Putting Professors' Politics Under the Microscope (David Horowitz online chat transcript)

Conservative activists are urging lawmakers, college administrators, and student-government leaders to adopt policies that would promote "intellectual diversity" on campuses and protect students and faculty members with unpopular political and religious views. How necessary are such efforts? What would be their ramifications on campus climates, classroom discussions, and academic scholarship?
David Horowitz, president of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, is leading a national campaign to help rid campuses of political bias. The centerpiece of his effort is an "Academic Bill of Rights," which he is urging Congress and state legislatures to adopt. His proposal enumerates several principles that colleges should follow. Among others, the proposal would push colleges to foster a variety of political and religious beliefs in areas such as making tenure decisions, developing reading lists for courses, and selecting campus speakers.

How would Mr. Horowitz's proposal affect academic freedom on campuses? In urging professors and college officials to foster a plurality of views, would the legislation lead to more-effective protections for minority voices? Would it lead to too much oversight of faculty members?

Mr. Horowitz wrote the "Academic Bill of Rights" and is traveling across the country to try to drum up support for the proposal. He is a conservative commentator and author of several books, including Left Illusions: An Intellectual Odyssey (Spence Publishing, 2003).

Mr. Horowitz will respond to questions on Wednesday, February 18, at 1 p.m., U.S. Eastern time. Questions and comments are welcome and may be posted now.

Sara Hebel (Moderator):
Hello, and welcome to Colloquy Live. I would like to thank our guest, David Horowitz, for taking the time to participate today in our discussion about intellectual diversity on college campuses. It looks as if we are going to have a lot of questions, so we'll do our best to get to as many as possible. Let's get started.

David Horowitz:
I want to thank The Chronicle for making possible this dialogue with its readers. I am a firm believer in dialogue, which is why I have proposed the Academic Bill of Rights. Readers interested in the bill and in the movement for academic freedom can find more information at http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org

Question from John Dale University of Indianapolis:
How can someone with an unpopular view be protected? In my case, I attended a conservative institution. My ideological slant was toward radical pragmatism. Consequently, I was made uncomfortable on many occasions. In one case, I was called a reprobate: I thanked the professor. How can we really protect anyone?
David Horowitz:
Professors have a responsibility to teach all their students. Calling a student a "reprobate" because of the student's different point of view -- except in jest -- is incompatible with the professor's responsibility to that student and is unacceptable. I'm assuming you're not being hypersensitive here. I have had many liberals speak at events I host in conservative environments and I have found it pretty easy to "protect" them so that they are treated with respect, despite disagreement on substantive issues, and feel comfortable.

Question from Dr. Rosalie Franks, Roger Williams University:
What you suggest is a noble effort to ensure respect for diverse points of view in the classroom. I agree that students should be exposed always to many different perspectives. Therefore, how can all of us prevent this effort from becoming the means by which some students and faculty try to impose their assessment of how a course should be taught and what reading materials should be assigned?

David Horowitz:
Exposing students to the fact that there are significant opposing viewpoints is very different from letting them dictate the contents and direction of a course. The bill of rights supports the former not the latter.

Question from John K. Wilson, Illinois State University:
How would an Academic Bill of Rights be enforced on a campus level? If it's not enforced, it's meaningless. Would we have trials of professors whenever a student objected to a grade, a reading list, a comment in class, or a cartoon on an office door? And do you have any concerns that this would spark grade inflation and self-censorship as professors fear their students?

David Horowitz:
There is no enforcement proposed in the Academic Bill of Rights. This would be up to the institutions that adopt it. The university seems to have no problem promoting skin diversity. Why should intellectual diversity pose a problem? What's wanted here (and apparently lacking) is good will. Students already object to grades. Professors object to tenure decisions. All the bill of rights does is commit the university to intellectual pluralism, respect for students, equity in funding student activities and emphasis on education rather than politics.

Question from Alice Bullard, Georgia Tech (on leave):
I do not understand how "intellectual diversity" in academia might be measured.

Academic disciplines grow over time through the assiduous training of undergraduate and graduate students. Through years and years of education, only very slowly and only with the brightest of individuals, experts develop. The traditions of academic disciplines, their particular histories, lay the foundations for future scholarship.

