Oh great. David Horowitz has a new book out.

[proud2BlibKansan]

:puke:

[mediaman007]

1. Republicans could be in the classroom too, but their too busy

stealing our money on Wall Street.

On the other hand, don't they say that reality has a Liberal twist.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

3. Prediction:

At some point in the not-too-far-distant future, Horowitz will have yet another epiphany and we get him back.

Oh joy. Oh rapture.

The guy is just a carnival huckster who goes where he thinks the best action is.

[Warpy]

4. Nah, he's still a Trotskyite

an elitist who hates the concept of democracy with every fiber of his being. That he found a home with the fascists when the New Left fell apart after Vietnam and pressure from Nixon is no surprise to anybody who knew some of those guys.

I don't want him back. He belongs with the Straussians and other anti American right wing extremists.

[readmoreoften]

6. So reading trotsky is some inherent pre-condition to fascist right-wing Straussian extremism?

And is inherently anti-democratic? Unlike our current system.

Somehow I don't think Lenin and Trotsky are to blame for Horowitz's hatred of Democrats (and Leninists and Trotskyites and Chavistas--hell, he's almost a DUer!)

[Warpy]

14. Statements that begin with "so" generally contain strawmen

and this is no exception. It reflects nothing in my post.

Had you read more carefully, you'd have noticed the anti democratic elitism found in much of Trotsky is what made him such a sucker for Strauss when the left fell apart.

Try to read more carefully next time.

[xchrom]

2. he and lynne cheney are two authors i would approve book burning for. nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. Her children's books suck

Seriously.

[xchrom]

7. i'm sure -- she's lynne chenney. nt

[LaPera]

8. Horowitz is just one hateful lying fucker....

A slimy lying republican!

[GoesTo11]

9. He has a point

There are quite a few professors out there who take the privilege of academic freedom and use it to make their classes - yes - political indoctrination. It's one thing to teach critical thinking skills and open-mindedness and awareness of alternatives to students who may come in with a pretty narrow way of viewing things. But it's quite another to have students basically memorize the teacher's point of view - this is not doing the students a service as an educator. It's using the students to advance the teacher's personal goals. Especially (but not exclusively) once a professor gets tenure, in some cases, the ego goes out of control and the professor thinks that expertise in one thing makes them experts in everything. They have a moral imperative to use their platform to advance the causes they believe in - and that this comes before developing the student's mind. That seems to me like a violation of the professional ethics of the university educator. Also once professors get tenure, they can sometimes take over a department and indeed enforce the uniformity of thinking that is often charged. This is fairly rare, but when it happens it can both set an example and set incentives - and recruit - for younger professors to take this role. Tenured professors potentially have so much power over untenured professors that a couple of bad apples can get in a position to really exploit the whole structure, wrecking it for colleagues and for most students, exacting raises and course releases for themselves and their favorites, etc.

While this can happen on both the left and the right, and in any kind of institution, given the nature of most universities, the problem takes a particular form there and it really is much more of a problem on the left. The left shouldn't try to gloss over this problem. It is often - as in some of the cases Horowitz and others love to repeat - just embarrassing.

[ConsAreLiars]

10. Your support for the fascist Horowitz has the one virtue

of at least being consistent with your other views. Not much else.

[GoesTo11]

11. Thank you for the well-reasoned response

You know all about me, don't you?

Well, what exactly do you disagree with that I wrote there? Do you think professors should open students minds and teach critical thinking? I do. Do you think professors' tremendous rights of academic freedom and tenure come with responsibility to help their students? I do. Do you think professors should take their positions of influence and do whatever the hell they want regardless of impact on anyone else? I don't - that's just behaving like spoiled brats. I know plenty of highly responsible progressive professors who make their point the right way. I also know some who are just cancers on their departments and on their profession. Maybe you just don't know that much about what goes on in universities.

[ConsAreLiars]

12. Horowitz is a fascist hatemonger who opposes every progressive cause.

The fact that you support him says everything about you. Whatever pointless blather you post to justify your defense of him is just gibberish that cannot mask your allegiance to the same ideology.

(edit out redundancy)

[GoesTo11]

13. Another well-reasoned response.

1) Horowitz is certainly conservative. Fascist? I don't think you know the meaning of the word.

