May 9, 2006

Fact-Checking David Horowitz

From the moment in February that David Horowitz’s new book appeared, scholars have been poking at it, identifying errors and what they consider to be distortions (even as Horowitz was praised by many conservative talk show hosts, who have helped him boost sales).

Looking for a job?

See all 209 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 3,626
Administrative: 1,892
Executive: 169
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

Today, a coalition of academic and civil liberties groups is releasing a more detailed analysis of the Horowitz book,The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America. In “Facts Count,” the debunking document being released today, Horowitz’s book is slammed as “sloppy in the extreme.” The analysis also says that the details included in the book suggest that Horowitz is not concerned with the students he says he is trying to protect, but is actually trying to punish professors whose views he doesn’t like.

Among the findings in “Facts Count":

Horowitz does not cite a single example of a student having his or her grade changed because of political views — despite his repeated statements that the “Academic Bill of Rights” is needed to prevent such grade punishment. (That bill would bar such grade changes and would also require that a range of views be taught — a measure many professors say would require them to teach intelligent design or Holocaust denial, or risk getting sued.)
In 52 of the descriptions of professors Horowitz critiques, he does not cite a single classroom event or statement — despite his statement that his concern about professors is over what they do and say in the classroom.
Of all of the evidence offered in the book, 80 percent concerns non-classroom activities.
Professors who teach women’s studies or other alternative viewpoints are consistently criticized, regardless of the quality of their work or scholarship.
While Horowitz’s book promises a list of the 101 most dangerous academics, he actually includes only 100.
Quotes and facts from Horowitz about individual professors are incorrect and many quotes are “wildly out of context.”

Not surprisingly, Horowitz is not backing down. In an e-mail interview, he said that the only mistakes he had seen in his work were “trivial and normal to a book of this size and do not affect in the slightest the argument I have made.” He did not object, however, to the report’s contention that he doesn’t like women’s studies, a field he termed “generally conceived in ideological not scholarly terms.” He also said that Free Exchange on Campus, the coalition of groups that released the report, was engaged in “dishonesty and malice.”

The new report notes that Horowitz makes subjective judgments about many scholars and also questions the way he presents his criticisms, saying that the “tone and format” of his book bring to mind a McCarthy-era blacklist. But the report focuses on specific allegations, with the idea that facts can be verified (or rebuffed) on many of those statements.

But on numerous points, Horowitz will not budge. Take a seemingly simply matter of how many professors he writes up. The alphabetical listing of professors, like the book title, uses the number 101. When Free Exchange on Campus counted, it came up with 100. Horowitz said that’s because he included at least two and possibly three professors in his introduction. So it turns out that the book is really about the 102 or 103 most dangerous professors. But all are agreed that it’s not about 101.

On the more substantive charges, there is also disagreement. Horowitz rejects the argument that it means anything that he doesn’t cite politically inspired grade changes in his book. He said he was focused on “unprofessional conduct in the classroom” and “unprofessional courses,” not grading. So the fact that he left out such examples is “irrelevant,” he said.

As to specific statements about professors, the new report offers plenty of examples. For example, Horowitz writes that Kathleen Cleever, who teaches law at Emory University, has “no qualifications to teach at a major law school.” But Free Exchange on Campus notes that she holds a law degree from Yale University and clerked for a federal appeals judge — qualifications that are in fact quite typical of those who teach at major law schools.

In numerous other cases, the report faults Horowitz over questions of context. For example, he quotes Michael Bérubé, an English professor at Pennsylvania State University, as saying that the university is “the final resting place of the New Left” and “progressives’ only bulwark against the New Right.” What Horowitz did not write was that those comments were from a list offered by Bérubé of ways various authors described the university — and that those views covered a range of views.

Many similar examples are offered.

For his part, Horowitz says that the accusations being made against him are an effort to divert attention from his book. “Free Exchange is an organization created by the teacher unions who are defending their dues-paying members by any means necessary, in this case by means that are dishonest and designed to prevent a discussion of the issues,” he said.

Some academics have advocated ignoring Horowitz. But the report makes the case for countering his views very specifically. The report notes that however much many academics may dislike him, he appears regularly before legislative committees, backing and inspiring legislation, and reaching many more through his public appearances. Together, the report says, his statements challenge a basic ideal of freedom that allows professors to speak out on controversial issues and to take unpopular stands.

The report quotes Mari Matsuda, a professor of law at Georgetown University, as saying that “the most dangerous falsehood in this book is the idea that social critics are somehow dangerous or anti-American.” Matsuda adds: “The central premise of the Constitution is government by the people. This requires public inquiry and dissent, not group-think and blind deference to the state. That is what I teach and it is standard constitutional interpretation.”

— 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

David Horowitz is Coming! The Sky is Falling!