What outside authority can claim the expertise needed to judge the relative strengths and weaknesses of a highly

academic. It seems apparent that denying faculty the ability to judge who among potential candidates is most

qualified, would be a denial of academic freedom and an attack on the very idea of academic expertise.

David Horowitz:
No one is suggesting that an outside authority make these judgments. Read the Academic Bill of Rights.

Question from Will Wilson, Duke University:
Are there implications for teaching evolution in biology departments if there were laws forcing faculty to "respect" students' religious, creationist beliefs? Teaching evolution might offend them....

David Horowitz:
If it does, that's their problem. All that is proposed in the Academic Bill of Rights is that students be made aware of significant scholarly views that may dissent from the professor's teaching. What is the harm in mentioning the design theorists, particularly the works of scientists like Behe challenging evolutionary theory? In fact, this would be quite educational and would not impact the professor's ability to teach evolutionary theory just as he had before.

Question from William Kirchain, Medical University of South Carolina:
Under this Bill of Rights, when would an idea be too absurd or unfounded to be protected? For instance would a biologist be forced to discuss intelligent design in a course on evolutionary biology?

David Horowitz:
No. Professors would be encouraged to make students aware of intelligent design theory and hopefully point them to texts by authentic scientists who are skeptical of evolutionary theory.

Question from Theron P. Snell, Univ. of Wisconsin-Parkside:
Does the new "fear of indoctrination" extend to a fear of branding in schools (partnerships with multinational corporations for vending or for debit cards, for example), a practice that can inculcate the ideology of consumption/consumerism?

Does this "new diversity" allow for challenges to free market capitalism, especially in business schools?

Or is this new concern for "diversity" and "protection" simply the old McCarthyism writ with new vocabulary?

David Horowitz:
Talk about loaded questions! If you're asking whether I think people need to be indoctrinated to want services like credit cards or products like soda pop the answer is no.

Business schools are training schools and overtly so. They're comparable to schools of medicine and engineering. Astrologers, flat earthists, voodoo specialists and socialists are just not part of the curriculum. If someone wants to become a priest, why would you provide him with an atheist professor. On the other hand graduate schools in sociology and economics would be remiss if they did not provide texts, lectures etc. in which socialist views were represented.

As for your last question, perhaps you would explain how a bill which promotes academic freedom and protects all political viewpoints could be "McCarthyism" -- unless the questioner was an idealogue with an axe to grind.

Question from David Gordon, UW-Eau Claire (emeritus):
I'd suggest that civility in face-to-face and (especially) online discourse is essential to fostering respect for differing views. There are daily examples, from all parts of the political spectrum, of uncivil discourse on campus . . . so isn't it more sensible for any "bill of rights" to focus on this concern rather than stressing such dramatic but far less frequent occurrences as the obstruction of invited campus speakers, destruction of campus literature or other physical attempts to obstruct the exchange of ideas on campus?

David Horowitz:
When you solve the problem of Internet flaming, let me know how you do it.

1. Freedom of Speech on Campuses. On many campuses, there are so-called "free speech" zones which force protests into narrowly confined places. It is usually liberal protestors who are cordoned off in such a manner. Would the conservative activists promote more freedoms across all areas of campus, or only where they feel threatened?

2. Conservative activists are concerned about liberal bias in a publicly funded space, such as a state university classroom. Are they also concerned about bias in other public spaces such as AM radio, which is dominated by conservative viewpoints. I think there should be more diversity there too, because the airwaves are owned by the American people.

3. Conservative activists are concerned that there are not enough conservative voices in academia. I think that it might be worth asking what proportion of newly minted Ph.D.s are actually conservative. Do the conservatives have reliable data that shows the proportion of graduate students who are actually conservative? It may be that conservatives as a group are not enrolling in graduate school, and hence are not more numerous in academia because conservatives choose other careers paths. If this is a case, then the problem is with conservatives, not with the schools.

Thank you for considering these questions.

David Horowitz:
1. An interesting question. When I spoke at UCLA the left came with bongo drums, tom-toms and loud speakers to drown out my speech. At other schools leftists have obstructed classes, blocked passageways and in a general (and calculated) way made themselves nuisances. If leftists will submit to rules of civility I see no reason to confine demonstrations to free speech areas. A university should be a place for the free and (therefore) civil exchange of ideas. If the left is willing to play by these rules fine.

