March 23, 2006

Murderers, Video and Academic Freedom

Video of Pat Robertson and a new report out of Florida have set off the latest skirmishes over the Academic Bill of Rights.

Looking for a job?

See all new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 3,481
Administrative: 1,574
Executive: 156
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

The video of Robertson on his CBN television station has raised questions about a claim on the book jacket of David Horowitz’s new book, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America, which lists “murderers” among those allegedly teaching America’s youth. Robertson — whose television shows are viewed by millions — used the words “murderers” and “killers” in reference to professors.

The report out of Florida, meanwhile, says that — contrary to the claims of backers of the Academic Bill of Rights — colleges have policies in place about academic freedom, students have grievance procedures they can use, and few students find reason to use them.

David Horowitz, in e-mail interviews Wednesday, acknowledged that he could not show that any of the professors he criticizes in his book actually killed anyone, although he said some may meet the legal test for having helped others to kill. He slammed the Florida legislative report as irrelevant.

For starters, let’s go to the videotape. On the 700 Club this week, Pat Robertson said that the 101 professors in Horowitz’s new book are only a “short list” of the 30 to 40 thousand” professors whom he called “termites that have worked into the woodwork of our academic society.” Robertson referred to professors as “murderers” (as well as sexual deviants and terrorist supporters) and later said that some of them are “killers.” Robertson’s comments were cited by People for the American Way, which made the video available, as a “right wing outrage.”

So who are the murderers Robertson was talking about? Horowitz in his book does not attribute any individual deaths to any of the professors who make his list, but the book jacket does mention “murderers.”

In an e-mail interview, Horowitz said that he “didn’t write the flap jacket on my book and was not even shown a copy of it until the covers were printed.” But he also said that he didn’t have anything to retract. He said that two of the professors in his book, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, were members of the Weather Underground — while a third, Sami al-Arian, was a member of a terrorist group — and that all three thus have ties to groups that tried to kill people.

While Ayers and Dohrn have acknowledged that they were part of the Weather Underground, they have never been convicted of murder or of aiding a murder, and al-Arian has never acknowledged being part of a terrorist group and his recent trial on related charges ended in a hung jury on some accusations and not guilty verdicts on others.

Horowitz, asked if the term “murderer” didn’t normally mean someone who had killed someone else, said that “no one to my knowledge in my book actually pulled the trigger so to speak.” But he added that he had never made such a claim. He also said, however, that it was appropriate to judge the three professors he named by the groups that he says they were a part of. “According to the law, if you are the member of a conspiracy or gang that commits murder, you are guilty of murder,” he wrote.

Criticism over accusations about “murderers” is also largely irrelevant, Horowitz said, because “what’s damaging to academics in my book is not the sensational stuff,” but rather the “normal and massive corruption” that he said exists throughout higher education.

To that end, the study out of Florida did not please him.

Florida is among the many states where conservative legislators have introduced a version of the Academic Bill of Rights, which would bar faculty members from punishing students for their political views and would require professors to share alternative viewpoints in classes. Proponents say that the legislation is needed to protect student rights, but most academic groups say that the measure could encourage lawsuits and discourage professors from covering controversial subjects, and might force them to allow intelligent design or Holocaust denial into their classrooms.

An important part of the debate has been the question of whether there is in fact a problem with students feeling that their views are squelched and that they don’t have policies to turn to at their colleges. In Florida, legislators asked the state’s Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability to examine those issues.

In its report, the office found that all Florida colleges have policies in place that protect academic freedom and include procedures for students to follow if they feel that their rights are being denied by anyone. In terms of student complaints, the report found that very few complaints deal with the issues raised by the Academic Bill of Rights. Less than 1 percent of student grievances concern academic freedom issues, the report said.

A statement issued by Tom Auxter, president of the United Faculty of Florida — a faculty union affiliated with both the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association — said that the report found “absolutely no basis for the contention that faculty members violate the right of students to academic freedom in the classroom.”