Surely the members of Free Exchange on Campus must have better things to do with their time. Surely Professor Matsuda does not equate universities with Speakers Corner in Hyde Park. Methinks they protest too much.

Chicken Little, at 6:45 am EDT on May 9, 2006

And. . .

David Horowitz DOESN’T have something better to do?

Andrew Purvis, at 7:05 am EDT on May 9, 2006

The 101st Dangerous Professor

Horowitz seems to have left out at least one “dangerous” academic, one Arthur Butz, a tenured engineering professor at Northwestern who denies that the Holocaust took place. He uses his university-supported website to promote his views. Seems like Butz might have been worth a mention. Ah, but in Horowitz’s world, only liberals can be “dangerous.”

Joseph Duemer, Professor at Clarkson University, at 8:00 am EDT on May 9, 2006

He/they make $$

Something better to do? Mr. Horowitz, like his recent debate partner Mr. Churchill, MAKE BIG $$$ do what they do. They’re not WHINING about the budget for pencils, or adjuncts.

And about checking facts: groups of “academics” who claim objectivity and truth-seeking — but, for some strange and odd reason, are 99.9% dominated by one of two major political parties — have no intellectual foundation for lecturing anyone about “objective” fact-checking.

It is like Hiliary and her miraculous $100,000 beef futures profit, Teddy K. and his bridge-driving, and Shrub and his hidden DWI. As Mr. Churchill indicated — it is, what I say it is.

Fine. That is why, the funding foundations for higher ed, need serious re-consideration. Neither side wants to financially support the other. OK, by me.

B.J., at 8:05 am EDT on May 9, 2006

Fact-checking

Fact-checking is essential, but it often does not take place. I would be very curious to know how the work of Horowitz’s critics would stand up to the kind of review they are effecting of his work. I regularly review scholarly manuscripts that contain literally dozens of errors, often born of political conviction eclipsing inconvenient facts.

JBM, at 8:05 am EDT on May 9, 2006

Honestly, this business from “Free Exchange on Campus” is pretty funny stuff. Even their Newspeak name tickles my funnybone.

The problem with the Horowitz book, from my point of view, is that he names names, thereby suggesting that the problem with the university is those particular professors. If there is a distortion in the book, that’s it. Of course, if he had just cited generalities and the usual statistics about the overwhelming political orientation of the universities he would have been challenged to be specific, in something like the way professors stick their jaws out and say “oh yeah? Prove it” when faced with the casual observation of the thorough penetration of what used to be called “political correctness.” The point of the challenge to provide examples is to then argue about the examples. You just can’t win in the face of disingenuousness taken to the nth power.

A little more precisely: you just can’t win if you are in the game of trying to convice the disingenuous to come clean. They always have the refuge of simpering that there were only 100 names, not 101. That “criticism” hints that the “report “might be a Sobel-style parody. Is that possible? If so, it’s a gem.

Finally, it’s worth noticing (a bit wearily perhaps) that Professor Matsuda is perfectly correct that there is nothing inherently unpatriotic about dissent. Indeed that sort of pap will get everybody smiling and nodding (off to sleep). However, it’s only in an ideologically left universe that “the point is to change the world” has become the social function of the university.

No, criticism is not necessarily unpatriotic; let’s all grant that freely and enthusiastically. But doesn’t that still leave open the question of whether unrelenting criticism directed at at our most basic social institutions, at our “corrupt system", peopled by the supposedly unthinking, the “little eichmanns", undertaken in the self-congratualtory pose of the Resistance “telling truth to power” — whether that drum beating loudly and contantly into the heads of our young can drape itself in the flag?

Ockham’s Razor, at 8:10 am EDT on May 9, 2006

Horowitz went too far

If Horowitz decided to go after law professors, he was an idiot. Every single law professor has spent at least some part of their career debunking arguments, usually point-by-point, and Horowitz should have known this was coming

Even though some lawyers pride themselves on telling the lay people that they are “liberal” it is a professor that prides itself on explaining how even the most divergent of behavior still fits within the norms of society, and so law professors teach their students from an early age that appearing to be “liberal” is generally a bad idea. Whatever the case, as a factual matter, even the named law professors in his book do, in fact, mentor (or “advise”) students that go on to work for large firms (doing “conservative” things involving money) and working as prosecutors (“conservatively”) sending people to jail.

Finally, Matsuda is right. Legal advocacy in the US depends on creativity. If it didn’t, then nobody would ever be able to make a single argument – constitutional or otherwise — in favor of any client. Contractual disputes would be resolved by simply deferring to the party that is “ranked” higher. Constitutional matters would be resolved always in favor of government bureaucrats (no offense). And, Horowitz would never be able to collect royalties on his book, as a publisher should declare that they need not pay him, and he wasn’t entitled to dispute his ruling.