2. When are leftists going to accept the free market? AM channels are bought and sold, and audiences come and go of their own free will. There are a ton of fabulously wealthy leftists and/or liberals who run large media companies like Disney and Time Warner. The only radio network that really needs some legislative redress is the left's own NPR, with its 1200 stations nationally and the only reason NPR could use a little legislative reform is because it is a government subsidized monopoly.

3. I have pointed out many times, that the politicization of the university by leftists and the harassment of conservatives by a faculty that was purged of conservatives, discourages conservative students from pursuing academic careers. You would pretty much have to have your head examined to pursue a PhD in fields like history for example which are dominated by Marxists and fellow-travelling post-modernists etc. who have shown by their academic behavior that they have no interest in a plural intellectual universe.

Comment from Jane Buck, National President, American Association of University Professors:
The AAUP has published a response to the so-called "Academic Bill of Rights" that may be viewed on our web site at http://www.aaup.org/statements/SpchState/billofrights.htm.

Question from Michael Welsh, University of Northern Colorado:
Dear Dr. Horowitz,

A good deal of attention has been paid in the Colorado media about your work here this past year to broaden the dialogue about intellectual diversity on college campuses. Yet the targets seem to be one or two institutions, mostly CU-Boulder, and one or two departments (ethnic studies, political science, etc.). My students at a primarily teacher-training university wonder sometimes if the problem is as bad as you say. Is intellectual diversity at risk everywhere? Somewhere? Our political science department only has seven faculty (out of 420-plus full-time faculty campuswide). Is there another way to get at your goals without the categorical language of the "Academic Bill of Rights" (one student asked if that meant that I cannot make fun of the Denver pro sports teams, since that is not my "area of professional expertise," to quote the bill before the Colorado legislature)?

David Horowitz:
Isn't your school the one where a criminology professor assigned a paper Why George Bush is a war criminal? I think you have problems.

As to your question about the bill of rights. The clear intention of the Bill of Rights is to prevent professors from making political speeches in the classroom, or from making students feel there is a political partisan in the classroom with power over their grades. It is not to prevent professors from making off=hand comments that don't fall into this category.

As for categorical language -- I have often expressed my eagerness to see universities fix their problems themselves I do not have a possessive attitude towards the bill of rights. You and I know that thousands of professors used their classrooms to hector students about the war in Iraq This is abusive and if I saw one university administration attempting to do something about it, I would be impressed.

Question from Sara Hebel:
In one of the bills pending in Colorado, lawmakers have proposed requiring institutions to better publicize their existing policies on academic freedom and how students are protected under them. What are your thoughts on this approach? Does it go far enough?

David Horowitz:
I think this is absolutely essential. I am all for it. No, it does not go far enough. The issue here is one of academic standards. AT the university of Indiana in the health sciences department no less, a course that bills itself as training in OSHA rules is entirely devoted to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The teacher is completely unqualified to teach this course. If this took place in any other institution that professor would be disciplined if not fired and the course would be changed. As it is, we are protesting that course(why isn't the AAUP concerned about this?) and we'll see whether anything at all is done._

Question from william calin, university of florida:
Mr. Horowitz, I agree with you entirely concerning the virtues of intellectual diversity. Far too often, in the humanities, conservative students and faculty feel swept away by waves of accepted "progressive" dogma. We should not feel uncomfortable in disagreeing with what many of us consider to be heinous and sterile ideologies: feminism and the sundry forms of diversity studies. However, why do you also come down so hard on those of us opposed to the war against Iraq? Don't you realize that we face a similar wave of gut patriotism from the American masses, on the outside, just as tyrannical and mindless as the diversity dogma on the inside? And that there are higher calls than patriotism, the calls of reason and of God?

David Horowitz:
I am absolutely mystified by this question. In what way does the academic bill of rights or anything I have written about come down heavily on the anti-war movement? The purpose of the bill of rights is to take politics out of the classroom, not to insert conservative politics into it.

