Liar, Liar

Pointing out that Horowitz has fabricated stories is “nit picking” and “irrelevant"? Isn’t he the one who is trying to take the high moral ground, claiming there needs to be a more fair and balanced environment for learning? Showing that Horowitz is using fabricated stories is not “nit picking"—it is simply showing that his claim of bias on campus is based on fables, not facts.

Christian Anderson, Graduate Student at Penn State, at 6:36 am EST on January 11, 2006

Why yes — academia is perfect

Ward Churchill doesn’t really exist. Neither does T. Shortell, or E. Crystall, or Grover Furr, or Nicholas DeGenova, or Florence Roisman, or hundreds (thousands?) of taxpayer-funded alleged academics on ratemyprofessor.com.

Or this empirical study —

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

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

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

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

Art D., at 7:43 am EST on January 11, 2006

Patrick,

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

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

Andrey, Rutgers University, at 8:10 am EST on January 11, 2006

Middle East

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

Arthur E. Goldschmidt Jr., at 8:43 am EST on January 11, 2006

A Paragon of Truthiness

Horowitz has been held up to the highest standards of truthiness and though his lies are obvious, the media will keep him marching forward unimpeded.

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

Price, Firesign Theatre, at 9:12 am EST on January 11, 2006

Retractions from David Horowitz

It is obvious that there is a very strong left wing slant among the faculty of postsecondary schools. The two examples that David Horowitz stupidly used without proof cannot cancel the dozens of other examples that are very real. Within just the past six months we’ve witnessed the Paul Mirecki Incident, Ward Churchill’s continued employment, Noam Chomsky’s claims that America is the worst terrorist nation on earth, the Homeland Security Hoax at Umass Dartmouth, etc, etc, etc.

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

Gimme a break...

Feudi Pandola, at 9:14 am EST on January 11, 2006

“Everybody knows. . . ” (and its relatives)

Homework:

Learn the definition of dogmatism.

Andrew Purvis, at 9:36 am EST on January 11, 2006

Gub-mint workers never get it

The taxpayer-supported employees of Temple University make a brave noise. If they are so smart and brave — why don’t they just leave gub-mint service and start their own organizations for education, world peace, etc.? Then they wouldn’t mean ol’ Mr. Horowitz going after them.

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

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

As for evidence — here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a nice day.

Art D., at 10:12 am EST on January 11, 2006

“Gub-mint” workers

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

Joe S., Temple University, at 11:31 am EST on January 11, 2006

What I beleive commentators like Mr. Horowitz and many of those who have responded to this article miss is that there is a difference between a liberal bias that affects the way one teaches (and in fact WHAT one teaches) and a liberal bias that is actually unfair to the students.

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

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

ML, Adjunct Instructor of Sociology at New York City, at 11:53 am EST on January 11, 2006

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

Cicero, Prof. of English, at 1:39 pm EST on January 11, 2006

“Gub-mint” is racially slanderous speech?

Gub-mint, gummint, guvmint—these variations and others are often used to refer to “the government” in a pejorative way. Here in lily-white rural Oregon folks say it all the time; nothing racial about it.

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

Rose, at 2:06 pm EST on January 11, 2006

More homework

Learn the definition of Card Stacking.

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

Andrew Purvis, at 4:17 pm EST on January 11, 2006

Lighten Up!

I dare say NONE of the comments in this chain would have been necessary if the writers had paused to consider that the marketplace of ideas and the clash of interests are features of a healthy democracy. Lighten up! And none other than Ronald Wilson Reagan brought the term “gubmint” to the vernacular.

MV Abbott, at 4:17 pm EST on January 11, 2006

Clearly not so obvious

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

Carolyn, at 4:47 pm EST on January 11, 2006

This is imbecilic.