He should have stuck to bashing English teachers.

(In case it isn’t clear, my use of the terms “liberal” and “conservative” do not mean that I think that they are coherent concepts or even taken seriously, but I realize that non-lawyers use them all the time.)

Larry, at 8:25 am EDT on May 9, 2006

Why are we ignoring him?

It amazes me how some academics blow off Horowitz and suggest he just be ignored. Horowitz actually SELLS books, unlike most academics, and his views get him called up to capitol hill, again unlike most of us. His views are so popular in fact that states like Ohio have slated legislation due to this book.

So, it is not a question of why are we paying attention to Horowitz, it is why is everyone besides us paying attention to Horowitz. Keeping your nose in the air only makes a bigger target to get hit…we could sit back and do nothing like some suggest…but look where that has taken secondary education in this country…we now have Intelligent Design and do not have Sex Ed…at what point are we actually going to stand up for ALL educators in this country?

Rebecca, at 8:25 am EDT on May 9, 2006

What are you talking about?

” .. Horowitz seems to have left out at least one “dangerous” academic, one Arthur Butz .. who denies that the Holocaust took place ..”

Sweet Mary & Joseph .. anyone with five seconds of objectivity knows that Mr. Horowitz is one of Israel’s strongest supporters, with frequent public statements to that effect.

So much for “objective” fact-finding. Believe me, after a lifetime of TV, students know what kind of one-sided crap that is being foisted on them. To them, it is just another trivial, phony and unproductive game.

B.J., at 8:25 am EDT on May 9, 2006

Posters should remember what they read on Inside Higher Ed

Critics of the critics of Horowitz bombast about alleged liberal bias should go back and re-read past issues of Inside Higher Ed.

March 30

Grading Edge for Conservative StudentsIn debates over the Academic Bill of Rights, supporters of the controversial legislation have suggested that conservative students are the victims of classroom bias — and receive lower grades or even failing grades because of their political views.

Much of the debate has involved trading anecdotes — with David Horowitz citing examples of oppressed conservative students and his critics debunking those examples or providing counter-examples of classrooms where political bias is nowhere to be found in grading or student interactions.

It turns out that there is actual research that has been done on the subject. And the research suggests that there is no widespread relationship between students’ political views and their grades. But there is one exception: In some disciplines favored by conservative students, liberal students seem to receive lower grades.

Curt Stofferahn, at 8:50 am EDT on May 9, 2006

Even Rebecca could testify.

Rebecca, Selling books isn’t too hard if you write on a remotely popular topic, and market them well. Indeed, believe it or not, publishers actually hire people to figure out which political or religious veins are most like to buy certain books. Or Movies (e.g. Polar Express and that Narnia movie was successfully marketed to fundamentalist Christians.) Nor is getting called to testify before Congress – or one of its committees or subcommittees. In fact, of every university that I am intimately familiar with, at least six or seven professors have done so in the past two years. Indeed, my guess is that you could testify before Congress if you have some expertise in something, or could fake like you did.

BJ, When you figure out what objective fact-finding is, give me a ring.

Larry, at 9:00 am EDT on May 9, 2006

The Quality of Education — Evaluation?

Response to Horowitz article and comments.

The importance of the Horowitz book is that it is a view written by a non-academic. Those who engage in a profession other than teaching should evaluate education. Perhaps by results oriented objectives.

For example, when a method such as DNA comes along to prove that hundreds of people have been wrongfully convicted of capital offenses, it is time to examine how lawyers are educated.

Their education begins in undergrad — which fails to teach how to honestly seek the truth and be truthful. The common failing in all education is a lack of integrity in the measurement process.

William Sumner Scott, J.D.wss@jefound.org

William Sumner Scott, J.D., Executive Director at Judicial Equality Foundation, Inc., at 9:35 am EDT on May 9, 2006

Is math objective?

” .. In some disciplines favored by conservative students, liberal students seem to receive lower grades ..”

I read that study. The courses involved appeared to be quant-oriented. Y’know — like 2+2=4, or something like that. Is the issue cognitive? Behaviorial? Political? Social?

Bottom line: if I’m working on a pension-fund statement, 2+2 better equal 4, or the U.S. Attorney’s Office is going to visit.

Larry — is 2+2=4, objective enough for you?

B.J., at 10:15 am EDT on May 9, 2006

Persecuting Educators

Horowitz and his supporters may not know it, but they are writing themselves into the history books in the same vein as those who persecuted Galileo for his views on astronomy.

Without a doubt, manufactured, unsubstantiated charges are thrown from both the left and right wings about all manner of political issues.

But few have gained as much traction as Horowitz’s efforts, which is unfortunate since it is, after all, a partisan attack with no pretense of, say, also rooting out conservative professors who use the professorship in areas like business or history to promote their ideas.

