October 3, 2009

• promoted beyond their abilities

  I happen to have been minding my own business on twitter when I noticed the other day in my inbox this little spat between regular “token liberal” commentator on Fox News programs Marc Lamont Hill and unapologetic neocon David Horowitz.

  Now let me first say I don’t know much of anything about Marc Lamont Hill. I don’t know him, never met him, never even saw him on TV. I don’t watch Fox News. I had my fill of right wing propaganda when after college I listed to right wing radio for two and a half years out of sheer morbid curiosity. The only reason I happen to be following Marc Lamont Hill is that I found him at random on a follow friday link and I noted he was posting interesting stuff. Which is what I love about twitter. You can find lots of interesting people who post many amazing links.

  So anyway the argument happened when Marc Lamont Hill was asked to appear on the O’Reilly Factor to comment on the situation developing in Iran.  This apparently pissed David Horowitz off since he wrote a scathing commentary on it titled: 

  The O’Reilly Factor’s Insult to Its Viewers Generally and to African Americans in Particular
  
  Now lest we liberals get excited about someone on the right bashing the much deserving of bashing O’Reilly Factor which regularly does in fact insult its viewers and African Americans in particular in loads of different ways most notably by lying to them, Horowitz begins his rant by apologizing for his critique saying

  “I am a big fan of The O’Reilly Factor. I think O’Reilly has done heroic work in taking on the media left, in speaking up for the little guy, in pursuing sex offenders and corrupt judges and being a stand up guy on a whole host of issues. I watch him regularly and regard him as a pioneer in honest television.”

  ::cough::

  Ohhh kaaayyy…

  Moving on though he went on to say the following with regards to Marc Lamont Hill’s appearance:

  “I find his continued promotion of Professor Marc Lamont Hill an embarrassment to his own standards and an insult to the intelligence of African Americans particularly and his entire audience generally.”

  “By his own account, Hill is an expert on “hip-hop culture,” i.e., rap music. His academic degree is in education. What are his views on foreign policy worth, unless putting him on was designed to show up the shallow views of the left? Hill is in fact a knee jerk leftist, a defender of ACORN and a man whose attitudes toward race are a throwback to the sixties. I wonder if O’Reilly understands that putting on such a lightweight feeds the racism of low expectations.”

  “If O’Reilly wants to bring Hill on to defend Ludacris or some other morally-challenged rapper then fine. If he is the best defender that ACORN can get, then fine too. But spectacles like tonight’s segment are like circus sideshows that reflect poorly on the judgment of the Factor’s producers and are unworthy of the Factor itself.”

  Now Marc Lamont Hill wisely did not respond, though he fumed in his twitter saying:

  “David Horowitz said I should only be on TV to discuss rap music and ACORN. He says I embarrass Black ppl and Fox News. I was going to write a long response to him, but my friends have told me to ignore, rather than Ether, him. I’m going to follow that advice.”
  
  “David Horowitz has made his career calling people communists and/or anti-semites. He sees no irony in challenging credentials, while exercising the freedom to talk about whatever he wants with NO training at all. How does his Masters in literature allow him to write books on Islamic radicalism? Furthermore, why hasn’t he challenged Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh’s ability to analyze politics and lead the GOP w/ HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMAS?”
  

  
  I honestly don’t think Marc Lamont Hill thought anything would come of these comments blithely posted on his twitter but little did he know, David Horowitz was reading! He even chose to RESPOND to these tweets in an even MORE insulting manner (if that’s possible).
  
  Fox’s Affirmative Action Baby Whines

  In this piece he screeches amongst other things:

  “ pointed out that Hill’s expertise, such as it is, is hip-hop culture — the very low end, in other words, of popular music which is better known as rap. Why was Hill on at all? Because he’s Fox’s black academic. But what kind of academic? With an expertise in rap music, Hill has a professorship at Columbia University, illustrating  my often made observation that our liberal arts colleges have fallen to their lowest intellectual level in 100 years.”
  