2) I am not not defending Horowitz the man, I am talking about specifically the problem of professors who misuse their positions - in a way that would be inappropriate regardless of their ideology. I believe there really is a problem there, and that every professor who exploits the position weakens the institution and the ability for future professors to make good use of it. It's selfishness to do that.

I also believe that progressives who endorse this kind of misuse of position just give an easy target for people like Horowitz, and weaken their own cause.

3) Even if I did defend the man, which I did not, that wouldn't mean that I have allegiance to the same ideology.

4) If you must know, my ideology nothing at all like Horowitz'. I vote for, campaign for and donate to progressives. But I do use my brain, look at issues and think for myself, I try to reach logical conclusions and don't just spout bullshit because some other person does. That is not, as you seem to believe a conservative or even fascist approach, but in fact it is the same approach that the best progressives use.

[Viking12]

15. Like Horowitz, nothing but naked assertions

Like Horowitz, you can provide nothing but distorted anecdotal evidence.

[GoesTo11]

17. I don't have time to research a book on it. Do you?

I don't think it's a pervasive problem like Horowitz says it is. But yes, of course it happens. I am not a student, but I hear about this from students all the time. Maybe they're all distorting and lying, but I don't think so. I remember some from my college days, where they spent the time talking about their political views and the technical content on the syllabus. It is hugely annoying as a student. If you want to learn about modern-day colonialism and queer power, you would take a course in that. If you take a course in Introduction to Philosophy figuring you'll finally know the difference between Nietzche and Kierkegaard, or Plato and Socrates, or existentialism and empiricism, you hope to leave the class knowing that rather than some nonsense. If you take a course on microeconomics, you hope to know about supply and demand and prices and quantities. Did you never have a course like that? Did you ever see a department like that? I know of quite a few departments from hell, but I'm not naming names - and anyone who's spent much time around universities would how bad departmental politics and academics' self-importance and petulance can get. I've also taken great courses from leading progressives who raise the students' thinking and awareness. The problem is that a lot of relatively mediocre minds think that every little thing they have to say is so important that they waste everyone's time in the class.

Do you think this doesn't happen? Or do you think it's ok when it does happen?

[Viking12]

18. Thank you for proving my point. You have no evidence.

..and yes, I spend a lot of time on college campuses. I am one of those 'evil, radical professors' BWAHAAHAHAHAAH:evilgrin:

[GoesTo11]

57. I didn't say "evil, radical professors"

But assuming you mean by that what I am calling irresponsible, it sounds like you are probably pretty good at spouting your opinions at students as if they are fact, and you probably ignore the content that anyone other than you thinks would be useful to learn. Have you heard of academic standards?

[Viking12]

62. Yes, you ARE just like Horowitz -- make bald assertions based on absolutely zero evidence.

Irony is not dead. A uninformed putz like you calling others irresponsible.

[GoesTo11]

63. Irresponsible professors are destroying a proud vocation

I have spoken with retired professors. 70 years old and older. They viewed being a professor as a privilege and a great responsibility. They wouldn't miss class for anything. They would never think of taking a substantive class and making it a political ad. Like everyone, they had political views but they viewed their scholarly roles - their responsibility to their fields, their institutions and their students - as important and serious. Those who get to take advantage of the system now only get to do so because their predecessors did not destroy it for them. Maybe it's a generational thing.

[Viking12]

66. No slanderous liars like YOU and Horowitz are ruining the reputation of a proud profession

[GoesTo11]

68. Now I'm a slanderous liar? Wow.

Since you're a professor, just do me one favor. For your next class, go in and wear a nice blazer and tie, cotton button down shirt, with decent slacks and leather shoes (loafers ok if in good condition), instead of in that old ratty sweater, denim shirt and threadbare corduroy jeans. Shave and a haircut wouldn't hurt either. That will help the reputation of the profession.

[Viking12]

71. Yes, slanderous liar.

As in one who makes false accusations to harm the reputation of others.

So now it's not the content of the course but the way we dress that's the problem?

[GoesTo11]

72. Dress is one part of the image

Taking pride in the profession could involve both dressing decently and running a class effectively. Taking care for your appearance shows respect for your students, so it's all part of the same package. I always appreciated that. But with your quick mind and cutting logic, perhaps you are too smart to show respect for your students. After all, they are just faceless members of the masses and not esteemed scholars with "academic credentials" (whatever that means - what does that mean? Only a degree you approve of, like a Ph.D., from a school you approve of, like, apparently, not Columbia?) like you.

