Horowitz: "Cornel West is a black airhead"
David Horowitz referred to Princeton University professor Cornel West as a "black airhead," adding that he "is blessed with these unearned and undeserved perks solely because he's black." Horowitz further described West's work as "useless" and claimed that he "hasn't written as scholarly paper or book in twenty years (if ever)."
In a May 28 FrontPageMag.com weblog post, right-wing activist and author David Horowitz referred to Princeton University professor Cornel West as a "black airhead," adding that he "is blessed with these unearned and undeserved perks solely because he's black." Horowitz further described West's work as "useless" and claimed that he "hasn't written as scholarly paper or book in twenty years (if ever)." Horowitz's remarks appeared in defense of recent attacks on his book, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America (Regnery, January 2006), in which he criticized numerous professors for their political views and participation in political events outside the classroom.
Horowitz used the term as part of his purported paraphrase of a May 26 AlterNet weblog post by Evan Derkacz, which criticized Horowitz for his attacks on West. In fact, Derkacz defended West as "an American Book Award winner and distinguished intellectual."
West, a professor of religion who has published extensively, is no stranger to criticism and controversy.
Media Matters for America has repeatedly pointed out false and misleading claims that Horowitz has made about his own book, most recently his comparison between the recent allegations of plagiarism and related academic misconduct by Ward Churchill, professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado-Boulder, and the reported activities of other professors Horowitz profiled in his book.
From Horowitz's May 28 FrontPageMag.com blog post:
One of the professors profiled in my recent book of that title is Cornel West, a man [who] confuses attitudinizing with thought, whose intellectual output the liberal New Republic assessed and found "worthless," who is one of the academic world's most honored and distinguished figures and yet hasn't written a scholarly paper or book in twenty years (if ever).
The leftwing journal Alternet is outraged by these facts. Here is its entire argument against my description of the unbearable lightness of Cornel West's being: "In the nation's top universities, African-American representation goes from offensive to paltry. Anywhere from less than 1% of tenured faculty are black to a high of 4.3%. In other words, you'd need to go out of your way to pluck a black professor for your rant about the nature of academia."
In other words, Cornel West is a black airhead so don't hurt his feelings by pointing this out. Actually, my book The Professors features portraits of several bloviating dummies like West who are white. Professors Michael Vocino and Grover Furr for example. However, neither Vocino nor Furr have 20 honorary degress, a professorship at Princeton, a $35,000 academic speaking fee, a several hundred thousand dollar academic salary, or a lucrative book racket for appending their signatures to encyclopedic publications of the Harvard press.
Cornel West is blessed with these unearned and undeserved perks solely because he's black -- there is no other explanation (but don't hurt his feelings by pointing this out).
Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good
The Friday Rush: For conservatives, $400 million buys defeat at the ballot box
The myth of Fox News' ratings spike
David Horowitz is blessed with these unearned and undeserved perks, namely his repeated appearances in the media, solely because he's a raving right-wing nutcase -- there is no other explanation (but don't hurt his feelings by pointing this out).
I've watched both Horowitz and West several times.
I'd pay good money to see them one-on-one.
For their Seconds, I'd suggest Sean Hannity and Bill Maher.
They could bill the bout as: "Blather vs. Brilliance."
This is plain envy here. Horowitz has chosen a career as a stonethrower because he apparently doesn't have the horsepower to make it as an academic himself.
It is pretty clear from Horowitz's rants that this is all sour grapes.
Cornel West makes his money legitimately on the free market. It amuses me that conservatives find that so difficult to swallow when it is someone they don't like like Michael Moore, the Dixie Chicks or George Clooney.
Horowitz needs to grow up and find success on his own. It is too easy to tear others down for a living. What does Horowitz stand for besides silly race-baiting and envy?
some conservatives, not all, find it difficult to swallow. but i would agree with your basic point that whose business is it if west makes a ton of money or not. i disagree with him on most things but his earning powers and potential are irrelevant to horowitz. if he wants to discuss his ideology, fine. i would suggest he leave his perks out of it.
Did not mean to needlessly offend you or any other conservative. You are right. I should have said "some".
You're right about it appearing to be sour grapes. Horowitz' piece is nothing but name-calling and envy. The sole basis for Horowitz' assertion that West doesn't deserve what he gets paid is that West hasn't published a scholarly book recently enough to suit Horowitz. What an infant.
"Simply because he's black." 'Nuff said, Horowitz- you have revealed yourself.
This is typical Horowitz, (he really has a bug up his a-ss about West) and his fellow wing nuts. They continually attack the intellectual prowess and merit of any AA that benefited from scholarly affirmative action programs; unless of course they disavow affirmative action and become a conservative ala Clarence Thomas and others. They suddenly change from being over rated and undeserving and get touted as enlightened geniuses.
Horowitz specifically focuses on affirmative action in academia, but his fellow cons do this to AAs in other fields as well. Limbaugh recently tried to do this with Barak Obama remember.
I wonder what Horowitz has to say about this kind of affirmative action.
<[link to www.thecrimson.com]
....is on his way to Harvard business school?