Comment from George Dodds, University of Tennessee, Knoxville:
The last time I checked there were still seven letters in word "liberal," not four. It is sad that students identifying themselves as politically conservative feel "alienated" by speech or ideas not aligned with their own world view. Moreover, it is truly Orwellian that ostensibly conservative political values that consistently promote limiting large-scale government involvement in local affairs would propose over-arching limitations on free speech in the academy. All students would do well to exercise their free speech in the form of public argumentation (inside class when appropriate), to challenge the political views of others, not to silence others but to help make us all more accountable. This is praxis at its best. I thought educators were responsible for not simply conveying INFORMATION, but also for challenging students with critical thinking that helps transform factoids into knowledge and, if we are lucky, wisdom. This is a fundamental role of universities in our society. When we lose sight of this, we run the risk of blinding all alternative visions in favor of "the received view." Conservative political values are no more or less noble than are liberal values. When the task of education is limited to a narrowly prescribed comfort zone, the nobility of human intellect is lost and the role of colleges and universities in our society seems as moot as it would be mute.

Question from Barb, leaving Utah for parts unknown:
You say no one can tell you which points in your plan are objectionable. I will be happy to tell you what I object to---the second half of this statement: "Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject." I am not a particularly political instructor. However, since knowledge in the humanities and social sciences is inter-related across the artificially defined field boundaries, I do not want anyone limiting the scope of my classroom presentations by telling me what is and is not related, or is, or is not controversial. You would be astonished at what students think is controversial. Furthermore, I intend for many of my ideas in social work to be controversial. When I prepare my classes, I refuse to be careful. Likewise in the humanities--do you think one can teach Coreolanus or The Crucible without political expression? ... Aren't psychology and medicine, and even the hard sciences, blinded, when they ignore, or fail to acknowledge, the political bias of research? Is an 18-year-old, or college freshman of any age, in a position to determine which political expressions are appropriate to the subject? Isn't it more appropriate to leave the discretion in the hands of the professors, who have studied the subject for a lifetime? ...

David Horowitz:
The statement you find objectionable is not part of the bill of rights. It is a sentence from the American Association of University Professors 1940 statement on the principles of academic freedom and tenure. This statement was reiterated by the AAUP in 1970. If you think about it for a moment it's about two things: 1) standards: if professors feel free to introduce controversial matter irrelevant to the subject in their classrooms what they are actually doing is attempting to teach subjects which they are not qualified to teach. Does a PhD mean anything? If it does, you should support this rule. 2) abuse of students. Professors have grading power over their captive audiences. To attempt to foist one's political views on a captive audience that can be punished for disagreeing with you is obviously not right. Why can't you see this?

Question from Recruiter, Education Search Firm:
I've seen liberal faculty selection committees reject qualified candidates with conservative viewpoints. The selection committee members never openly articulate their hostility toward the candidates' philosophies -- what are you doing to counter anti-conservative hiring practices?

David Horowitz:
The first tenet of the bill of rights forbids hiring and firing on the basis of political views. This a small step towards remedying the huge abuse -- the symptom you describe is more widespread than any blacklist instituted by McCarthy -- but even the small reforms we have proposed are being resisted with all the power the intolerant academic left (and there are exceptions) has at its disposal. So let's try to take a small step first. In the original bill of rights I suggested that all hiring deliberations be recorded as a check on political blacklisting. But objections were raised and I dropped the suggestion in order to give the bill maximum opportunity of being passed.

Sara Hebel (Moderator):
We're about half way through today's discussion. Keep the good questions and comments coming.

You suggest that biology departments should include creationism when discussing evolution. Does that mean that Economics departments should teach Marx?

David Horowitz:
Actually I did no such thing. I said that biology departments should probably make students aware that there is a school of "intelligent design" that includes reputable scientists. Economics departments should make students aware that there are Marxists (just as there are people who think the moon is made out of cheese). Is anybody in the university today unaware of Karl Marx?!!!!

Comment from anonymous:
Since my writing involves the role of drugs in ancient, medieval, and renaissance religion and culture, the topic is too controversial for my colleagues, who fear contamination from me or problems with parents. Hence, no one ever speaks to me about my research; and about a decade ago, graduate students who were writing theses under my direction were told that they would never get the degree unless they changed directors; nor could they ever expect to find employment, even though their topics were not drug related. I never emphasize my interests in lecture courses, but on occasion a disgruntled student in the course evaluation has accused me of talking about nothing else, as a way to injure me.