[Viking12]

74. it's becoming clear. You washed out in grad school and resent higher ed.

You think you're really smart, you even got accepted to grad school because you had decent grades and kissed enough ass as an undergrad to get a few letters of recommendation. But you're not that smart, you got to graduate school and you couldn't cut it. Instead of recognizing your intellectual limitations you blame the 'system'. It's all too clear to me now, I don't know why I didn't recognize the syndrome earlier.

[GoesTo11]

75. Wrong and wrong.

I certainly had the ability to get through a grad school. If anything, I did not kiss enough ass. I have a pretty good sense of my intellectual limitations and try to structure my work goals to build on my strengths instead. And I think higher ed is an honorable calling that should be respected by those outside it and those within it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. Modern day colonialism? Queer power? Some nonsense?

You're just digging yourself further into the hole at this point.

[MadHound]

22. I think that you're overstating the case

As is Horowitz.

I've spent the majority of my adult live in academia, and have rarely ran into a dogmatic professor of the type that you or Horowitz describe. The few that I have known haven't taken over their department, and the division between liberal and conservative dogmatists seems about even.

Frankly I think that this entire controversy is one that is being stirred up by Horowitz in order to sell books and demonize his liberal college days. I think that students jump on board because they dislike a particular prof or two. The conservative movement jumps on this because they see it as a way to either take over or destroy what they think is the last great liberal bastion, higher education.

Meanwhile we see nothing about dogmatic RW fundy Christians in our elementary and secondary schools and the damage that they do. Trust me, there are more of them out there than those eeeevil professors. Furthermore, the choice of school, the choice of classes is up to the student, they aren't required to attend any particular school. Hell, if they want to they can attend a very conservative college if they so choose, such as Liberty, MSU, or others. This is not the case in lower education where a student is mandated to attend a particular school, no matter their political leanings.

[GoesTo11]

31. This is an intelligent reply that I can respond to

You said what you disagree with and why. You must be a better professor than some of the other posters here.

I have also spent decades in academia. I have run into quite a few dogmatic professors. I have seen departments taken over - some by dogmatic professors who build political activism empires, some by greedy bastards who set up empires where they get lots of money and minimal workload at the expense of those lower on the pyramid. It is surely worse at some schools than others, where higher administration tolerates it. From what I have seen, about 1/10th of departments are toxic, it takes 1-2 people to make a toxic department, but there can be 3-4 (usually long-time veterans with axes to grind). So maybe this adds up to around 2% of faculty are causes of bad departments and a few more percent are bad faculty in various ways who don't end up poisoning in their whole department.

It might be that right wing profs are just as likely as left wing profs to abuse the position, but it's just more noticeable to me because (according to numerous polls) there are more left-wing profs than right wing. I believe you that there is a lot of RW brainwashing before college.

I don't think it's a problem if students sign up for a college that is known for its views - Hampshire on the left, for example or Liberty on the right. (I assume when you say MSU, you don't mean Michigan State), or for a course that is supposed to be on controversial topics. I think it is a problem when courses deviate too much from their catalog descriptions.

Here's the thing, a typical tenured professor costs their institution something like 75k - 200k per year (salary, benefits, summer funding, travel, retirement/pension etc.) depending on the institution, department, and individual position. For that money, the institution gets what? If the institution gets two polemical courses taught to a dozen students each, along with a few op-eds and some paid public speaking, no institution could continue if that was how all its professors behaved. If the professor takes on a full work load mix of research, teaching and service, and if these are reasonably aligned with the institution's mission, then it is all quite sustainable and a highly trained faculty member delivers more than their money's worth for less than they could get paid in a different career. There are lazy professors, there are sadistic professors, there are greedy professors, and there are - I guess the best word is messianic professors. The messianic professors can be just as damaging as the others on that list. The average professor is none of these things, but where there are professors pulling these stunts, it affects the entire atmosphere around them and it's bad. When they go around and make themselves into a mockery of performance art, they get all the attention. They make other professors look ridiculous. They make states want to cut funding to public universities and colleges and they leave their students just as in debt as they would be otherwise, but less ready for adult lives.

