[ggordon22]

You use the term ad hominem? Here's a quote: You identify yourself as a current student, and therefore have no idea how even in the 60's there was true and unfettered academic freedom and reasoned academic discussion. You have no idea how old I am and no idea what I study. You also refer to "my peers," again with the assumption that I am young. You assume I am a young person who did not live in the 60's; you are also assuming I "have no idea" about the 60's culture of academic freedom, when you couldn't possibly know either of those things.

Also, you seem to mischaracterize what was said in my post. I agree that much of what is taught in the social sciences and humanities is distorted through a Marxist, socialist lens. I said it was healthy to encourage "viewpoints that espouse a non-Marxist, non-postmodernist, non-liberal point of view." What I disagreed with was Horowitz's deliberate effort to couch that truth in depoliticized language. Is this too nuanced a point?

The whole bit about corporate influence being a "red herring" is nice; the conflict between corporate interest (which seeks, often justifiably, to protect and keep secret IP) and academia (which usually seeks to publish information openly) is well-documented and crucial to any serious debate about 'academic freedom.'

BTW, the plural of campuses is not 'campi.' Ironic that you deride my education.

[ontos-on]

I said it was healthy to encourage "viewpoints that espouse a non-Marxist, non-postmodernist, non-liberal point of view." What I disagreed with was Horowitz's deliberate effort to couch that truth in depoliticized language. Is this too nuanced a point?

Yeah, I am much more simple than you. I do not believe that you are saying anything meaningful in your objection to "depoliticized language" !

We are talking about a principle of academic freedom to speak without fear of intimidation and improper sanctions for diverse points of view. Do you require that the securing of rights to say things be tagged to a specified political identity of what might be said. No, I have got you right, despite my simplicity. You still want to tag people so as to arbitrate who can say what, when and where. That is why you find the expression of rights in "depoliticized language" so bothersome. It creates too much freedom.

You do not like me perceiving [and stating] what is packed into your position and manner of expression. I think I am right on.

Corporate funding of research is irrelevant to the discussion of student academic rights. To insist on it is to insist on the red herring. Talk about it at another time, if you will. The freedom of students to be exposed to diverse intellectual POV including a diverse intellectual faculty, is what is the topic here. So what that Horowitz sees discrimination and intimidation of certain religious and political POV and proposes principles of specific academic freedoms that would answer the threats that he perceives. Why is that offensive to you? Why? [I suspect you have fallen victim to identity politics and will only allow certain "certified" POV to be heard. If you don't precertify, you may hear something you have not already tagged. I am sorry but this is actually an old Marxist tactic and if you are innocent of its origins, then this only shows the degree of its infiltration into the academy in supposed sheep's clothing. ]

I can only conclude you have some other agenda or purpose for objecting to the "depoliticized language".

I did not deride your education but your naivite' and lack of experience with what true academic freedom really is.