Given that proponents of the Academic Bill of Rights spoke about “rampant abuse,” Auxter said that the relative rarity of complaints, along with the availability of grievance procedures, “calls into question the motives of those legislators who looked for evidence to justify limiting the rights of faculty in the classroom and limiting the rights of students to hear what faculty had to say.”

Horowitz called the report “meaningless” and a “whitewash.” He said that most students and faculty members don’t understanding what academic freedom means, so they wouldn’t know to file grievances. Rather than looking at grievances that have been filed, Horowitz said, Florida officials should have asked students this question: “Have you ever been in a class where your professor made remarks about the war in Iraq or President Bush that was not a course about the war in Iraq or President Bush?” Horowitz said that “if you think the response would be only 1 percent positive, you haven’t talked to students in a long time.”

He added of the report — produced by the research arm of the Florida Legislature: “The academic left can go on maintaining that there is no problem as long as they like. The longer they do, the less credible they will appear to a public that will be more and more outraged at what’s going on.”

— Scott Jaschik

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.

Comments

Vast Publicity Conspiracy

His recently announced “smackdown” tour with Ward Churchill is more evidence of David Horowitz’s skills of self-promotion. But he is also helped by his opponents. What would Horowitz do without his hysterical left wing critics? What would People for the American Way do without Pat Robertson and David Horowitz with whom to scare their contributors. Horowitz also benefits from shoddy analysis of the classroom climate. Does anyone really believe that formal complaints are a good indicator of political bias in the classroom?

Chicken Little, at 8:15 am EST on March 23, 2006

Front and Center

So, after years of caving to political correctness on the left, we must now cave to a political correctness on the right. While I easily learned to call an “Indian sweat lodge” merely a “sweat lodge” (by the way, many Native Americans use the term “Indian” when politically convenient), what does Horowitz want me to call it? I think I will try “classroom.”

MDG, at 9:05 am EST on March 23, 2006

“...most academic groups say that the measure could encourage lawsuits and discourage professors from covering controversial subjects, and might force them to allow intelligent design or Holocaust denial into their classrooms.”

Why are these two concerns (about the intelligent design and the Holocaust denials) always trotted out by groups like the AAUP? Isn’t a faction of the AAUP busy trying to remount its own questionable conference, where some of the featured reading material was published in magazines linked to Holocaust denial?

If the AAUP is so concerned about Holocaust denial, perhaps they should clean up their own house first, and prevent sponsorship or endorsement of embarrassing situations such as the one reported on earlier this week.

Killers in the classroom; how exciting.

Greg Blanley, at 9:25 am EST on March 23, 2006

Horowitz

Horowitz’s book should be considered in light of the excellent article on Bill O’Reilly in the March 27 issue of The New Yorker. The paradigm Nicholas Lesmann uses to discuss O’Reilly is revelatory when focused on Horowitz. Without an imagined (but totally fictitious) left-wing conspiracy straw-man, neither O’Reilly nor Horowitz would have an audience for their fearmongering. They’re both hokum-spewing con-artists who are selling themselves. The more you examine their claims, the more they equivocate and qualify their statements. But they do sell books and get high ratings by pandering to their audience who are already willing to accept whatever they say. O’Reilly and Horowitz will both pass into obscurity...just like the “war on Christmas.” Remember that one?

New Yorker, at 9:31 am EST on March 23, 2006

Clinton & Horowitz

“Horowitz’s book should be considered in light of the excellent article on Bill O’Reilly ..”

Gee, if everyone used that kind of thinking, every Southern governor should be considered in light of the excellent articles on Bill Clinton and Paula Jones. How revealing! Thank you!

J. Swift, at 9:50 am EST on March 23, 2006

Run, run, the media’s here!

If there’s anyone left in America who doesn’t believe that Pat Robertson is a glassy-eyed, drooling, hermit-on-the-mount, it’s only because they are too. He’s afraid of “killers” in the classroom, but calls for the assassination of political heads-of-state in other countries, and damns to hell anyone who don’t buy his apocalyptic vision of moral decay. Why even give credibility to his ravings?

The same goes for Horowitz, who’s only one peyote-trip away from his own alternate reality. He’s successfully invented a crises out of the ghosts of his own liberal past to try and spook a bunch of students who couldn’t give a rat’s ass about “political bias,” but will accept any excuse to demand better grades and an easier transition to their entitled place in the socio-economic firmament. He himself suggests that many don’t know enough about the issues to even recognize political bias (or academic freedom) when they see it—thus, his “duty” to fight the fight on their behalf.

Thanks guys, but we’ll all deal with God and our professors on our own terms.

Jack Trades, at 9:55 am EST on March 23, 2006

All Reactionaries are Paper Tigers! Confess and Be Purged!

Just how do we define “murderer by association?” Horowitz went out a limb here for the sake of a cheap publicity shot and he deserves to have it sawn off! Are all Christians also murderers because of their often vocal support of Eric Rudolph ( I saw a fair number of “Run Rudy Run” bumper stickers on cars parked in Baptist church parking lots a few years ago)? Are all conservatives murderers because of the torture and murders of Muslims in our US detention centers? For that matter are all Muslims murders because of 9/11? Of course not! But there’s no end to accusations of murder by association if we accept “someone-should-off-a-political-leader-I-don’t-like Robertson’s definition and Horowitz endless dull ranting. This is just another predictable Horowitz recitation of Chairman Mao’s Little Red Play Book as used by this former Maoist Conservative Come Lately. I’m waiting for him to demand that “leftist” professors confess their crimes to angry students with rice paper signs of indictment around their necks! I for one am tired of his monotone droning on events that did not happen and now people that did not kill being called murderers. Enough of this! There’s too much serious work to do to keep bringing up this self-promoting clown again and again. Let him continue to preach to his dwindling converted flock, let him propose insane legislation that any serious law maker will bat down, and give his tortured soul the obscurity he really deserves! There will be no Great Neocon Cultural Revolution in America, especially from such a self-serving, listless and predictable “leader!” All that capital was spent a long time ago.

John F. DeFelice, Associate Professor of History at University of Maine at Presque Isle, at 10:01 am EST on March 23, 2006

A Conservative Studies program?

As a political independent and fiscal conservative abused face-to-face by left-wing faculty, I find the comments by the Florida faculty union official about “no problems” with academic freedom as so divorced from reality as to be delusional. Only cutting off funding from that kind of cognitive denial can common sense and plain talking hopefully return to academia.

Until then — could more colleges follow the lead by The New York Times and set up special units to study non-liberals (a.k.a., conservatives)?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12...&en=8824ee31fadac73f&ei=5070

With some academic departments 100% devoted to one major political party (guess which one), as opposed to 50-50 in other departments, studying non-liberals would be an entirely new endeavor.

Imagine the funding possibilities — can the NSF, NAS, and Ford Foundation, be far behind?

L.L. Barry, at 11:20 am EST on March 23, 2006

Shoddy analysis, Mr. Little

Hey Chicken Little, or is that Mr. Little,Speaking of suffering from shoddy analysis, you write, “Does anyone really believe that formal complaints are a good indicator of political bias in the classroom?”

That’s the wrong question—AGAIN. The question is, Are such complaints a good indicator of the IMPACT on students of inevitable political bias in the classroom? Yes, they probably are, and they are certainly the best—if incomplete—data we have. On this same website faculty frequently complain about today’s students’ (and their parents’) willingness to go over their heads to make formal complaints about grades and other issues. Why would we assume, now, that they are reticient?

Fox in Sox, at 11:30 am EST on March 23, 2006

Ostrich

Does Fox in Sox believe that because very few formal complaints of sexual harassment or racial prejudice of any kind are filed on campuses that these are not serious issues? I am not a supporter of Mr. Horowitz, but it seems ostrich like to deny that a cultural leftism pervades much of the professoriate and trickles into the classroom.

Chicken Little, at 12:40 pm EST on March 23, 2006

Chicken Little: Painted Self Into Corner!