[Brewman_Jax]

38. The RW takeover at the public school level

is very understated. That has 2 major purposes for the RW--student indoctrination and political experience for board members. Board members get known and that eases their advancement up the political ranks, and they get to control the school curriculum. You'll note how little traction this story gets in the MSM.

[tishaLA]

69. You understand that "political views" and "technical content" are somewhat inextricable, right?

We have a pervasive myth of the political blankness of the academy in the old days that is simply inaccurate. In literary studies, which is my domain, people who bemoan the feminist, queer theory, postcolonial, ecocriticism of today's academy tend to neglect that the "New Criticism" they valorize--the critical methodology of their youth, from the 30s through the late 60s--was just as ideological as today's. The New Critics' ideology is one of the reasons literature by women, African Americans, and others at the social/economic margins never made it into the canon: the New Critics privileged a formalist mode of critical interpretation, particular conceptions of appropriate aesthetic production, etc. Since the height of New Criticism, many literary scholars have noticed that the things New Critics tended to privilege ended up celebrating whiteness, masculinity, and Southern selfhood. That doesn't mean that contemporary literary scholars have tossed aside some New Critical methodologies--who can imagine learning poetry without learning scansion?--but that we have decided to use those methodologies to new ends, like exploring how literary form meets feminism, queer theories, and postcolonialism.

[GoesTo11]

73. Professors in any field can make either responsible or irresponsible use of their positions.

It depends on the course, the students' expectations, needs and readiness. If you are getting into areas of developed theory that build on what students know in order to get them from point A where they are starting to point B where they should get after the course, there are circumstances where everything you mentioned could be appropriate in a course. A student would learn to understand literature in different ways and to think in different ways. Where there is a lot of theory developed, and where that theory involves bridging to the real world in various way and actively seeking to understand context rather than treating it like a fish treats water, of course students gain valuable thinking skills from that. In addition to the general thinking skill, the material you describe would also be of specific value to a student of literature who wants to gain or generate insights from that literature. From your post, it sounds like you are pretty clear in how the scholarly ideas support pedagogical objectives, and as you teach, it's about the material and not about you.

On the other hand, consider a hypothetical case where a professor decides to take a course on basic literacy - readin' for comprehension & writin' to communicate, and then instead spends a lot of time on the same topics in order to raise the awareness of the farm boys. Students wouldn't learn what they need to from such a class at all. Or consider another hypothetical situation where an applied math professor is not a historian, but just has some strong political leanings (right, left, doesn't matter for this example) and has done a little bit of magazine and blog reading, and this professor then decides to spend large portions of class time making vague analogies between some mathematical concept and that personal 'theory' of history, it would be a waste of students' educational time (although it would be fine to meet with a bunch of students for coffee outside of class and shoot the shit). This professor would come off as a buffoon and students would just nod in agreement out of concern for their grades.

A good test of whether the professor is abusing the classroom is to look at it through a student's eyes. If a student by the end of the course would be thinking "what the hell is this? we're supposed to learn about x", either the professor is just absolutely brilliant - maybe you are as smart as Chomsky - or the professor is just a bad cliche - maybe you are not as smart as Chomsky.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. No, he doesn't.

It's absurdist McCarthyism that isn't worth a second thought.

[GoesTo11]

23. I am astounded at the closed-mindedness of all the responses here

Just because I make a point you might disagree with, I get called fascist, absurdist McCarthyist, hole digger, etc. etc. I have been entirely civil in my discourse here - not making blanket claims about all professors do this or that, distinguishing between what is right in the world and what is right to do in a classroom, describing in as much detail as one can in a paragraph of post why I think what I do. No one has answered a single point I have raised.

In the big picture, the point I am making involves tactics not ideology. The tactic is whether professors should use the classroom in a certain way. I am asserting that some small percentage do use it in a certain way and that this is counter-productive for several reasons. I am also asserting that this is more common on the left than on the right. If you wish to counter these points, you could argue that no one uses their position that way, or you could argue that some do but it's not counter-productive, you could argue that everyone does it in equal proportions regardless of ideology (which might be true). Instead, posters are countering my point by calling me names or dismissing everything I say without reason. If you all want to just agree with each other and split off as a group of take-no-prisoners leftists, be my guest. That will provide a counter-weight to the conservative movement.