With all of the other problems going on in the world, like thousands of US military and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead in Iraq because of the conservatives’ war, the conservatives have to manufacture attacks on education—of all things—as if the people who taught them are somehow not also responsible for their own education and success.

Then again, history has shown that conservative and fundamentalist movements abhor enlightenment, which makes a defense against such attacks essential.

adonis metriotitas, at 10:15 am EDT on May 9, 2006

Five Seconds of Objectivity

BJ, what in the world are you talking about? And what has Horowitz’s support for Israel got to do with my point? He left a “dangerous” professor out of his book — one who, given H’s support for Israel — you would think might be there. But to call even such a kook as Professor Butz “dangerous” would be to alienate a good part of Horowitz’s fascist base of support. Horowitz is not only a hack and a (documented) liar, his politics are intellectually incoherent. So, BJ, riddle me this: Why did Horowitz leave Butz out of his book? Others are included who are demonstrably less “dangerous.”

Joseph Duemer, Professor at Clarkson University, at 10:30 am EDT on May 9, 2006

William, I would agree with your comment that we should heed an outside voice like Horowitz if it weren’t for the fact that Horowitz is, well, pick your adjective: sloppy, dishonest, ill-informed, and maniacally one-sided.

Are there problems with higher education today? Absolutely. Appointing a person like Horowitz as your champion, however, will never advance substantive debate on any topic because his prejudices are so blatant and the rhetoric with which he tries to conceal his ultimate goals is so transparent.

People who are truly interested in reforming and improving higher education—a project that no doubt will involve proposals unpopular in part to both the right and the left—would best be served by ignoring Horowitz’s so-called Academic Freedom movement and kindly asking the man to leave the stage. He’s an embarassment who bring out the worst in ideologues and who leaves faculty and administrators understandably reluctant to entertain any outside assessments of their work.

Brian, at 10:30 am EDT on May 9, 2006

Butz

Joseph, The book is about who Horowitz thinks are the 100 worst and most dangerous. Horowitz never said he was including all the bad professors only the ones he considered the worst. If you think that this man belongs on a list of bad professors then write a book about it.

Allen, at 11:50 am EDT on May 9, 2006

Not letting “the facts” get in the way

” .. what has Horowitz’s support for Israel got to do .. to call even such a kook as Butz “dangerous” would be to alienate a good part of Horowitz’s fascist base ..”

Sir, you are in your own freakin’ “Private Idaho.” Many of Horowitz’s supporters — including evangelical Protestants — are among the most vocal and most public supporters of Israel. What they privately think of Mr. Butz is probably unprintable, in a G-rated publication.

I don’t know what planet you’ve been living on. But FYI, this is Third Rock from Sol. Suggest you read up on the subject before posting again, and save everyone time and bandwidth.

B.J., at 11:50 am EDT on May 9, 2006

Responses to Mr. Scott, and BJ

Mr. Scott, Of course the teaching of law, like the teaching of everything should be continually re-examined.

Whether DNA is reliable as a theory, or whether methods of collection of DNA evidence are reliable is a different story. However, I seriously doubt that Mr. Horowitz really thinks that the problem with the teaching of law is that too many people are being exonerated based on DNA. Instead, he seems to think that not enough people are going to jail based on what he considers to be an incorrect interpretation of the US Constitution. (Not that he really knows or cares how any given party views the constitution.)

Finally, let me point out that it is darn hard to “seek truth” when most people can’t even attempt to define “truth” without referring to their own perceptions. For that reason, no legal standard requires absolute “truth,” but rather simply imposes procedural and substantive standards. I don’t think any changes to an undergrad curriculum will convert the practice of law into a successful search for objective truth. The best we can do is let people recognize the problems in “seeking” objective truth.

BJ, Philosophy of math is quite a complex subject, which I have only recently started to explore. While most people love to say that “2+2=4″ they usually gloss over certain assumptions: such as what “2, +, and =” means. (In fact, when you are speaking of “values” or a piece of property or equity, their values often assume certain temporal assumptions, as well, as the relative values of currencies, interest rates, and various risk factors.) Heck, we, as a country can’t even decide what “Equal Protection” means, yet alone the value of “2.” (And two of what are you speaking of, anyway? Two people? Two pregnant women who are 8 months pregnant? Two amoebas?) For a better example: while people love to say it is axiomatic that parallel lines never meet, I could point out that this assumes that the parallel lines exist on a plane. On a sphere, lines of longitude DO meet. Likewise, railroad tracks appear to meet in the distance. Objective?

Adonis, I fail to see how any of this has to do with the war in Iraq?

Larry, at 11:50 am EDT on May 9, 2006

Fie! On You Horowitz Bashers ... I Say Fie!