Question from Matthew Malkan, ULCA:
One of President Atkinson's last acts as President of the University of California was to push through a revision to our policy on academic freedom (in response to negative publicity on a course about Palestinians at Berkeley). The main revision that I can see is that there are no longer any specific statements about the academic rights or freedoms of STUDENTS. was UC unusual in formerly including students in its academic freedom policy? what] arguments would you make about how and why they should be included?

David Horowitz:
President Atkinson did a lot of damage to the University of Californian particular and higher education in general before he left. This was an act of reckless irresponsibility. The course you refer to was an indoctrination class in terrorism by a supporter of terrorism who has no business in a classroom. He has been arrested more than once on the university campus for obstructing speakers and should be removed from the faculty and expelled from the university. Atkinson merely knuckled under to the totalitarian minority on the Berkeley campus and its threat of disruption and violence.

Question from Rick Norwood, East Tennessee State U.:
You ask, "The university seems to have no problem promoting skin diversity. Why should intellectual diversity pose a problem?" The answer is that there were once laws against skin diversity. Intellectual diversity has never been against the law, and so there are no historic imbalances in need of correction.

David Horowitz:
Surely you must be joking. The history of mankind is virtually a history of suppression of unorthodox ideas. Ever hear of Galileo? The Salem witch trials? Joseph McCarthy? Fidel Castro?

Question from Roger G. Gonzalez, Barry U., Asst.Prof, Higher Education:
Mr. Horowitz: Don't institutional due process and the courts already have a track record of protecting everyone's opinions in the classroom, including the students'?

David Horowitz:
No.

Comment from Rick Norwood, East Tennessee State U:
"The clear intention of the Bill of Rights is to prevent professors from making political speeches in the classroom." Here we have a clear statement of your goals. In an Orwellian shift in meaning, a "Bill of Rights" is designed to deny professors the right to make speeches. In other words, while you pretend to want students to hear a diversity of opinion, here is a clear statement from you that your goal is to prevent students from hearing a diversity of opinion.

Question from Rick Norwood, East Tennessee State U:
In the fifties, academics displayed their liberal bias by being in favor of civil rights. In the sixties, academics displayed their liberal bias by opposing the war in Vietnam. Would have you have been in favor of an "Academic Bill of Rights" in the fifties or sixties.

David Horowitz:
Is this meant to be a trick question? Actually the first book I wrote, Student, which was the first book by a New Leftist (published in 1962) defended free speech not only against McCarthy but against the Communist Party. A relevant excerpt from this book is reprinted in my latest book Left Illusions.

Question from Rick Norwood, East Tennessee State U:
The error in your reasoning is your assumption that the liberal/conservative line has a well defined zero. You find NPR too liberal. I find NPR too conservative. The center is not well defined.

David Horowitz:
No, I find NPR too exclusionary.

Question from Alex McCormick, Carnegie Foundation:
I think you dodged Alice Bullard's legitimate question about how intellectual diversity would be measured. You say that there would be no external authority, and that institutions would have responsibility for enforcement. But it's not hard to imagine how an independent monitoring and "certification" group might emerge. Would you support or oppose the formation of such a group?

David Horowitz:
The remedy for this is for university faculties to do the right thing and foster a more diverse curriculum and atmosphere. I didn't like going to legislatures, but I see precious little support from universities for self-reform. I don't like the idea of outside groups, but I don't like the idea either of having anti-American radicals in health science courses teaching vulnerable youngsters their poisonous creeds. So, I have approached the Attorney General of the state of Indiana to sue the university for consumer fraud. Do you have a problem with this?

Question from Tom Ward, Rockhurst University:
You stated that a conservative "would pretty much have to have [their] head examined to pursue a PhD in fields like history for example which are dominated by Marxists and fellow-travelling post-modernists etc. who have shown by their academic behavior that they have no interest in a plural intellectual universe." Do you have any evidence to back up statements such as these, or are these just your political views? Is this the type of civil dialogue that you hope to promote on college campuses?

David Horowitz:
Yes. No. (we are not on a campus and I am not your professor)

Question from Roger G. Gonzalez, Barry University:
What will your Academic Bill of Rights do that due process at institutions and the courts don't?