Cheers.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. Oh boo hoo hoo hoo.

"No one has answered a single point I have raised"

You haven't raised a single point worth respondng too.

[GoesTo11]

33. Thank you for responding to my point.

[Viking12]

27. Typical. Make accusation. Get demand for evidence of accusation. Cry close-mindedness.

Again, naked assertions, unverifiable anecdotes then the Whaaaambulance arrives when it's pointed out.

[GoesTo11]

35. I remain astounded.

You really know what I am saying is right, don't you?

[Viking12]

39. You've been schooled in denial tactics well.

Now you've adopted the position that your absence of evidence is really evidence that you're correct.

[GoesTo11]

41. Who do you presume schooled me?

I assure you, my schooling was not in denial. It was in critical thinking, and I learned well.

Evidence - go to Horowitz' books if you want to easily find something in print, I suppose. He exaggerates all sorts of things, he draws all sorts of conclusions but he also does document some real instances and facts. You can evaluate sources and see that some of his facts are legitimate, though not all. To make the case that SOME professors pull stunts like this, all you need to do is show that SOME professors do it. The alternative is that NO professors do this - is that what you believe? Or that only conservative professors do it? Now who's had the schooling in denial?

You can google courses at universities. You can google syllabi and compare them to course descriptions. I have done this for others and found that syllabi so poorly reflect catalog descriptions that they are pointless classes for educational purposes. I have personally seen professors behaving very badly and this is part of the basis for my belief, but I never videotaped it for you.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

43. "Who do you presume schooled me?"

David Horowitz.

[GoesTo11]

54. Wrong!

Actually, I really like the way Barack Obama thinks (which I admit might make me too conservative for many at this site).

[Viking12]

45. How can you judge the educational experience from a syllabus?

You have no idea what goes on in the classroom, in the written work of students, or how the students work is evaluated from the syllabus of a course.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. I'd like to see one of these syllabi he finds so objectionable.

Or what's wrong with any given syllabus given it's a simply matter for a student to drop the course if he or she doesn't like it.

[GoesTo11]

51. I don't

The catalog description is at one level of abstraction. The syllabus should specify how the catalog description will be realized, and then what happens in the class is more specific still. But the syllabus should not be inconsistent with the catalog description and the classroom experience should not be inconsistent with the syllabus. So if one of Horowitz' bogeymen (or bogeywomen?) has a course with a title that says, say, "Application of modern philosophy to contemporary issues." And the course description says "We will use tools from modern philosophers from both Western and Eastern streams to evaluate topics such as personal choice, political action and international affairs" then a lot of things could be in the syllabus itself that wouldn't contradict it. For an extreme counter example, in a computer science course on the theory of computation, if the syllabus has a on Alan Turing's sexuality (father of much of modern computing, gay with a fascinating and tragic life), it would be a sign that this course isn't about the material it is supposed to be. When the professor acts as if "It's all about me!" students pick right up on that.

[Viking12]

53. But you told me I could easily Google syllabi and see blatant examples of indoctrination

Now you resort to hypothetical examples. I'll point it out a gain, you can't produce evidence for your assertions so you flail at windmills. Like Horowitz, you're a waste of my time.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

58. I'd like a link to this syllabus on Alan Turing's sexuality, please.

[GoesTo11]

59. Maybe that one wasn't so misleading

The actual title of the course was

"The Theory of Computing II: Never Gonna Stop - The Sexuality of Alan Turing".
Prerequisites: Machine learning, Processor design, Gender studies.

and to be fair, the syllabus is not inconsistent with what you might expect.

but I still can't figure out what it's doing in the curriculum.

(don't bother googling - this course doesn't really exist, I was just giving an illustrative example "If there was a course like this, it would be inconsistent"

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

60. You seem to have some obsession and hangup with homosexuality.

Why is that?

[GoesTo11]

61. Obsession and hangup are two different things

It goes back to a government job interview I had. They asked "have you ever had any homosexual activity" I said "I can't even get any heterosexual activity." So yeah, maybe I'm a little jealous.

[ConsAreLiars]

64. So, like your hero Horowitz and others of that same ideological bent,

who have no evidence to back your views, you just make up shit. At least you admit in this case.

[Boojatta]

29. There may be a bit of a misunderstanding here.

You wrote:

Just because I make a point you might disagree with, I get called (...) absurdist McCarthyist (...)