I have been teaching mathematics, statistics, social methodology, and management “science” for the past 45 years, and for at least 42 of those years I was a card-carrying knee-jerk, bleeding heart liberal ... sometimes verging on being a Gus Hall socialist.

No one denies the fact that others of my ilk constitute upwards of 80% of the faculties of American Universities. Ordinarily, however, they deny the fact that we are organized into cells for the purpose of extolling the virtues of a very specific liberal agenda. Their denials are bald-faced lies ... and Professor David Horowitz, Ph.D. has done his best to call attention to my former fellow travelers’ insidious and quite unpatriotic plan to infest the youth of our nation with their intellectually bankrupt drivel. And, in particular, he has pointed a finger – well, maybe 100 fingers — at the worst of the offenders.

The list of “findings” compiled by your so-called “coalition of academic and civil liberties groups” is such a lame critique of Professor Horowitz’s overall theme, merely picking at a few inconsequential details, no one could possibly take it seriously. I will address just one point in the “group’s” petty harangue, to wit, “Horowitz does not cite a single example of a student having his or her grade changed because of political views.”

Of course not, we were too smart for that. The strategy of those in our cell was to keep two columns in our grade books for each student. In my case the columns were labeled “Math Grade for the Day” and “Political Quotient for the Day.” The latter was based on personal observation – much like “hotness” – and it varied between ...

0 = “mindless liberal leaning”

10 = “ “thoughtfully conservative.”

The daily grade was ... DG = (0.4)MG + (0.6)PQ

The final grade, FG, was an average of the daily grades, and it was never ever necessary to change a student’s grade based on his political views.

I am revealing this now, because some time ago I had an epiphany while watching an episode of Penn & Teller’s “Bullsh-t” in which they demonstrated to my satisfaction that Professor Horowitz is a national treasure and is one of the last bright hopes for higher education in America.

See http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/prevepisodes.do?episodeid=s3/college

I am hopeful we will soon have a House Un-conservative Committee investigation of the myriad sinister practices of the liberal cartel that is choking off the free exchange of ideas in American higher education. I know I’ll be there to reveal the disturbing practices of my cell ... and I hope my doing so will cause the Horowitzians amongst us to forgive my past indiscretions.

In addition, I hope InsideHigherEd will give us more and more and more and more and more details of Professor Horowitz’s crusade against the evil empire of liberal academics.

RWH, at 11:50 am EDT on May 9, 2006

Can He Be Wrong About All of Them?

I admit to sharing Mr. Horowitz’s views on academia and certainly appreciate his attempts to reform that which seems incapable of being reformed. I have not read his new book because for the most part, it seems like a trek down old territory.

Regardless of his errors, I have to ask the inevitable: Can Horowitz be wrong about all of these professors? Debunking the alleged scholarship of people like Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill has become something of a cotage intdustry, especially when they operate as social critics outside their chosen field.

It’s very important that we remember that without people like Horowitz, academic assumptions and their worldview would go largely unchecked, due to the tenure system and an all too intellectually docile student body. I would simply argue this book is no different than what he’s done before, save that it’s on a larger scale. Can he really be wrong about every single one of his named professors?

Tony, at 11:50 am EDT on May 9, 2006

Response to Brian re Horowitz

Brian,

The issue is awareness of the problems.

Were it not for Horowitz, there would be no discussion outside of education.

Witness the lack of comments to the Department of Education petitions for renewal of accreditation currently pending before the Department of Education advisory Board that will be heard in June.

Send us your email address and we will keep you advised of developments.

That goes for all others who read this comment as well.

Bill

William Sumner Scott, J.D.wss@jefound.org

William Sumner Scott, J.D., Executive Director at Judicial Equality Foundation, Inc., at 11:55 am EDT on May 9, 2006

Not letting ‘facts’ get in the way?

” .. what has Horowitz’s support for Israel got to do .. to call even such a kook as Butz “dangerous” would be to alienate a good part of Horowitz’s fascist base ..”

Sir, many of Horowitz’s supporters — including evangelical Protestants — are among the most vocal and most public supporters of Israel. What they privately think of Mr. Butz is probably unprintable, in a G-rated publication.

I don’t know what planet you’ve been living on. But FYI, this is Third Rock from Sol. Suggest you read up on the subject.

B.J., at 12:10 pm EDT on May 9, 2006

Disingenuous

Allen, don’t be disingenuous. I was clearly making about Horowitz’s intellectual inconsistency. How come you conservatives can’t argue honestly? Or well?

