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.
Depoliticized language is the deliberately misleading, agenda-masking language used by people who want their viewpoints to remain hidden behind a patina of objectivity. Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture is one example of this: the name would lead you to believe it is an objective foundation that studies, say, aspects of popular culture. A cursory glance at its contents tells you otherwise. Deliberately misleading, 'depoliticized' language. It makes me sick. Say what you are. Have the courage of your convictions.
Since you seem so intent on psychoanalyzing me (though you know virtually nothing about me), let me subject Mr. Horowitz to a little headshrinking. My impression of Horowitz is that he is stuck in a toxic love/hate relationship with the academy. He yearns to be accepted by it, yet he knows that his own simple-minded and mean-spirited analyses would be ridiculed by academics. He would probably not be published in reputable journals, not because he is being "persecuted" but because his ideas are so intellectually arid. He specializes in whiny, shrill screeds that are characterized more by a petulant rage than a reasoned response. Like many former liberals, he seems poisoned by a sense of betrayal, that the world has somehow let him down.
It is amazing to even have a discussion about the nonpartisan nature of the "Academic Bill of Rights." Horowitz himself lays out his agenda much more honestly and bluntly on the FrontPage website: "I’m eager to continue taking the pro-America message into the trenches to battle the leftists -- and give conservative students the courage to battle back!" Ok, Horry, now your cards are on the table. That's at least an honest response.
You ask, Do you require that the securing of rights to say things be tagged to a specified political identity of what might be said.
I never said anything like this. And no, I wouldn't. I think the problem is when someone refuses to admit the "political identity" of what they are saying. When they use de-fanged language to 'sell' their ideas.