David Horowitz:
Well hopefully it will wake everybody up. If you codify the rules and put them in everybody's hands, and if people are vigilant on behalf of academic freedom, the institutions may actually get on the case. I wrote a little book about my attempt to question reparations on college campuses three years ago. If you think campuses are free now, read the book. It's called Uncivil Wars: The Controversy Over Reparations for Slavery and was published by Encounter.

Comment from jonathan knight, american association of university professors:
May I offer a correction to what David Horowitz said about the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure? The statement cautions teachers to be careful "not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject," but a 1970 interpretation of this statement, mentioned by Mr. Horowitz but not quoted by him, is crucial: "The intent of this statement is not to discourage what is 'controversial'. Controversy is at the heart of the free academic inquiry which the entire statement is designed to foster. The passage serves to underscore the need for teachers to avoid persistently intruding material which has no relation to their subject."

Question from chris merrett, western illinois university:
Dear Mr. Horowitz:

I am not sure you clearly understand the role of higher education. In a previous response, you said that your aim is to "take politics out of the classroom." My role as a professor is to help students engage in civil debate, to question ideas, and hopefully help them to become independent thinkers. This implies that students' ideas might be changed. It also means that my own ideas have evolved because students raise provocative questions. Faculty should be open to, and encourage differing viewpoints. Students should be too. I support your overall premise that we should respect a range of ideas in the classroom. However, to say that a classroom should not have politics in it is to miss the point of the educational experience.

chris merrett

David Horowitz:
I did not mean that politics was a subject to be banned from the classroom. I apologize for the careless formulation. I am completely in support of the sentiments expressed in your post. What is illegitimate is for a professor to make political indoctrination or even political influence his agenda. Assigning a paper on the subject Why Bush Is A War Criminal would be an appropriate assignment in a totalitarian classroom in a totalitarian state. But not in America. That teacher is inserting his (or her) politics into the classroom in an illegitimate manner.

Question from David Quin, DIT, Dublin, Ireland:
On first hearing about your Academic Bill of Rights, I expected it would have many objectionable features. When I read it, I found it to have rigorously pre-empted possible efforts to abuse its general principles. However, do you not think that there is a risk -- particularly in America's current polarized political climate -- that it might be adopted as a weapon by conservatives who would like to root out academic staff they deem to be 'leftie'?

David Horowitz:
The universities are totally dominated by the left, so I hardly see this as a problem. Moreover, conservatives have allowed themselves to be abused, driven out of the universities, excluded by blacklist, denounced etc. etc. for thirty years, and would probably never have come up with the Academic Bill of Rights by themselves. So I hardly think they're a threat. Also, the Bill of Rights itself is politically neutral so it will protect leftists against any assault on them for their politics.

Comment from Anonymous from university and urban community college:
As a conservative and a recent university graduate in history I was taught by historians who came from a leftist 60s learning platform who felt it was their right to air their politics. I like your bill of rights. I just want both sides of the story for students. Why do those who are contributing to this conversation worry so much THEIR word being surpressed or compromised; academic diversity is about balance. Will you please continue your endeavor and in the future pursue the problems that junior faculty have in dealing with the insensitivity of tenured faculty when it comes to the interjection of politics in department meetings as well. I prefer to stay anonymous for fear of jeopardizing any academic opportunities that I might have. That in itself should say something.

Question from Rick Norwood, East Tennessee State U:
It is clear by now that there is a lot more diversity on campuses than you give us credit for. It is also clear that one person's diversity is another persons nut-case. You class socialism with voodoo, even though every developed country is socialist to a greater or lesser extent. You class creationism as a serious academic discipline, even though every living American Nobel Prize Winner signed a statement to the effect that it is without merit. You cite a few obvious bad examples, but the cure is worse than the disease.

David Horowitz:
You need to read more carefully before you attack. I do not equate creationism with science. I am not a scientist and have no view on this subject. I do know that some very reputable scientists have made reputable scientific cases for intelligent design. I do regard socialism as dangerous; I do not regard socialists as nut-cases. Marx's own views are in my view as discredited as Hitler's (and did more damage). However, if you paid attention to what I said, I did endorse the banning of Marx from college classrooms. Quite the opposite. BTW how is academic freedom worse than the disease of academic unfreedom?