Joseph Duemer, Professor at Clarkson University, at 12:10 pm EDT on May 9, 2006

Argument, quality of, redux

BJ, insult is not argument. Do you have an arguement? No, of course you don’t. You have a prejudice against academics. Let me be as clar as possible, though I have little hope of getting through the disingenuous rhetoric of the right-wingers here. So: My point about Horowitz not including Butz or other right-wing radicals was that Horowitz is unable to see “danger” on the right the way he sees it on the left. His arguement that he want a fair exchange of ideas is bunkum. He wants the right to dominate academia the way he believes the left does now. He & other right-wing ranters like Ann Coulter would like the left to be wiped out, eleminated from American life. He believes the ends justify the means. He does not argue honestly. You? Hell, you don’t even bother to argue.

I thank the editors of IHE for their indulgence. This will be my last post in this thread.

Joseph Duemer, Professor at Clarkson University, at 12:45 pm EDT on May 9, 2006

Response to Larry

Larry,

The first definitive paper on DNA was in 1936 — by 1996 most, if not all, agreed it is a reliable method of identification.

The search for truth begins with intellectual honesty — Nixon was a lawyer, so was Clinton, Earl Warren was also a Supreme Court Justice. All had little regard for the search for the truth.

To question what truth is — an esoteric endeavor — is off the point. The issue is a competent, good faith effort. The stress must be upon the importance of good faith.

The existence of false convictions demands an examination of how the legal system works. The best place to start is how lawyers are educated.

See the posting at our website

http://jefound.org

Bill

wss@jefound.org

William Sumner Scott, J.D., at 2:05 pm EDT on May 9, 2006

reply to Bill and his search for objective truth and lawyers

Bill, I tend to think that you are engaging in a partisan political discussion. As someone who must deal with issues regarding “truth” on a daily basis, I still feel compelled to reply to your strange assertions.

First of all, just because someone is a member of a state bar doesn’t make him per se a good person. Lawyers, like everyone else are judged by their actions.Secondly, DNA identification, while it looks good on TV, for people that actually need to litigate it, it is not so easy. A lot of the estimates of the probability of a “match” are based on extrapolations which are not easily subject to cross-examination. (Indeed, in most criminal cases, the people testifying to the reliability of the science don’t really know any more about the probability of matches beyond a few soundbites.) Secondly, collecting physical evidence if fraught with problems. Evidence can be tainted simply be getting someone’s fingers on it. Finally, evidence in court is only as good as the person who perceives it. If an “expert” helps an fact-finder to perceive something, then there are two different levels of perception at play. You, with your drive for “objective truth” cannot get around this.

Strangely, you say that the solution to the problem of “objective truth” “begins with intellectual honesty.” Well guess what! Most people swear they are being intellectually honest.

Indeed, in all my years of practice, I have not met one person – lawyer, judge, or politician – that told me that she or he was being intellectually dishonest! For some reason, I always ended up having to attack their arguments on premise and conclusion at a time, and couldn’t rely on an admission from that they were incorrect. It is hard work, and it takes time. Indeed, even if one wins one augment in court, that same person might make that same argument again. I can’t just say “Look at him — he is known to be intellectually dishonest. “

Finally, I don’t think that legal education has much to do with “erroneous” convictions. I blame: 1) juries; 2) politicians; 3) victims and witnesses. Subjecting criminal justice to even a hint of politics (such as electing prosecutors or those that appoint them) gives people some incentive to prosecute people on the basis of certain evidence. I also blame the witnesses and sometimes the families of the victims who wish to see what they consider to be a positive outcome, and won’t stop at anything – including lying – to get it.

Larry, at 3:05 pm EDT on May 9, 2006

Horowitz ignors consevative professors-WHAT is HIS AGENDA?

Dear Mr. Jaschik, Greetings! This was good article on the Horowitz book.

May I offer a further follow up piece of info?

When Mr. Horowitz was offered info about a conservative professor winning the prestigious CASE/Carnegie Professor of the year award, no mention in his publications nor did acknowledgment occur. BUT, Mr. Horowitz complains about the lack of conservative professors on campuses.

Yes, I am the recipient of the award, but I found it curious that in Mr. Horowitz’s pursuit of “conservative” professors, he ignores those who build full science departments from the ground up as well as implement advanced technologies into classroom teaching-as well as write on conservative issues related to abortion, cloning, etc.

You may find this info useful in a follow up news story. I did receive media coverage from various other academic and conservative media sites; but why no coverage by Mr. Horowitz raises interesting questions about his agenda.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact me. Best wishes.

SEE NEWS RELEASE BELOW

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: November 17, 2005 -Jill Minette, CASE, 202-478-5666-Professor Lawrence Roberge,

NATIONAL HONORS FOR TOP PROFESSOR IN CONNECTICUT

(Washington, DC)-The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Council for Advancement and Support of Education have named Lawrence F. Roberge at Goodwin College the 2005 Connecticut Professor of the Year. Professor Roberge was selected from among nearly 400 top professors in the United States.