  “Hill is one of a community of black intellectuals promoted well beyond their abilities — Michael Eric Dyson and Cornel West are two obvious others “

  Horowitz also rambles about in his reply about an utterly off topic discussion of Marc Lamont Hill’s twitter wallpaper and goes on manages to call Hill “illiterate” and suggest that Hill is a greedy, a defender of murderers and communists, and that he’s deliberately “poisoning the minds of black youth”.

  It’s a wonder that Hill didn’t erupt in rage. I know I would have. How utterly insulting can you be to a fellow professional in your field? This kind of dishonestly and viciousness is sick. Yet Mr. Hill kept his relative cool again not raising to Mr. Horowitz’s bait and giving an entirely coherent response in twitter:

  “Apparently David Horowitz is reading my tweets and posting new blogs about them. Now I feel compelled to respond.
  
  He seems to think that I’m questioning his expertise on the books he writes because of his training in literature. Not at all. My point is that his expertise on the topics about which he write cannot is not reducible to his academic degree.
  
  Yet somehow, he assumes that my expertise on hip-hop disqualifies me from discussing politics. “How can [he be] an expert on rap music discuss middle eastern policy?” he asks. He hasn’t considered that I may have expertise in more than 1 thing.
  
  I could easily say “How can someone with Master’s level expertise in literature discuss the American academic Left?”, yet I haven’t. Instead I’ve given him the benefit of the doubt. I don’t question his intellectual acumen or preparedness, even though i think he’s wrong.
  
  My Ph.D. isn’t in hip-hop. I’m trained as an anthropologist. I have worked on two presidential campaigns. I have lived in the middle east. I speak arabic fluently and have spent time working with the anti war-movement in the geographic and political middle east. The whole point of the segment wasn’t that I have expertise on Iran (which is slightly outside of the aforementioned range of expertise), but that O’Reilly wanted to get a sense of how far Ahmadinejad would have to go for the anti-war Left to support military intervention.
  
  Unfortunately, Mr. Horowitz is too blinded by his own logical fallacies and personal biases to see the obvious. Again, he gets “half a bar”.”
  

  
  (I put tweets together and added paragraph breaks where I thought appropriate.)
  
  Later Hill also added:
  
  

  “Horowitz says that I, along with Cornel West and Michael Eric Dyson, are examples of black people who are positioned beyond our capacity. Who has anointed him the arbiter of such things? Even if I spoke Farsi, lived in Iran for 10 years, and had visited the nuclear site personally, Horowitz would likely say that I was unfit.”
  

  
  Now isn’t this a fascinating discussion?

  Also quite surprising is one of Hill’s twitter followers took issue with Hill’s “Playing the RACE card” in these tweets. Oh the irony. Marc Lamont Hill in no way from what I can read even brought up race. He did not suggest racism on the part of Horowitz at all. He’s too polite. Too much of a gentlemen.  And yet he still gets accused of “playing the race card” when it was entirely Horowitz who brought up race numerous times in his two posts.

  And yet… in this case… an argument definitely could be made that Marc Lamont Hill had he decided to go there could have been fully justified in calling out what certainly appears to be racial prejudice in Mr. Horowitz’s comments.  No doubt that’s exactly what Mr. Horowitz WANTS him to do so he can go on to rant about how black people always “play the race card” and accuse white people of prejudice to excuse their own failing and all that bullshit.

  But let’s just look at what he actually said. Horowitz said “Hill’s expertise, such as it is, is hip-hop culture — the very low end, in other words, of popular music which is better known as rap.” 

  Come on. So in Horowitz’s mind a kind of music, namely rap, performed by many black performers is a “low end” music. Not just “low end” but apparently down at the bottom. So Hill would have garner more respect in Horowitz’s mind if he’d been an expert in Rock, Country or Pop?!?!?  Or are only Classical music experts worthy of any kind of respect?

  He doesn’t even take the time to understand that rap and hip hop are decidedly not the same thing.Properly speaking Hip Hop is a social movement of which Rap is but one element, and not even is rap the only musical element.  But let’s put that aside for the moment.
  
  But what makes it “low end”? Why is it unacceptable to Horowitz? Is black music somehow any LESS music?

