Radical conservatives find a willing mouthpiece in Kersten

Mpls (red)Star Tribune ^ | 12/7/02 | Rob Levine

[Valin]

On the surface, Katherine Kersten's Nov. 20 column arguing that U.S. universities and colleges lack conservative diversity may seem reasonable. But by omitting important details and drawing illogical conclusions, Kersten has gotten the overall picture backwards. She bases her argument on a study by David Horowitz. Horowitz, his Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC), and their tax-exempt patrons have had a surprising impact on our society. They wield their decidedly partisan political influence by using tax-exempt funds. Kersten's institution, the Center of the American Experiment (CAE), is funded by the same conservative philanthropies that fund Horowitz's CSPC. The only difference is scale. Whereas the CAE has received about $310,000 from the conservative philanthropies since 1994, Horowitz's CSPC has received in excess of $12 million since 1989.

[IronJack]

I'm pretty familiar with Horowitz's studies of liberal bias on campus, and this author -- intentionally -- misses the point. Horowitz doesn't maintain that political affiliation alone determines ideologoy, or that it defines a professor's classroom orientation. He simply says that the predominance of left-wing ideology on campus is part of a pattern of exclusion. The crime isn't in these professors being overwhelmingly liberal; it is in their promotion of their liberal bias in the classroom, in extracurricular activities, and in the subtle pressures they bring on conservatives to repent or reform. In courses where the subject matter is largely subjective (and in what humanities discipline CAN'T that be arranged?), students who advance a conservative argument can be chided, antagonized, or even failed, not because their arguments lack merit but because the professor simply chooses to reject them.

As to D'Souza and Horowitz being "selfish bigots," since both men have spent most of their lives working for the betterment of others, it would seem that this is the predictable playground-level name-calling that liberals always indulge whenever they can't defend the indefensible. And I'm sure both D'Souza and Horowitz have been called worse by better.

[Cicero]

Typical liberal obfuscation. David Horowitz must be dismissed because he is partisan. His figures are based on the facts that can be "found" and "established." Party affiliation has no affect on a scholar's competence.

Nonsense. Of course Horowitz is partisan. He never claimed otherwise. And of course Rob Levine is partisan, although he prefers to pretend otherwise.

If Horowitz is wrong, he should be disproven by the facts, not by name-calling. And this reporter cannot do it. If a typical academic department has, let's say, 30 faculty members, and if 29 of them are Democrats, none of them are Republicans, and one could not be interviewed, that is pretty good evidence of slant or bias, in a country where Democrats and Republicans are more or less evenly balanced. If Horowitz failed to pin down the political affiliations of 15 or 20 out of 30, that would cast doubt on his figures. But in fact imbalances of about this order are clearly shown by the figures he gives, and they are only fuzzy at the edges.

That, of course, is why this reporter refrains from actually citing any details or refuting them. Because he cannot.

[agitator]

Ping

[IronJack]

By the way, isn't it interesting that the political orientation of these professors is supposedly irrelevant to their classroom behavior, yet the ethnicity of the staff is, and therefore a justification for affirmative action? Beliefs don't matter, but skin color does?

[Valin]

Gee I thought it was impossible for someone from the thrid world (D'Souza) or someone whos radical left credentials were unimpeachable (Horowitz) could be "selfish bigots".
Well I guess you really do learn something new everyday.

[expatpat]

He makes an awful big fuss about Horowitz et al getting money from conservative philanthropists. The liberals not only get lots of money from the liberal philanthropies (e.g., the Ford Foundation), but also taxpayers' money from the Feds.

[gaspar]

I thought this sophmoric piece was the work of some misguided juvenile. Correctamundo, as someone once said. A 1980 journalism graduate of the U. of Minnesota, Duluth, our Robbie boy heads CursorInc, a non-profit corporation "dedicated to media education and criticism" and a website, www.MediaTransparency.org His only effort in life seems to be the investigation of "conservative philanthropies" and his opinions are so far left that only a like-minded newspaper would publish his ravings. exist.

[Valin]

Oh but that's different! < /sarcasm>

[Valin]

Oh that's the guy. I recall reading a rant he had published in the red star a couple of years ago when (I believe) Margaret Thacher came here to talk.

[Bob J]

Wow. It took 5 paragraphs for the water to settle and the author to call his opponents bigots. Wonder why he left out "nazis"?

[Lee'sGhost]

"Radical Conservatives"

Bwahahahahahah! An oxymoron.

[Valin]

I don't know, I've always considered myself a fairly Radical guy. Of course there are those that call me a moron. But I don't think that's the same thing as an oxymoron.