And now we come full circle to see the evidence twisting Horowitz and his supporters use: The Main Evidence is that there is NO Evidence! Witch Hunt, anyone? Your post wins the Neocon Newspeak award of the day! I get a little annoyed with latest mantra from the Education Department: “Culture of Evidence.” But here (not endless assessment) is where I see the real need for it! Let’s see those murder convictions!

John F. DeFelice, Associate Professor of History at University of Maine at Presque Isle, at 1:35 pm EST on March 23, 2006

Practice versus Theory

Yes, let’s see the credentials.

If someone’s going to teach me about criminal justice or the law, you bet I want to know that they have a professional background in that field. If they’re not a judge or a police officer, then I want a hardened criminal with a proven track record. I want to see the RAP sheet before I enroll.

No more imposters posing as murderers when all they’ve done is smothered a kitten or stolen a pen from the corner store.

Stewart Little, at 3:05 pm EST on March 23, 2006

Love That David Horowitz!

I am a recent convert to the preachings of David Horowitz ... so I hope you’ll let me explain the road less traveled that got me there.

Lets see ... several weeks ago I was sitting at my keyboard, sipping some Johnny Walker Red and contemplating the Demiurge. All of a sudden I realized I had – like a huge collection of idiotic baboons – randomly typed ...

George W. Bush (and cronies) Ward Churchill Tom Cruise (Scientology) James Dobson (Focus on the Family) Dr. Wayne Dyer (Inspiration: Your Ultimate Calling) Jerry Falwell (Moral Majority David Horowitz Rush Limbaugh Bill McCartney’ (Promise Keepers) Dr. Phil (McGraw) Bill O’Reilly (The O’Reilly Factor) Tony RobbinsPat Robertson (Christian Coalition)

I mean, there they were, right on the screen before my eyes ... put there by a controlling hand I didn’t understand myself. Obviously, it required explanation. My first thought was, “Ah, a bunch of mindless dorks who by virtue of self promotion have reached stations in life completely inconsistent with their purported knowledge of the world. And there was David Horowitz smack dab in the middle of my list.

I knew I was in trouble, so I quickly saved the file and hid it in the far reaches of my hard drive. I was alarmed that here was I – a virtual nobody – making a list just as Mr. Horowitz had. Furthermore, if anyone saw my list and my immediate reaction to it, they would surmise that I had something against conservatives and evangelicals (although Churchill bails me out on that count).

You’ll just have to take my word for the fact that I would be willing to drive downtown and pay ten bucks to hear a lecture by George Will, Pat Buchanan, Tony Blankly, or Newt Gingrich ... and I would not do the same for an evening with, say John Kerry or Al Gore. And, good grief, in my opinion there is no one on television who is more entertaining than that cousin of Mickey Gilley and Jerry Lee Lewis ... hmmm, what’s his name?

http://www.sec.state.la.us/museums/cavalcade/cavalcade-celeb-b.htm

So, after putting a little thought into it, I realized the guys in “my” list are nothing less than phenomenal success stories ... probably the sort of fellows their teachers warned, “You’re going to end up delivering pizzas for Dominos” and here they are, (1) well known by upwards of 80% of the American population, (2) well respected – up to unparalleled levels of reverence – by a majority of Americans (3) making a bundle with only occasional use of brain neurons , and (4) seemingly having a Hell of a lot of fun.

I mean, in a contest between anyone in that list and any of their critics, the critics would suffer resounding defeats even with the support of, say, Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff. All Mr. Horowitz is trying to do is make the world safe for him and his pals by keeping the IQs of the American populace in a steady state that guarantees his “intellectual” support base. And you critics ... well you’re just jealous. So, lets have more and more and more and more and more discussions about the brilliant David Horowitz and his agenda.

RWH, at 3:10 pm EST on March 23, 2006

Deep breath?

I rest my case that the coalition of the hysterical does nothing but inflate David Horowitz. How about taking a deep breath and saying: “Mr. Horowitz raises interesting issues but overstates the case and uses dubious evidence. I welcome people in my classroom to see the learning process.”

Chicken Little, at 4:45 pm EST on March 23, 2006

Who-owitz?

I gurantee you that 80% of the American public (no, I’ll go 90%+) have no fucking clue who David Horowitz is, or what his ridiculous crusade is all about! This is a “debate” happening amongst a handful of hysterical politicians, conservative activists, and paranoid academics, with a smattering of drunken applause from some frat-boys who are surfing the web rather than paying attention in class.

Most Americans who receive the benefit of a college education have nothing but appreciation for the knowledge, dedication, attention, and opportunities that their professors (of whatever political background) offer them. And those students who have complaints about a particular professor, whether it be on personal, professional, or political grounds, have plenty of recourse for their grievances. But like all ideologues, Horowitz has chosen to “speak for those who (supposedly) cannot speak for themselves.” The fact is, the students have spoken, and their general consensus: “Yaaaaaawn"!

Jack Trades, at 5:05 pm EST on March 23, 2006

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?

The criticisms levied against the professoriate and the academy are, in part, inevitable by-products of the remarkable diversity within, and distinctions among, the various enterprises, and institutions of higher education in this country. The fundamental assumption that all, or dare-say most, of the professoriate serving in institutions of higher learning are left-wing, liberal, ACLU-supporting democrats reflects, not surprisingly at all, the very same limited, biased and narrow-minded, viewpoint being challenged by those like Robertson, Horowitz and company. In reality, the collegiate experience is far more organic and wholistic than is reflected in these viewpoints. In its best sense, it is designed to reflect, and to offer a platform for representing, the cumulative ideas and learning experiences of its participants occurring both inside and outside the classroom. A “fertile” (not the “ideal” of a perfect) academic environment provides ample opportunities for students to exchange varied, and often competing, perspectives on a wide range of issues that extend across cultures, races, generations, epochs, political viewpoints, and disciplinary foci. It is within this fertile environment of intellectual ideas that emerges the often vibrant series of “conversations", both literal and conceptual, that are conducted among diverse groups within the campus community. These discussions occur across a variety of on- and off-campus settings, during which intellectual thought and ideas are cultivated, exchanged, critiqued, evaluated, challenged, problematized, and re-visioned. This process is a fluid one, and it can be insidious in its effect. It is not at all uncommon for students not to realize, for some time, the full extent to which a particular course, or experience, has been beneficial to them in some way. This is both the strength, and the inevitable weakness, of the educational process. Is the goal and process of critical inquiry a perfect endeavor? Absolutely not. Is this process always the result of a reasoned, respectful, and rigorous intellectual exchange? Decidedly no. Are all faculty, (or all students for that matter), committed to encouraging and cultivating the open exchange of individual viewpoints? Undoubtedly no. It is, however, the on-going pursuit of this lofty, and perhaps unrealistic, goal to"educate masses” of students that motivates faculty to continue to strive for that ideal individually, or as part of the collective professoriate. This online debate, interestingly enough, reflects the best part of this ideal. Each has a right to his/her opinion; however, advocating a stance of cynicism toward the professoriate denies their invaluable role in developing political leaders, speakers, teachers, scientists, artists, business people, and others whose viewpoints make up our cultural millieu. This includes those (of us) who offer commentary on articles critiquing the higher ed process. This negates, unfairly, the countless educational benefits to be found in the open debate, and conversely, in the quiet contemplation, of opposing perspectives. Villification of the professoriate serves to eradicate the benefits derived from listening to, and—is it possible?—learning from, exposure to differing opinions. In my teaching experience, students will resist this important lesson most strongly at the point when their paradigms are being deconstructed. They sometimes interpret this critique as a wholesale dismissal of their ideas, and protest loudly as in the form(s) of kicking and screaming their way out of classroom, and college, doors. In the act of “education,” they should be validated and delighted in important ways; however, they must first be challenged, questioned, confused, angered, offended, and frustrated, through the active exploration of varying (ir)rational arguments. . . Or correct me if we faculty haven’t heard you correctly. . . Or did you really mean to imply that the principles of tolerance and open-mindedness apply only to the professoriate?