  It should be noted this musical bias has been a part of race relations in the United states for generation. Black Gospel music, Jazz, and the Blues definitely had their time outside of the limelight because of perceived racial influences.
  
  Still, perhaps we can just chalk that up to crotchety old foggy-ism. It doesn’t HAVE to be racism. My grand parents wouldn’t have considered rap “real music” either.

  But what of the critique of Marc Lamont Hill’s academic credentials? Horowitz argues that Marc Lamont Hill, Cornell West, and Michael Eric Dyson are all part “of a community of black intellectuals promoted well beyond their abilities”.

  Let’s look at that. We already saw Hill’s defense. Mr. Hill holds a PhD with distinction from the University of Pennsylvania and teaches at Columbia University and Temple. Those are no small names. And he spoke in depth about his experience.

  Okay so how about Michael Eric Dyson? HE must be someone of low ability surely.  Well let’s see. Who is Michael Eric Dyson?

  Well he started off growing up in Detroit, poor. He became a teenage father and then decided to turn his life around for the sake of his son.

  He succeeded.  He graduated college at Carson-Newman College with high honors and going on to receive a Ph.D. in religion from Princeton University and becoming an ordained Baptist minister.

  He’s taught at numerous universities and colleges such as DePaul University, Chicago Theological Seminary, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Columbia University and Brown University. He was also Avalon Professor of Humanities at the University of Pennsylvania. Currently he’s a University Professor of Sociology at Georgetown University.

  Dyson is considered a renowned scholar and author of 18 books. He’s also an accomplished award winning journalist and he’s considered an accomplished historian whose historical books on Malcom X, Martin Luther King, and Tupac Shakur are highly respected. He’s been praised for achieving national recognition and being asked to head a university department at a fairly young age of his mid 30′s a feat that is unusual for professors.

  Dyson has written for the Rolling Stone, Christian Century, and the Nation. He’s provided regular commentary on NPR, CNN, and Real Time with Bill Maher. He;s also been the host of his own radio show: The Michael Eric Dyson Show  which just currently started up again.

  So that’s Michael Eric Dyson.

  OK, so how about Cornell West? HE must clearly be a person operating beneath his ability level?

  Cornell West went to Harvard at age 17, graduated in 3 years magna cum laude in Near Eastern Languages and Civilization in 1973.  He then went on to earn a Ph.D. from Princeton. He now holds 20 honorary degrees and has taught at Haverford College, Yale, University of Paris, Princeton, and Harvard and was Director of African American Studies at the latter two. He was a Du Bois Fellow and the first Alphone Fletcher University Professor at Harvard. He has lectured at over a hundred universities and colleges across the United States and has even taught philosophy to inmates at federal prisons.

  West is the author of numerous books on race and has done substantive works in philosophy. He’s a contemporary of and was influenced by such well known scholars and philosophers as Robert Nozick, Stanley, Cavell, Richard Rorty, and Toni Morrison.  In addition to religion, sociology and philosophy West has also accomplishments in literature, opera, cinema, and architecture.

  West marched in the civil rights movement and has participated in numerous protests, charities, and community organization efforts. He has advised two Presidential campaigns and has spoken on behalf of and advocated several other candidates. He’s one of the most popularly cited scholars in the popular press. He regularly offers commentary on shows such as DemocracyNow and The Tavis Smiley show.

  Okay so that’s Cornell West.

  Now what the heck was David Horowitz saying? 

  Oh yeah. He said these three individuals: Marc Lamont Hill, Michael Eric Dyson, and Cornel West are all examples of black scholars who have been “promoted well beyond their abilities”. Really now? So three Ph.D. wielding published scholars and authors who attended and teach at very high profile Ivy League schools suddenly are considered “beyond their abilities” when they are asked to speak and contribute to the national discussion? 

  And yet in contrast just looking online it appears that none of Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs, Ann Coulter, Alan Colmes,  Karl Rove, or David Horowitz himself have Ph.D.’s in anything. Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity haven’t graduated college. I’m not sure if Karl Rove has either. Yet it’s never the case that any of them are accused of being beneath their ability when they comment on all manner of subjects. It’s not just them. Just turn on the television. You’ll see numerous people from all walks of life commenting on all manner of stuff. Actors, musicians, beauty pageant winners, comedians, professional sports players. Yet Horowitz doesn’t call them out. Presumably he believes in their right to free speech. No, he only has a problem with these three well established scholars.