I see where the phrase "absurdist McCarthyist" was used before you referred to its use, but I don't see where you were called that.

You wrote:

He has a point

Someone replied to that by writing to you:

No, he doesn't.

It's absurdist McCarthyism that isn't worth a second thought.

Clearly the "he" in the above message refers to Horowitz and the "absurdist McCarthyism" is put forward as a characterization of the ideas expressed by Horowitz.

If I may add my own two cents: the cover shows a professor with the symbol of the Democratic Party as the head of the professor. McCarthy accused people of being members of the communist party and agents for the USSR. However did McCarthy identify the Democratic Party itself as his cold war enemy?

[GoesTo11]

34. Thanks for clarifying that.

I apparently was not called an absurd McCarthyist. I understand that Horowitz is trying to push an ideology by making an alarmist case, and that's not something I support. But just because he's doing that, it doesn't mean that professors are above criticism. There are plenty of things they do that deserve criticism and I don't think they should get a free pass if they happen to be misbehaving in the name of progressive causes.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

40. Sentence "He has a point" can never be uttered by a rational person about David Horowitz. Period. nt

[GoesTo11]

42. They say even a broken clock is right twice a day. nt

[LeftishBrit]

48. While you make a valid point about the excessive power that some professors get...

most of it has very little to do with left versus right. It has to do with self-aggrandizement and workplace bullying. You get it in every workplace, where people have or seek personal power. At least in the UK, the increased competition for funding and the pressures to run universities like businesses have exaggerated the problem. You can get the cut-throat competition associated with the business world, but because we're seen as gentle truth-loving modern monks in an ivory tower (anything but, in some cases!), often people don't look out for it!

People get bullied because they are potential rivals; because they are in a category that arouses prejudice (I had the joy of dealing with a professor who had a 'thing' about people with any sort of illness or disability, however mild or temporary); because the bully genuinely thinks that bullying will improve performance; because the bully wants to increase his/her power; because the bully feels vindictive to those who contradict them in any way; or just because they can feel they get away with it.

This is not to say that all or most academics are workplace bullies, but the problem exists and is sometimes overlooked and has little to do with politics in the left/right sense. I have known a right-wing academic, who never pushed his views on the students, but was prepared to get people sacked for trivial reasons if it suited his personal (not political) agenda. I have known a left-wing academic, who never pushed his views on the students, but certainly pushed other things on them, and was well known as his college's biggest sex-pest. As regards the nightmare-scenario professor in the last paragraph, I don't know anything about their political views.

A friend was told by a colleague, "I am going to the University of X tomorrow to fail Professor Y's student."

"Why?"

"Because Professor Y once failed one of my students!"

That is far more likely to be the reason than anything Political with a capital P.

As for Horowitz, he sounds as though he wants a witch-hunt against left-wing academics. I know (well, in one case that means 'am fairly closely related to') people who left America during the McCarthy era because of the university witch-hunts (indeed this is one reasons why as a Brit I am interested in American politics). So I feel pretty strongly about such things.

[GoesTo11]

52. And you make a valid point about Horowitz

He is going on a witch hunt. By making a big deal over irresponsible left-wing professors, he aims to intimidate responsible ones.

As you describe, academic institutions -- especially because of the existence of tenure -- allow for a lot of irresponsibility. The reason there's so much autonomy is that there is also trust that professors will make good use of it. When they don't - for whatever reason (all the bullying, of course, but also the politics that get on the radar screen with Horowitz and here), it shouldn't be swept under the rug. Professors should be protecting the legitimacy of their vocation for their own purposes, nothing to do with whether Horowitz likes them or not.

[Jack Sprat]

65. Horowitz is against any and everybody

that doesn't see the security of Israel as America's sole reason for existence. He would have us bombing Iran and Syria next week if it were up to him. I think he capitalizes off the Holy Land/Armageddon/Revalations routine with the Christian Right. Not that he believes in any of that stuff, but it's a surety that it all makes a huge hit with the defense industry and the oil companies. Israel keeps their Palestinean population behind a wall, attacks and kills them at any provocation, has a healthy arsenal of nuclear warheads. Yet, Horowitz and his flock portray them as defenseless innocents.