Professor Roberge was the Chair of the Science Dept and Associate Professor of Science at Goodwin College from 2003 until 2005. During his tenure, he organized the construction of science labs and developed the science curriculum for the Nursing Program students. Professor Roberge actively built up the science and medicine collection of the Goodwin Library as well as advising students in their science studies. He is credited with implementing multi-media and computer technologies into the curriculum, including use of MS Producer, CHIME, Molecular Modeling, FLASH, and PowerPoint.

He taught courses in Anatomy & Physiology, Chemistry, and Microbiology courses for pre-nursing students. In March 2005, Professor Roberge was awarded for Innovative Excellence in Teaching, Learning, and Technology at the 16th International Conference on Teaching, Learning, and Technology hosted by the Center for Teaching (Jacksonville, FL).

Prior to working at Goodwin College, Professor Roberge taught in the Biology Department at SUNY-Orange (Orange County Community College, Middletown, NY). Besides teaching undergraduate biology courses, he also worked in the development of the distance learning program for the college and experimented with video microscopy techniques to improve student learning.

From 1997-2000, Professor Roberge taught at the Springfield High School of Science & Technology (SCITECH), where he designed and taught a year long course in Biotechnology as well as taught courses in Biology, Chemistry, and Human Biology. In 2000, he was honored as a Celebrated Teacher in the Teaching Excellence awards hosted by the Springfield Chamber of Commerce for his work at SCITECH.

With almost 20 years of teaching experience, Professor Roberge has taught various science and technology courses at such colleges as Bay Path College (Longmeadow, MA), Quinsigamond Community College (Worcester, MA), Lesley University (Cambridge, MA), Holyoke Community College (Holyoke, MA), Elms College (Chicopee, MA), Assumption College (Worcester, MA) and Anna Maria College (Paxton, MA). Presently, Professor Roberge is teaching online courses for Becker College (Worcester, MA) and for Florida Community College (Jacksonville, FL).

Professor Roberge has been a leader in prolife and conservative research. He is the author of the Book, THE COST OF ABORTION: An Analysis of the Social, Economic, and Demographic Effects of Abortion on the United States. He has done research on abortion vaccines and their health effects on women. Professor Roberge had the prescience to warn of the life threatening effects to women using the drug, RU-486 six years before the drug became available. His research and writings have covered such topics as immunology, reproductive medicine, endocrinology, and neuroscience. Recently, Professor Roberge presented a paper at the St. John University law school’s biotechnology conference where he demonstrated technologies that would circumvent laws banning reproductive human cloning and discussed with legal scholars the ramifications of this technology on the production of human clones.

Professor Roberge received his undergraduate degrees in Zoology and Psychology at University of Massachusetts at Amherst and his graduate degree at University of Massachusetts Medical School (Worcester, MA). He is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), New York Academy of Science (NYAS), and World Future Society (WFS). He currently resides in Ludlow, MA with his wife, Cynthia.

CASE established the Professors of the Year program in 1981 and the Carnegie Foundation became the co-sponsor a year later. TIAA-CREF, one of America’s leading financial service organizations and higher education’s premier retirement system, became the primary sponsor for the awards ceremony in 2000. Additional support for the program is received from the American Association of Community Colleges and other various higher education associations.

This year there are winners in 40 states, Guam and the District of Columbia. CASE assembled two preliminary panels of judges to select finalists. The Carnegie Foundation then convened the third and final panel, which selected four national winners and state winners. Professor Roberge was selected from over 400 faculty members nominated by colleges and universities throughout the country.

The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching was founded in 1905 by Andrew Carnegie “to do all things necessary to encourage, uphold and dignify the profession of teaching.” The Foundation is the only advanced-study center for teachers in the world and the third-oldest foundation in the nation. Its non-profit research activities are conducted by a small group of distinguished scholars.

The Council for Advancement and Support of Education is the largest international association of education institutions, with more than 3,200 colleges, universities, and independent elementary and secondary schools in nearly 50 countries, including the United States, Canada, Mexico, and the United Kingdom. Representing these institutions are more than 38,000 professionals in the disciplines of alumni relations, communications, and fund raising. Additional affiliates include educationally related non-profit organizations and commercial firms.

###END### Editor’s Note: The official list of Professor of the Year awards can be viewed on the CASE web site:http://www.case.org/Content/POY/Display.cfm?contentItemID=5659

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact me. Best wishes.

SEE NEWS RELEASE BELOW

Lawrence Roberge, Profesor, at 7:15 pm EDT on May 9, 2006

Academics, principally in the Humanities, are simply incapable of self-criticism [that would defeat the effort of exaggerating their dossiers]. This is precisely why, and sadly so, that Academic Freedom must be introduced through state legislatures. Students can not get a good education if they are only hearing one side of the story, BUT faculty members sure can make one hell of a career and safety net for themselves though anti-intellectual homogeny. Okay now — let the yelling and crying begin...