  Even the comparison with Karl Rove is decidedly odd. At the White House, Rove’s  responsibilities were related to public relations and political strategy, not foreign policy. How many cases do you recall where Rove was ambassador to a foreign nation or had to deal directly with the likes of Iran? Just as Horowitz’s degrees are in English and English Literature. By Horowtiz’s own standards neither he nor Rove ought to have the privilege to even speak on matters like Iran. Indeed by such a strict standard of expertise, Hilary Clinton should not be Secretary of State, and neither do George W. Bush, Barack Obama, or Sarah Palin deserve to have ever been anywhere NEAR the white house. They simply lack the necessary qualifications.

  Of course Horowtiz’s standards are absurd. He’s basically taking one line in one biography passage of Marc Lamont Hill and using that to infer that Hill is not intelligent enough to speak on any subject but rap music. A ridiculous assertion. Or maybe what he’s saying is that if you like rap music that alone makes you too stupid to have a right to express your opinion?

  Now… I think it’s very dangerous not to mention unfair to call someone a racist on the basis of one or even two or even three small examples of seemingly racists acts or decisions. To prove someone is a racist you need a weight of overwhelming evidence or very egregious examples.

  Still, it’s not hard, I think, to at least suspect given this odd parallelism that Horowitz might have certain negative assumptions about race fueling his critiques. Given that coupled with the music statement I don’t think it would be inappropriate to at least open up that discussion. A discussion that would have inevitably lead to the fact that Horowitz has been decried as a racist in the past by several other groups and persons. (Southern Poverty Law Center,  Time Wise) Yet what’s very clear here is that Marc Lamont Hill doesn’t do that. He doesn’t come anywhere close to accusing Horowtiz of racism.

  Hill is wiser than me I think. Because as I sit down and think about it, Horowitz actually isn’t being racist. He’s just racism baiting. His comment with regards to music was deliberately designed to inflame the anger and provoke a response of Hill. Indeed the entire commentary in both posts existed for that purpose. Horowitz’s aim is to attack. He suggests that Hill isn’t qualified, isn’t intelligent, isn’t literate, and even insults his taste in music, and in passing randomly attacks two people whom he suspects Hill probably has a substantial degree of respect for.

  Why would he do this? A little thought and it becomes obvious what his objectives are. It’s to discredit Hill. And in so doing to mobilize his followers into the beginning of a witch hunt against Hill. His greatest hope probably would be that Hill WOULD in some way or form suggest that he was a racist, because then Horowitz could go “See! Look at all the black people and liberals always crying racist every chance they get!” Exactly what he knows most of his readers already believe.

  But even without this, Horowitz is willing to go diving into Hill’s past and find any association however small and insignificant to paint him in a negative light and discredit his views. None of it has anything to do with the appearance on the O’Reilly factor or Hill’s comments on Iran. But Horowitz posts post after post showing how “terrible” Hill is. Any word out of place, any decision that can be painted in even a slightly negative light. It’s precisely the same offensive strategy used against Van Jones, and currently being used against Kevin Jennings.

  In fact it’s precisely the same strategy used in the campaign against Sonia Sotomayor for US Supreme Court Justice.  Recall that even before people started rambling on about the trivial “wise latina woman” comment the very early critiques of Sotomayor were of her intelligence. In spite of her graduating summa cum laude from Princeton and having been a respected Judge and lecturer for years, accusations were made through so called “anonymous” comments and clear falsehoods that she’s “not that smart” and “her questions aren’t penetrating and don’t get to the heart of the issue”. She was then called an “intellectual lightweight” and “someone who clearly was picked because she’s a woman and Hispanic, not because she was the best qualified”. Karl Rove said of her that “I’m not really certain how intellectually strong she would be” and the National Review said she was “dumb and obnoxious”.