LAJ, Instructor at Georgia Perimeter College, at 6:25 pm EST on March 23, 2006

Ostrich laid an egg

What in the world is “cultural leftism” ?

I say again, there is virtually no evidence for the bias you now backpedal to claim is “trickling” into classrooms. Students complain and complain, and in notorious place they can get paid to complain about their lefty professors, but they don’t. This is clearly evidence of lack as opposed to the lack of evidence your position rests on.

Universities by virtue of their structures and funding and in their modes of instruction and canons and disciplines are conservative in so many ways that few seem to notice. This invisible, structural bias is far more insidious than people realize. How do we factor institutional bias into Dimwitz’s quotas?

Fox in Sox, at 4:10 am EST on March 24, 2006

Conflation

It appears that some are trying to make it appear that criticism of any professor or group of professors is an insult to the entire profession.

While the academic community may not like to admit it, there are some true extremists in their midst. Ussually, people who hold extreme opinions (especially extreme opinions that have little or nothing to do with their job) either have to express them outside their place of employment or go without jobs. However, higher ed has become a sanctuary for some individuals that represent the furthest stretches of lunacy that do not involve physical violence.

Most people are willing to accept and discuss differences in opinions; I have had civil and intelligent conversations for years with people all over the political and ideological spectrum. However, there are those who will not converse civilly, and take their uncivil discourse into unrelated classes. This is at the best a waste of the students time, and at the worst an insulting and degrading experiance for people who are paying an enormous sum of money for the priviledge.

It is not suprising that those who hold the keys to funding (the taxpayers) are begining to demand some degree of accountability for these individuals.

This has been, incorrectly, construed as an attack on all intelligent thought by the great unwashed masses. Very few people want the total downfall of higher education, and even David Horowitz and his vocal supporters are by no means among them. They, and many Americans, are asking that their daughters and sons get the job training they have paid and sacrificed so much for, and not merely a lecture on the personal political opinions of an extremist.

Kevin, Undergraduate, at 4:10 am EST on March 24, 2006

David Horowitz’s skill in generating publicity never ceases to amaze me. I suppose one can argue that his PR abilities certainly can provoke. If one reads “Radical Son,” I think one can see where the passion comes from, even if one’s own politics makes his ideas seem outlandish.

However, I beg to differ with most on the list about the assassin professors. Indeed, I personally know of one killer educator:

Professor Plum. I believe he has murdered unfortunates with lead pipes, ropes, and candlesticks. I try to stay out of the conservatory whenever he makes an public appearance. And to think someone tenured that deviant butcher!

Colonel John T. Mustard, University of Maine at Machias, at 6:45 am EST on March 24, 2006

job training ?

Kevin, Although I largely stay out of the ABOR debate, do you really think that people are sending their sons and daughters to colleges for job training? I doubt it. Indeed, most professional-type undergrad degrees are looked upon with scorn by people that matter. (Indeed, the irony is that some of the people that prattle on and on about how northeastern liberal colleges are biased and such, wouldn’t allow their kids to go anywhere else. They think that “job training” is for the lower classes and convicts.)

Whatever the case, college admissions constantly get more competitive, despite all the rhetoric about rhetoric. Likewise, the politics in this country has remained relatively unchanged for the post 20 year or so. (Save for certain small shifts.) So, if there are any partisan attempts at indoctrination, they are not working, anyway, and college (with all its wasted time) is considered a necessity for membership in the middle class.

Larry, at 8:15 am EST on March 24, 2006

Bugaboos in the corner

Kevin:

Yes, there are true extremists in our academic midst—just as there are true extremists in our government, our churches, our corporations, and our military (the vast majority of those being conservative extremists). The point, for most of us, is that the “extremists” being targeted by Horowitz are very specifically, left-of-center scholars with more than adequate credentials and solid teaching records—making this an ideologically-biased attack, not an even-handed call for “balance.” His argument is skewed, his evidence shoddy, his attitude hostile, and his approach is insulting.