Nygel, at 2:10 pm EDT on May 10, 2006

Joseph, So if someone questions one of your statements they are a conservative and disingenuous? If you ddn’t state that you were a professor in your signature that statement makes it clear for all to see. You don’t want to debate you want to convert. Your statement was very clear. Horowitx is a hypocrite because he didn’t include on his list someone that you think he should. What did I miss? Sorry if that was too conservative or disingenuous for you. Have a nice day navel gazing.

allen, at 3:10 pm EDT on May 10, 2006

shocking

Conservatives lying and launching groundless attacks against women, gay and lesbians, people who aren’t white, people they disagree with, anyone who is allied with any of these people? What a surprise. These attacks are blatantly McCarthyist. The desperation and venom in these attacks points to the success of minority groups’ work for a more integrated, inclusive and complete curriculum. Clearly some straight white men are very threatened by this. Perhaps because they know they can’t compete on an even playing field.

JB, at 7:40 am EDT on May 11, 2006

Who?

“Conservatives lying and launching groundless attacks against women, gay and lesbians, people who aren’t white, people they disagree with, anyone who is allied with any of these people?”

Who and what are you talking about? Please post the “groundless attacks” in question so we can evaluate them.

JBM, at 7:55 am EDT on May 11, 2006

Was it just me, or...?

Help me out here. In scanning through H’s list of the 100 (or so) I found a systematic condemnation of almost every major academic voice teaching Islamic Studies, but not a single condemnation of radical Zionist professors. Hmmmm..... Guess H knows who the “bad guys” are in this neo-McCarthy era.

DGS, Professor of Religious Studies at The Colorado College, at 1:30 pm EDT on May 12, 2006

Radical Zionist Professors

Whom would you name as a radical Zionist professor worthy of note in Horowitz’s book?

JBM, at 3:20 pm EDT on May 12, 2006

100 eh...#1 being Horowitz

This goes some distance in backing up my idea that Horowitz is in fact just a frustrated “intellectual", angry that his days as a “leftist” never resulted gaining him any kind of notoriety aka Ginsberg, Krassner, any number of other icons of the period who’s grip on reality stands in stark contrast to the splashing and flailing we see coming from Horowitz....all merely in a desperate attempt to draw attention to himself from academia. Now, in a Freudian slip that surely redefines the concept, Horowitz has left that 101st slot empty,....to be filled with himself of course. Oh, if he only knew how his own shallow mind has betrayed him, given the name of the list his pathological denial has now deemed himself to be a member of.

Indeed, the desperate foolishness of the man bears some kind of recognition. Therefore I suggest that these circumstance here, of someone “outing” themselves through a combination of denial and subconscious self-derision, when combined with an ego and intelligence make such a blunder as public as he has forced this one to become.....that this particular subset of disorder be named after the man himself. A “Horowitz". Oh, yeah....

Mycos, Mr, at 5:50 am EDT on June 14, 2006

Students for Academic Freedom has published a rebuttal to this report. See:http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/

From FrontPage, A reply, at 7:40 pm EDT on June 18, 2006

Jobs Related to Fact-Checking David Horowitz

or search for jobs directly.

Procurement Analyst II
Princeton University

Position Summary: As a member of the PPPL procurement team, the Procurement Analyst will work closely with ... see job

Speech Instructor
South Texas College

South Texas College Job Announcement # 2010 – 3043 Pending Board approval of FY10 Budget Please note that only complete ... see job

Assistant Professor of Journalism and Mass Communication
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

Faculty: Mathematics, General
Fairmont State University/Pierpont Community and Technical College

Fairmont State University and Pierpont Community & Technical College, with a 120-acre main campus in Fairmont, WV, is part of ... see job

Modern Middle East History
American University in Cairo

About The American University in Cairo: Founded in 1919, AUC’s campus has moved to its new, state-of-the-art campus in New ... see job

Lecturers of Diploma/Bachelor of Commerce Programs
RMIT Vietnam

Build your global University career at RMIT Vietnam see job

Avancement Director of Reunion and Class Programs
University of Rochester

Responsibility for all aspects of the design and implementation of reunion and class programs, including supervision of staff ... see job

Assistant Professor
Western Carolina University

Position available: Assistant professor, tenure track position in CACREP-accredited Counseling Education program, Department ... see job

Assistant Dean for Finance & HR
University of Illinois—Urbana-Champaign

The University of Illinois College of Law invites applications for the position of Assistant Dean for Finance and Human ... see job

General Manager
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

The General Manager (GM) is responsible for the management, growth and sustainability of North Carolina Public Radio WUNC, ... see job