Bush’s Personal Aide To Enroll at Business School Gottesman, college dropout and former beau to Bush daughter, to begin in the fall Published On Monday, May 22, 2006 2:12 AM By PARAS D. BHAYANI Crimson Staff Writer
A 26-year-old college dropout who carries President Bush’s breath mints and makes him peanut butter-and-jelly sandwiches will follow in his boss’s footsteps this fall when he enrolls at Harvard Business School (HBS).
Though it is rare for HBS—or any other professional or graduate school—to admit a student who does not have an undergraduate degree, admissions officers made an exception for Blake Gottesman, who for four years has served as special assistant and personal aide to Bush.
Gottesman, a Texas native who attended Claremont-McKenna College in California for one year, has long had ties to the Bush family. He dated the president’s daughter, Jenna Bush, nearly ten years ago when he attended St. Andrew’s Episcopal School of Austin.
After completing his freshman year at Claremont in 1999, he left to join the Bush presidential campaign and later served as a junior aide to former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card. In February 2002, he became the president’s personal assistant.
In his current role, Gottesman performs a wide range of duties, from dog-sitting the president’s Scottish terriers, Barney and Miss Beazley, to carrying the president’s speeches and giving him the “two-minute warning” before a speech begins.
Gottesman has declined all requests for comment on his business school admission, but White House staffers have described him as loyal, warm, and fun-loving.
“He is a friend and adviser to every employee of the White House, from career maintenance workers to cabinet secretaries,” Deputy Chief of Staff Joe Hagin told The Myrtle Beach Sun News. “He is consistently kind and warm and generous with his time and provides extraordinarily good advice.”
Gottesman has likened his role at the White House to that of Charlie Young on the NBC television program “The West Wing.” When asked about his similarity to Young in an interactive question-and-answer session on the White House’s Web site, Gottesman wrote, “Charlie seems to be smarter, funnier, and better-looking. But, from what I remember—our jobs are probably pretty similar.”
HBS spokesman James E. Aisner ’68 explained the decision to accept Gottesman, even though he is not a college graduate, by telling The Economist that “extraordinary circumstances will sometimes compel it to drop [its] rule” of only admitting students who hold bachelor's degrees.
He refused to comment specifically on Gottesman, citing Harvard’s policy of not commenting on the admission of any individual student.
Aisner also pointed out to The Economist that Harvard would surely admit applicants like Bill Gates and Michael Dell, both of whom are college dropouts.
But the often-snarky British weekly noted: “Needless to say, holding the president’s hand-sanitizer is a far cry from heading a Fortune 500 company.”
I wonder why so many people can easily summon outrage for AA, but seem to have no thoughts whatsoever that an overpriveledged Bush lackey can get into HBS without even obtaining the seemingly obligatory undergraduate degree?
Maybe all of this outrage against AA is at its root, motivated by racism? Nah...That can't be so.
i believe it has more to do with priveledge and stature than race. people with means and status get preferential treatment, regardless of their race; where those with limited means and no political voice get very little, regardless of their race. that is the sad reality.
Of course there should be a race based remedy for white racial oppresssion. Social justice requires it. The problem with affirmative action is not that it is race-based, the problem is that it does not go far enough to compensate African Americans for enduring a white racist social hierarchy.
That's my problem with the affirmative action argument; there has always been affirmative action for the privileged and connected. Additionally the dominant group that controls society will create a system to affirm each other through culture and practice. I don't think we will ever be able to create a completely equal playing field but it behooves us to try to do so, we need to stop practices like this <[link to www.msnbc.msn.com] I just find it maddening that people won't acknowledge that the luck of being born to the right group, rich parents, etc has a LOT to do with the success they often pat themselves on the back for. Hearing trust fund babies giving the boot strap lecture drives me crazy, that said we all have to work hard and work hard at making the system as equitable as it can be. Sorry, I'm off the soap box now.
it isn't about leveling the playing field. it's about giving opportunity for everyone, regardless of their race, to succeed. leveling the playing field is blantantly unfair and discriminatory against those that do work hard. forget the trust fund babies, using them to advance any argument is fruitless. when you level anything something has to come down while something else goes up. i prefer to remove roadblocks against those that are disadvantaged, such as economic disadvantage for those that cannot afford to go to college should be given the chance, regardless of race.
I don't think we are really that far apart. BTW Lynn mentioned an "equal" playing field not "level".
I cannot speak for Lynn, but when I think of equal playing field, I think of much of what you described. I prefer to call it an equal opportunity. I think it is similar to your idea of getting rid of hurdles.
I don't think we are really far apart on that. AA has been viciously mischaracterized and is definitely not perfect, but it has effectively been an instrument to remove some hurdles for many underpriveledged kids. I agree with you that something similar should be done to improve opportunities for any underpriveledged child regardless of ethnicity.
Government does not have the power to make kids succeed, but it has the obligati on to provide opportunities for everyone to reach their potential.