What’s more, most of these academics have done nothing that violates any code of professional conduct—certainly not by speaking their views in the classroom. This is, in fact, well within the bounds of free inquiry and academic freedom. “Extremist” views have as much of a place in academia as they do in any other forum for public debate. “Objectivity” is not an inherent value, particularly in humanistic and social studies.

Horowitz doesn’t even seem to be denying this—he merely wants more of his own brand of extremism on display. “Balance” in this case, means more conservatism, not less liberalism. The implication seems to be that academia should contain the same ratio of political views as the general public. This will never happen, since, in general, most people don’t choose academic careers, and conservative America hasn’t, of late, placed much value on careers in education or scholarship. I teach at one of the most conservative schools in America, and I assure you, the number of students even considering academia as a career is almost nil. Those who do receive the enthusiastic support of myself and most of their other “lefty” professors, most of whom enjoy having intelligent colleagues of differing political and religious perspectives. The claim that conservatives have simply been “kept out” by liberal bias is yet another dubious claim by a partisan ideologue with little hard evidence to that effect.

As for what students pay to go to college: you might address that issue to the conservative administration that has slashed educational funding and financial aid to thousands of needy students without regard to the need for “diversity” in academia.

Earl Grey, at 8:50 am EST on March 24, 2006

Response

The cost of college is from the university expenses. Few other industries can try to plausibly blame a failure to be subsidized for their cost, and those that do generally have the sense to go about it quietly for fear of being identififed as a money grubbing special interest seeking special treatment from out pocketbooks. Simply asking for a different way of adding up who pays for the cost (ie more “rich” people and less “poor” people) doesn’t make it cost less — especially for the middle class that gets caught having to pay for their own education plus that of those who cannot pay for their own.

Kevin, Undergraduate, at 10:40 am EST on March 24, 2006

David Horowitz, like a lot of wingernut thugs, tends to project a lot. What he constantly sees as a murderous brainwashing horde of intellectually bankrupt ideologues is more an apt description of this gasbag. He personally knows a thing or two about murder and murder by association and it is more than unfortunate that he has passed up good mental health care and instead punish all those who disagree with him for his own lapse of judgment.

Thus this animated odor continues to foul the atmosphere and attract all manner of loopy wingnuts with petty grudges against their teachers.

I miss those days when wingernut comments were consumed by satanic pedophile reptillian shapeshifters and black helicopters hovering over Wyoming.

Dander, at 6:10 pm EST on March 24, 2006

Jobs Related to Murderers, Video and Academic Freedom

or search for jobs directly.

Director (RP# 1073)
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill seeks a leader for the Institute of African American Research (IAAR), a ... see job

Research Services Associate
NC State University

Join the Pack! A community with nearly 8,000 faculty and staff, and 30,000 students. NC State is one of the largest employers ... see job

Assistant Professor, Chemistry
College of the Bahamas

DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Candidate must be able to teach Chemistry at introductory through final year levels. It is ... see job

Assistant/Associate Professor of Pharmacology/Medicinal Chemistsry
Drake University

Drake University is a diverse learning community of more than 5,600 students, distinguished by collaborative learning among ... see job

Faculty — School of Management — 9ASMGT02 / 9ASMGT01
Texas Woman’s University

Texas Woman’s University — Denton Campus Department: School of Management Title: Assistant or Associate Professor of ... see job

Dispatcher — (P/T)
Oklahoma State University

OSU-Tulsa embraces OSU’s “one university, multiple sites” philosophy focusing on junior, senior and graduate level education ... see job

Assistant Director, Corporate and Foundation Relations
Loyola College in Maryland

The history department at Loyola College in Maryland invites applicants for a tenure-track assistant professorship in the ... see job

Full-Time Lecturer
Boston College

The Carroll School of Management at Boston College invites applications for three (3) full-time adjunct lecturer positions in ... see job

Coordinator — Science, Math and Computer Science
Lansing Community College

Founded in 1957, Lansing Community College serves 40,000 students. A public community college governed by an elected board of ... see job

Student Services/Social & Cultural Coordinator
University of California, Riverside

The University of California Riverside invests in your future through employee training and career development, access to ... see job