Question from Tom Ward, Rockhurst University:
Would you like to provide some evidence that "fields like history for example which are dominated by Marxists and fellow-travelling post-modernists etc." Most academics like to have evidence to support their claims.

David Horowitz:
Read Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes' book In Denial, which is a well-documented book on this subject. Or look at the political views of the last ten presidents of the American Historical Association. Then submit another post.

Question from Harry Cleaver, U of Texas:
How can anyone possibly see anything other than pure hypocrisy in your campaign for "intellectual diversity" - when everything you have written in recent years has made clear that what you and your Right-wing friends are really after is a "cleansing" of higher education of any criticism of capitalism? Given the overwhelming pro-capitalist bias of every university in the United States, wouldn't a real policy of "intellectual diversity" require the hiring of huge numbers of scholars critical of the current system - instead of getting rid of the few that can be found in the nooks and crannies of various colleges?

David Horowitz:
How can anyone believe anything you say after reading your first sentence. I have never written a single line that called for the cleansing of higher education of any criticism of capitalism. Nor would I.

Comment from Pat Cihon, Syracuse University:
It seems like the call for protection of intellectual diversity is simply another form of affirmative action -- to give special consideration to faculty with "unpopular" views. It is therefore interesting to see conservatives, who strongly oppose affirmative action, advocating it for those who share their intellectual position.

Question from Donald Lazere, U of Tennessee:
In David Horowitz's impartial campaign for academic "intellectual diversity," why doesn't he demand greater representation of liberal critics and partisans of labor unions in all of the fields of universities that are overtly in service to conservative business, governmental, and military interests? These would include schools or departments of business administration, computer science, engineering, agriculture, law, medicine, applied sciences, weapons laboratories, ROTC, and countless others. Don't the humanities and social sciences serve as a legitimate liberal counter-balance to the far larger influence on students of these departments whose mission is to train employees and to service conservative corporate and government interests?

David Horowitz:
This is a very peculiar view of the university. Have you never heard of the Harry Bridges Labor Institute at the University of Washington. Bridges of course was a member of the Central Committee of the American Communist Party, a perjurer, a lifelong servant of the greatest mass murderer in human history and a sworn enemy of the United States. Yet there is an institute named after him devoted to Labor Studies (and the archiving of Communist organizations and movements, including the anti-WTO riot crowd). This is merely a small indication of how thoroughly the left has made the university its political base. So I don't accept your premise.

I have already answered the question about business schools and similar departments, but here goes again. A large part of the university is devoted to professional training. Students can be milked for tens of thousands of dollars apiece because they get a service -- training for a career that will allow them to earn a living. There are plenty of training schools for trade unionists. If there weren't there would be demand for them and universities would supply them. If the university did meet demands for professional training, it would be very small indeed, and perhaps you wouldn't have a job. In those areas of the university -- liberal arts colleges -- where it is appropriate to look at society and its institutions in a philosophical way so to speak -- there should be diversity of viewpoint and this should include the left. Today it is virtually only the left and that is wrong. If tomorrow it were virtually only the right, that would be wrong too and I would be proposing the bill of rights to remedy it.

David Horowitz:
This brings us to the end of our colloquy. It's been interesting and enjoyable for me. I hope it has been the same for you.

Sara Hebel (Moderator):
That's all we have time for today. I'm sorry we weren't able to get to all of the questions. Thanks for joining us for a lively discussion, and thanks again to David Horowitz.

David in the Lion's Den.

I think he came off very well.

1 posted on 02/19/2004 11:30:24 AM PST by billorites

2 posted on 02/19/2004 12:18:17 PM PST by Damocles (sword of...)

Question from Rick Norwood, East Tennessee State U: The error in your reasoning is your assumption that the liberal/conservative line has a well defined zero. You find NPR too liberal. I find NPR too conservative.

Scary is right!

3 posted on 02/19/2004 12:37:01 PM PST by <1/1,000,000th%

Good on David!
I can just see the sneering, sanctimonious, look~down~my~nose~at~you types hammering him with their questions - all of which he answered with grace and humor.

4 posted on 02/19/2004 12:39:41 PM PST by rockrr ("Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me")

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.