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

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

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

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

Eric, at 6:37 pm EST on January 11, 2006

Horowitz evidence

Horowitz’s evidence is shoddy at best, irresponsible at its worse. Unverifiable, individual student hearsay, is not proof.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

P, at 6:37 pm EST on January 11, 2006

Another False Accusation

As a person who has been targeted by name by David Horowitz through columns by my ex-student, Marissa Freimanis, I can attest to another false accusation. In her piece, “Is This An English Class?? [sic],” posted on 27 October 2004 in Horowitz’s Frontpage.com (http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15678), Freimanis says this regarding the English 100 (freshman composition) class she was taking with me:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clifton Snider, Dr. at California State University, Long Beach, at 7:38 pm EST on January 11, 2006

Academia’s Failing Grade

Academia’s Failing GradeBy American Council of Trustees and Alumni —12/14/05

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Highlights from

Intellectual Diversity: Time for Action

A Report by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Encourage balanced panels and speaker series. …

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

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

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

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

9. Amend student grievance guidelines. …

10. Use visiting professors to achieve greater diversity. …

11. Encourage departments to diversify. …

12. Establish new academic programs. …

13. Ensure student press freedom. …

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

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

16. Create a university ombudsman. …

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

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

Where should the board begin?

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

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

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

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

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

Sirseth, at 4:31 am EST on January 12, 2006

The questions to me which occupy the entire InsideHigherEd report on the academic freedom hearings at Temple took up two minutes of the eight hours or so of testimony. This is no way to report an event that will affect higher education not only in Pennsylvania but throughout the country. Readers interested in the actual issues can find them aired atwww.studentsforacademicfreedom.org

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

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

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

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

David Horowitz

David Horowitz, at 5:36 am EST on January 12, 2006

Churchill/Rocky Mt. News

Art D.—>

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

Steve J., at 6:05 am EST on January 12, 2006

Eric

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

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

Federal Dog, at 7:12 am EST on January 12, 2006

Everything is fine — remain calm

“Your citation of the article about Prof. Churchill deals only with issues of academic honesty ..”

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

http://www.ratemyprofessor.com.

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

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

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

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

Vouchers and charters, people. Vouchers and charters.

Art D., at 8:24 am EST on January 12, 2006

Evidence?

Do you have any evidence that anyone, including Horowitz, has lied? If so, why didn’t you post it? If not, why do you think no one will immediately notice that fact?

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

Federal Dog, at 10:41 am EST on January 12, 2006

Federal Dog, right now, I don’t have any evidence that you understood my post.

Hoosier Prof, at 11:03 am EST on January 12, 2006

ACTA

Federal Dog,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew Purvis, at 1:46 pm EST on January 12, 2006

Again to Andrew

A link at the ACTA site shows where to secure the full questions and data involved. sirseth’s post is also useful in this regard: ACTA, ACE, and other institutions have been asking the schools to end the problem without external intervention for years now.

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

Federal Dog, at 2:36 pm EST on January 12, 2006

“No self-respecting neocon wants to give faculty a chance to open students’ minds when it means they might go ‘blue’. Hence the cooptation of the ABOR by the right.”

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

Well, have a nice day.

Federal Dog, at 4:28 pm EST on January 12, 2006

Bravo

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

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

Justin, at 4:33 am EST on January 13, 2006

Truth, Lies, and Horowitz

Federal Dog asks, “Do you have evidence that anyone, including Horowitz, has lied?” (Yes, momentarily.) Horowitz himself says, in the opening article here that “Jamie Horwitz [of the ATF] has no evidence or proof that I have ever lied.” (I do.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keith, at 4:35 am EST on January 13, 2006

Turn About Is Fair Play

Intersting that Horowitz argues that the substance of his examples are true even if the actual example is not.

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

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

Rob Weir, at 11:27 am EST on January 13, 2006

Horowitz’s argument is hopelessly flawed

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

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

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

David Dimwitz, at 2:14 pm EST on January 13, 2006

Stop misrepresenting things

Horowitz has never suggested or demanded affirmative action for conservatives. It is unethical, to say the least, that you continue to spread this misrepresentation, especially after several unanswered requests for proof of your accusations. The ABOR expressly forbids using politics as the basis for grading, hiring, and promotion.

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

Federal Dog, at 2:54 pm EST on January 13, 2006

Horowitz wants diversity in faculty hiring

Federal Dog,

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

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

To repeat: “. . . including the hiring process.”

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

Keith, at 6:55 pm EST on January 13, 2006

Unbelievable Bald-Faced Deception

Some statement by Students for Academic Freedom is obviously NOT the ABOR. Here is the ABOR, to prevent you from trying to deceive people again:

Academic Bill of Rights

I. The Mission of the University.

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

II. Academic Freedom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Exposing students to the spectrum of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects examined in their courses is a major responsibi