  This fed right into the anti-affirmative action dialectic that made the “wise latina woman” comment so heavily critiqued and the white fire fighter case so deplored on the right. The idea then, I guess, is that Sotomayor too was elevated “beyond her ability”.  As if Princeton would just give her top honors for free or that all her appointments and confirmations were somehow not earned because she happened to be Hispanic.

  In fact it’s the same strategy leveled against and continued to be leveled against President Barack Obama. The Ayers association, the Jeremiah Wright association, the ACORN association. Nevermind that NONE of these things have a damn thing to do with being President. They can’t attack Obama directly on his intelligence without looking stupid, especially when contrasted directly against George W. Bush.   But they can attack his “judgment” by pointing out these so called “questionable” associations. Which of course is just an indirect way of saying he’s not intelligent enough to choose “acceptable” associations. And so he doesn’t deserve Presidential status. (probably wasn’t even born here) He’s another “affirmative action” President. Promoted beyond his abilities all the way up to President! What a disgrace!

  Do you see how this goes? These critiques are not on policy. They are not substance. They’re childish offensive gotcha politics.

  But anyway let’s get back to the question at hand. Is David Horowitz racist? Should he be called that?

  Well, while I think there is substantive evidence to be worth considering whether he is a racist, it’s rather an irrelevant question. I think there’s a much better explanation for his behavior, a more significant element of his character.
  
  David Horowitz is an ass.

  And I don’t say that lightly. Though his behavior here described above in questioning the intellectual acumen of a colleague and challenging his right to speak of three respected intellectuals is certainly despicable, it’s insufficient to show he’s an ass.

  No the problem is Horowtiz’s belief system. The truth is he’s NOT attacking Hill, West, and Dyson because they are black, or at least not because they’re black and he has an inherent hatred of black people (at least not that we can tell). He’s attacking them because they happen to express beliefs he doesn’t agree with. He’s attacking them because they’re liberals and express liberal ideas. And in Horowitz’s mind all of their ideas reflect the “shallow views of the left”. He wants to push such ideas outside of the mainstream, discredit them, so that people only get access to ideas that meet his standards. Namely, primarily neo-conservative ideas.

  Notice how he doesn’t quote a single one of Hill’s statements or show anything about them that is objectionable. Why? Because he has no interest in debating Marc Lamont Hill not on Iran or any other issue. He just wants to attack Hill. To insult him. To suggest he’s an un-American shallow leftist. And hopefully provoke a response that will give him more opportunities to attack Hill more.

  Note the inherent problem here. In Horowtiz’s eyes, even holding left leaning views disqualifies you from the debate. So he doesn’t have to prove his position. All he has to do is prove you’re on the left.. Therefore you must be wrong.

  But then how can you even have a debate?!??

  You see, Horowitz doesn’t have any standards of honesty or decency. He attacks simply for the sake of attacking. In fact he’s pretty outspoken about that. He authored a memo entitled “The Art Of Political War: How Republicans Can Fight To Win”  the premise of which was to ALWAYS be the aggressor. Attack your enemies at every opportunity. http://www.bananarepublicans.org/excerpt.html

  “During the 2000 presidential and congressional elections, every Republican member of the U.S. Congress received a free pamphlet, compliments of Congressman Tom DeLay, the party’s majority whip. Written by conservative activist David Horowitz, the pamphlet was called The Art of Political War: How Republicans Can Fight to Win. It came with an endorsement on the cover by Karl Rove, the senior advisor to then-candidate George W. Bush. According to Rove, The Art of Political War was “a perfect pocket guide to winning on the political battlefield from an experienced warrior.” In addition to DeLay’s gift to members of Congress, the Heritage Foundation, one of the leading conservative think tanks in Washington, found Horowitz’s advice so impressive that it sent another 2,300 copies to conservative activists around the country.

