. .."

  Hey nummy .. facts don't mean anything to some folks, in the soft-sciences. But FYI: McCarthy never had audio-recordings, audio-tapes, or actual documents. And he's been dead for nearly 50 years.

• Quoting?
• Posted by Aaron on March 22, 2006 at 7:25pm EST

• Look at the book, Joe... Horowitz does very little quoting, and elides often (when he does quote).

• Operation Condor?
• Posted by J. Swift , Supreme Commander at Operation Find-A-NonLiberal in Academia on March 25, 2006 at 9:15am EST

• " .. I told one of my classes today that the U.S. had been complicit (if not active) in Operation Condor."

  How brilliant! Only 1% of the U.S. public ever heard of that. Thanks for spending 99.9% of your time, tearing down the U.S.!

  Obviously, this has never read at LSU .. from Stephen Zelnick, a senior, respected member of Temple University’s English faculty and former vice-provost:

  "I rarely (hear) a kind word for the United States, for the riches of our marketplace, for the vast economic and creative opportunities made available for energetic and creative people (that is, for our students); for family life, for marriage, for love, or for religion.”

  Louisana, you are so lucky to have faculty to tear down the socio-cultural environment that supports it. Please give the faculty what they deserve.