I think your interpretation of leveling the playing field is subjective and is being filtered through a conservative bias of what you think I mean. I don't want to BRING anyone down, I would be accepting the conservatives definition that those who have benefited from the AA programs are some how not as smart as the others. I disagree totally with that premise since studies have shown that once admitted those students generally perform very very well. I agree that affirmative action programs should be economically based and not specifically race based, so we're in agreement there. But I believe the public schools in depressed neighborhoods should be brought UP to level of those in the affluent neighborhoods so that children receive the same educational preparation. When that occurs you could abolish the AA programs in colleges all together. So when I say leveling the field I don't want to bring anyone down I want to lift ALL up.
we may be in a semantics discussion here, but in order to "lift everyone up" as you say, that means that some will require more "lifting" than others in order to be equal. and if they know they will be "lifted" it's human nature to let it happen, rather than make it happen. it you equalize the playing field for everyone those that have worked the hardest are getting the shaft while those that have squeeked by are being rewarded. that's my problem with the "playing field". and it has nothing to do in my mind with race, nothing at all. i do agree with your statement on inner city schools and that does hurt minorities more. that is unfair and should be addressed seriously.
"if you equalize the playing field for everyone those that have worked the hardest are getting the shaft while those that have squeeked by are being rewarded."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I reject that out of hand. The above example I provided contradicts this. That young man didn't "work the hardest", but he's about to be enrolled in one of the most prestigious universities in the world. I also don't understand why you consider providing CHILDREN with an ADEQUATE education as giving them something for nothing, that doesn't make sense to me. Besides you could have a kid from an awful awful school that WORKED hard with the materials they were provided. The fact that they attended the substandard school system they were assigned to says nothing about their work ethic.
Sorry, you did address equalizing the education system in your post, my bad. BTW, I don't think I am as cynical about human nature as you are.
of course there are exceptions to every rule, to debate them is not the point. and i wasn't talking about economic reasons, i have already said that is what affirmative action should be based on, not race. leveling the playing field while giving somebody a leg up simply based on their race is unfair and discriminatory. that is the point i am making.
i have already said that is what affirmative action should be based on, not race. leveling the playing field while giving somebody a leg up simply based on their race is unfair and discriminatory. that is the point i am making.
--------------------------------
Crushing someone under your foot simply based on their race is unfair and discriminatory and THAT is the historical and continuing reality in America. The injustice was based on race and so must be its remedy. To attack the remedy because it is race-based is to protect the cause of injury because it is race-based.
Until all the legacy assignments are removed from the equation, no legitimate argument can be made against affirmative action. For some reason the far right wackos continue to attack academia focusing on the nascar (non athletic sport centered around red-necks) crowd, to make them feel deprived, although Bakke (sp) back in the late 70's had a good argument. Did anyone ask the admissions dept at Harvard, to say how many non-degree holding students were accepted to the HBS program during the last 25 years. Now that is a question I would love to know the answer! Back to the main subject - Horowitz has the credibility of David Duke denouncing the Holocaust.
Thanks for the information, Lynn. Where is the outrage from those small government types? Do we really need someone on the White House Staff whose job it is to make peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and carry hand-sanitizer and breath mints? And what father in his right mind wants a daughter's ex-boyfriend around? I've always been amazed at how utterly out of touch the entire Bush family has been with reality.
“[Blake Gottsman] is a friend and adviser to every employee of the White House, from career maintenance workers to cabinet secretaries,”
greeeaaat, just what we need - a college drop out acting as an advisor to the president's cabinet. No wonder this country is so F*#ked up right now.
Has anyone ever listened to the reasoning behind the claim of academic liberal bias? This crew of conservatives are angry at the truth -- and they prefer a sanitized, fairy-tale versions of the truth. Anything else contains bias in their eyes.
there are other points. H was also involved in the accusatiuon that the medai was liberal and has written a book on political strategy that has been praised by Rove. After that he picked on the universities, which is normal because a lot of faculty and students are voting democrat (hence his used term 'liberal', in which he does not make the difference betwen voting patterns and activism).
In his plans he leaves the ciriculum to be determined by politicians as an 'independent body' to remove liberal bias. Although all his examples have been wrong (besides that Churchill), he continues to smear and bash individual people, surprisingly without any lawsuit resulting from it!
H had strong ties with the comminust/stalinist community in the US. His proposals are nothing more than communist ones: away with academic freedom, let politics rule.
Also his strategy of inserting politics into academics is communist and has been used by socialist activists: smear someone and do not bother about counterarguments and the truth!
When I think of leveling the playing field I think of a merit-based system. Academia is supposed to operate this way, but it doesn't. I agree that AA should be economically based rather than racially, but even that doesn't fully solve the problem. Poor people (political correctness is largely BS) don't have access to the same schools or environments that rich people do. I don't know a way to level this out, particularly since public schools are funded by property taxes.
Conservatives are often against AA--but only as it applies to minorities or the poor. Bush's entire administration is a testament to wealthy AA. As a matter of fact, so is his entire life.
You change how the funds are allocated from a pool of the collected property taxes. Of course some would cry that "wealth is being redistributed".
Horowitz is on a campaign to force every college professor to tow the Party line or else. He's out to censor all freedom of speech in the classroom. He's a fascist.