  True to its title, The Art of Political War argues that “Politics is war conducted by other means. In political warfare you do not fight just to prevail in an argument, but to destroy the enemy’s fighting ability. … In political wars, the aggressor usually prevails.” Moreover, “Politics is a war of position. In war there are two sides: friends and enemies. Your task is to define yourself as the friend of as large a constituency as possible compatible with your principles, while defining your opponent as the enemy whenever you can.
  …
  This concept of politics as warfare is intimately connected to Horowitz’s personal political roots. In the 1960s, he was a militant Marxist and editor of Ramparts, one of the most radical leftist magazines in the United States.
  …
  Of course, Horowitz is not the only disillusioned leftist from the sixties. What makes him significant is that his militancy has remained constant, even as his worldview has changed. In a strange way, he remains a Leninist, right down to his appearance (balding, with a Lenin-like goatee). He even continues to offer Lenin’s words as advice. “You cannot cripple an opponent by outwitting him in a political debate,” he explains in The Art of Political War. “You can do it only by following Lenin’s injunction: ‘In political conflicts, the goal is not to refute your opponent’s argument, but to wipe him from the face of the earth.’” “

  This is not the only evidence. Consider this fight Horowitz had with respected conservative David Frum. Here, here, and here. David Frum objected to Glenn Beck’s false criticism and vilification of the Obama administration’s very conservative nominee Cass Sunstein. Further he generally questioned whether Glenn Beck is really beneficial to the conservative movement altogether.

  But David Horowitz defended Beck. He argued:

  ” My real quarrel with Frum is that he denigrates Beck (”mob rule” indeed) and expresses the hope that Beck will soon be gone.  This is more than over the top on Frum’s part. It is a betrayal of the conservative cause (much as his unseemly attack on Limbaugh was, too). Without voices like Beck’s and Limbaugh’s — and Ann Coulter’s for that matter — the conservative cause and the cause of this country would be hugely damaged. On the other hand, if Frum’s website were to fold, nobody would notice.

  Our country is under assault by a determined, deceitful and powerful left which will stop at nothing to realize its goals. Facing them, I would rather have Glenn Beck out there fighting for our side than 10,000 David Frums who think that appeasing lefitists will make them think well of us. No it won’t. It will only whet their appetite for our heads.” (emphasis added)

  David Frum’s response could not have better pointed out the ridiculous hypocrisy of using Glenn Beck as the figurehead leading the conservative movement or David Horowitz’s defense of him. He wrote:

  “Second, this right-wing Leninism exacts a terrible moral price. Notice that David Horowitz calls the left “deceitful” in his blogpost. Presumably that’s a bad thing. Likewise, when Rep. Joe Wilson shouted “You lie” at President Obama, he did not intend that as a compliment. So truth is important to conservatives, or at least we talk as if it were. Yet now David Horowitz tells me that it’s 10,000 times more important to “fight for our side.”

  Third – how do we define “our side”? Horowitz harshly condemns Obama appointee Van Jones. Van Jones was eventually forced to resign not because of any of the allegations Glenn Beck hurled at him, but because the Gateway Pundit blog unearthed evidence that Van Jones had consorted with 9/11 denialists. So that’s the other side, right? Except… the American politician who most closely associates with 9/11 denialists is Congressman and former presidential candidate Ron Paul. And who acts as Paul’s chief TV enthusiast and publicist? Glenn Beck of course.

  David Horowitz has strong feelings about 9/11 and the post-9/11 world. He helped to lead the campaign against Ward Churchill, the disgraced University of Colorado professor who argued that the United States had brought 9/11 on itself. Question for David: If Ward Churchill is “the other side,” on which “side” do we find Ron Paul? And isn’t that the same “side” where we find Glenn Beck?

  Why would David Horowitz want to place himself there?”

  Frum might also have mentioned that the other major critique leveled by Glenn Beck against Van Jones was that he was once an avowed communist. Oh how horrible! Yet Horowitz has no problem with Beck’s attack against Van Jones even though David Horowitz himself was once an avowed communist.

  Do you see though how Horowitz’s mind works? It’s enemies and friends. IT’S WAR! Truth be damned. This is just about WINNING. Anything that makes his enemies look bad is fair game. Context, irrelevant. Facts, irrelevant. Basic human decency, irrelevant. Horowitz will defend his friends like Glenn Beck against even the mildest critique, but will attack people he perceives as his enemies, the evil left, regardless of whether there is a basis for said attack. 

  There’s much more evidence too. In Horowitz’s book “The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America”  he basically goes on a campaign to discredit all Universities and colleges as evil bastions of liberal indoctrination. Basically he argues against anyone who happens to teach about social justice calling such actions “un-American” and unprofessional. Further, most of his claims reflect outside of classroom activity that he personally finds objectionable a thing that should be utterly irrelevant to their right to teach the subjects they study. The Professors critiqued obviously responded indignantly.  For example here.

  “Feagin said that Horowitz or anyone else is entitled to disagree with his findings. But Feagin said that his conclusions are based on a 43-year research career in which he has published nearly 50 books and 180 research articles. Before Horowitz and his allies attack him, Feagin said, he’d like to know: “What are their research credentials? Have they done 40 years of solid research on racial and gender issues?”

  An undercurrent of the book — that Feagin and other scholars are somehow un-American for their views — is particularly grating, Feagin said. “I was taught by my folks, and still believe in, the old American values of liberty, justice and equality. Are these now ‘dangerous’ values?””

  A coalition of civil liberties groups and academics lead by Free Exchange on Campus put together a 50 page report detailing numerous errors, unchecked and unverifiable claims, statements taken out of context, and logical fallacies in the book. Amongst their findings included:

  • Horowitz does not cite a single example of a student having his or her grade changed because of political views — despite his repeated statements that the “Academic Bill of Rights” is needed to prevent such grade punishment. (That bill would bar such grade changes and would also require that a range of views be taught — a measure many professors say would require them to teach intelligent design or Holocaust denial, or risk getting sued.)
  • In 52 of the descriptions of professors Horowitz critiques, he does not cite a single classroom event or statement — despite his statement that his concern about professors is over what they do and say in the classroom.
  • Of all of the evidence offered in the book, 80 percent concerns non-classroom activities.
  • Professors who teach women’s studies or other alternative viewpoints are consistently criticized, regardless of the quality of their work or scholarship.
  • While Horowitz’s book promises a list of the 101 most dangerous academics, he actually includes only 100.
  • Quotes and facts from Horowitz about individual professors are incorrect and many quotes are “wildly out of context.

  (source)

  Horowitz’s complaints about professors are akin to his critique of Marc Lamont Hill. He doesn’t critique their facts or their research. He simply argues that they are on the wrong side of the ideological fence and therefore should say nothing. But what he doesn’t understand is that there’s nothing inherently wrong about bringing your own opinions into a classroom as a Professor. Students have their own opinions and can make up their own minds. Also they have the right to choose which classes to take. It would only be wrong, if those opinions caused a Professor to be unfair to their students or are trying to force their students to hold their same view. Proving that however would be much more difficult so Horowitz doesn’t bother to try. Instead he just shows that some Professors seem to have certain opinions that lean in certain ways that he knows his audience won’t like and then suggests that you might want to worry about what your kids “might” be being taught in the classroom. It’s a particularly clever form of fear mongering since it speaks to fears parents always have of their kids growing up and developing “scary” new ideas away from home.

  But this is not unusual for David Horowitz. This is a man who participated in the smear campaign to suggest that George Soros was a Nazi collaborator a claim for which there has never been a shred of evidence. He’s a person who calls Jimmy Carter an anti-semite but defends Mel Gibson. He called the aforementioned Cornel West “a black airhead”. Noam Chomsky’s works he calls “demonic and seditious”. Just hours after Peter Jennings death he said that Jennings had done “considerable damage to the cause of civilization and human deceny”.

  As far as actual knowledge or expertise on anything, Horowitz has none. He makes his living attacking figures on the left on spurious charges and whining about the dangers of liberalism. Yet he feels he has a right to proclaim of others that they have been “promoted beyond their ability”.  His only contributions consist of insulting attacks and encouraging others to be as vile an offensive as he is.

  He’s a dishonest liar and he’s morally bankrupt. In a sane world, he’d be the one whose opinion was not solicited except in the most narrow of circumstances.
  

  • 10:00 pm
  • 4 Comments