[Zynx]

55. I go to Madison, which is as left-wing as you get, and I only rarely run into it.

Some of my history courses have ventured into ideological pablum, but they usually make it clear when they are venturing into their personal beliefs. In my economics courses, only a few of my professors (out of about 12) made it clear where they are coming from politically and one was extremely right-wing.

[spanone]

16. his book title fails to note how our constitution was completely trashed over the last 8 yrs

bu$h* / cheney were serious 'radicals'

[Boojatta]

21. What is known about Horowitz?

I looked for some general info about Horowitz and I found this article:

The Demons of David Horowitz

The first sentence of the fourth paragraph is exactly the following text (and the hypertext here links to the same webpage as the hypertext in the original):

But for someone with no academic credentials who failed to earn a doctorate, academics make for an ironic target.

That seems to use a clever technique: proof by making you do the work of trying to confirm the claim that is being made. I skimmed through and found this:

Horowitz was a college freshman at Columbia University when these events took place. A young man who did not have to make political choices, he devoted himself to literary studies without drawing any hard conclusions from the Khrushchev-inspired political debate. In 1959 he graduated from Columbia (...)

So now I'm wondering how someone could have graduated from Columbia and yet be without any academic credentials.

[Viking12]

25. You clearly don't understand the concept of 'academic credentials'

...peer-reviewed and all that.

That would also explain the gibberish in your flurry of posts over the last 2 days.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. Last 2 days? LOL

Look at all his crap littering up the dungeons.

[Viking12]

46. as in troofer's dungeon?

That would explain a lot.

[bullwinkle428]

24. I'll make a mental note in case I run out of Charmin.

[Neo Atheist]

28. Nobody buys his books

He has zero influence beyond the brain damaged people who visit Front Page Magazine, and those people are so irretrievably stupid there's no point in trying to bring them around to rationality.

So my larger point is, who cares if this dude has another book coming out?

[Viking12]

30. Sadly, there are many anti-intellectual RWnut polticians that eat this slop up

and are staging an all out war on education in this country -- from huge budget cuts, to the adoption of so-called "Academic Freedom" bills, to the push for intelligent design in classrooms. Unfortunately, thee are actual implications to his nonsense and he needs to be revealed as the charlatan he is.

[Neo Atheist]

32. the Discovery Institute's agenda and David Horrowitz's agenda

aren't similar. The Discovery Institute seems hell bent on fucking up science education in public schools at the high school level and below. David Horrowitz is trying to get liberal professors fired from colleges. One is purely religious (or "unbelievably fucking dumb" as I like to see it) at its core, and one is purely neo-Stalinist at its core.

[Viking12]

37. Their agendas are undeniably related.

Was the DiscoInstitute's promotion of Ben Stein's Expelled directed at high schools? No! While their efforts are primarily focused on high schools, universities are not immune from their attacks and they use exactly the same tactics as DHo.

ed: spelling

[Neo Atheist]

49. Well in a basis sense, yes.

Both have a desire to completely fuck up education, but one comes from an admittedly religious fundamentalist perspective, and one comes from some sick desire to silence anyone who thinks differently than him.

[Viking12]

50. Granted, the motivations aren't necessarily identical...

...but the tactics are and they've formed a strategic alliance.

[auburngrad82]

67. Yeah, but it will be a while before they hear about the book.

They have enough food and ammunition that they won't have to leave their mother's basement for at least another month or two.

[Hawaii Hiker]

70. I highly recommend doing what I do when a David Horowitz or Bernard Goldberg

book comes out, completely ignore it...

If Keith makes fun of it on "Countdown" fine, otherwise, never waste one second of time nor one cent of money on any right wing shit...

[KamaAina]

36. Excellent!

I've been looking for a new doorstop. :P

[NewsDrunk]

56. And how can I get a docterate without docterine?

So if they can't sell us on radical judges, then it's radical professors? As though conservative knee-jerks can't be radicals?

It won't be long before every profession in which we rely upon members to express the voice of their own experience and learning will be crushed by epithets, closed-mindedness and fear-mongering.

Reminds me of the #1 underminer of democracy: Rush Limbaugh. Mr. "I hope he fails" himself. http://tv1.com/playlists/369

[Orsino]

76. In crayon.

Horowitz bravely tackles the greatest threat facing America today: liberal teachers. :eyes: