LA Times continues to publish David Horowitz despite his history of misinformation
SUMMARY: The Los Angeles Times printed an op-ed by David Horowitz regarding academic freedom on college campuses despite his history of false statements and unsupported allegations on this very topic. The op-ed marked the 29th time Horowitz has been published in the Times, according to a Nexis search.
On January 22, the Los Angeles Times printed an op-ed by right-wing pundit David Horowitz, who claimed that "a student's right to an intellectually honest, intellectually diverse education [is] in jeopardy because of professors -- particularly from the left -- who were determined to indoctrinate students with their own political opinions." The Times allowed him space on its opinion page as an expert on the topic of "academic freedom" despite his extensive record of false statements and unsupported allegations on this very topic. Horowitz's January 22 op-ed marked the 29th time Horowitz has been published in the Los Angeles Times since 1990, according to a Nexis search.
Horowitz is the president of Students for Academic Freedom (SAF), an organization whose purported goal is "to end the political abuse of the university and to restore integrity to the academic mission as a disinterested pursuit of knowledge." Horowitz often touted as an example of "anti-conservative" bias on campus the unsupported story of a University of Northern Colorado (UNC) student who, when asked on a midterm essay exam to explain "why President Bush was a war criminal," allegedly received a failing grade for answering instead why Saddam Hussein was a war criminal. Horowitz hyped the UNC story despite a lack of verifiable evidence in support of it, and his own admission that the facts he reported were "wrong." Media Matters for America documented Horowitz's many positions on the story: He initially hyped the alleged incident; then issued a correction acknowledging that "the information we reported appears to have been wrong"; then "corrected" the correction and declared "we were right"; and then revisited the controversy after proclaiming his indifference to it. Horowitz repeatedly accused Media Matters of "slander" and of "lying" for pointing out the factual holes in his arguments. The UNC incident is still listed as one of the "Bias Incidents and Free Speech Violations on Campus" on the SAF website.
Horowitz also publicized dubious allegations of political bias at Foothill College (California) by student Ahmad al-Qloushi, who claimed he received a failing grade on a term paper about the Constitution because his paper was "pro-American." Al-Qloushi's professor disputed al-Qloushi's and Horowitz's allegations, claiming: "When I read the paper, it became clear to me that it did not respond to the question" the students were assigned to address in the paper. Similarly, conservative blogger and political science professor James Joyner described al-Qloushi's work as "an incredibly poorly written, error-ridden, pabulum-filled [sic], essay that essentially ignores the question put forth by the instructor." Another conservative blogger, political science professor Steven Taylor, concluded: "I can see how this essay resulted in a failing grade."
More recently, according to a January 11 article on InsideHigherEd.com, Horowitz "admitted that he had no evidence to back up two of the stories he has told multiple times to back up his charges that political bias is rampant in higher education." According to the article, the purported incidents dealt with a biology professor who reportedly screened filmmaker Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 during class, and "a student in California who supports abortion rights and who said that he was punished with a low grade by a professor who opposed abortion." On his FrontPageMag.com blog, Horowitz labeled the article an "[a]cademic hit job."
Other examples of Horowitz's misinformation abound:
- Falsely claiming that the Senate Intelligence Committee "exonerated" President Bush's claim in the 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq sought uranium from Niger. After Media Matters documented and corrected this false claim, Horowitz attacked Media Matters with yet another falsehood.
- Citing a reader comment posted on the Media Matters website to falsely accuse Media Matters of labeling entertainer Bill Cosby a "racist."
- Labeling a wide variety of people and organizations as "racist," despite his own racially insensitive rhetoric and his acknowledgement that "[b]ecause the term 'racist' has the power [to] wound and to kill, it should be used cautiously."
The problem with this post is that Media Matters has failed to note that Horowitz' article this past Sunday was one half of a point/counterpoint - type presentation in the Times' "Current" op-ed section. (The Times does not always do this, but this time they did.)
Horowitz' piece was an opposing viewpoint to this one ---> [link to www.latimes.com] by Saree Makdisi, a UCLA professor. The topic basically centered around "academic freedom" and the fact that a UCLA graduate was offering students money for tapes of professors speaking out against President Bush, the war in Iraq etc. in the classroom. (The guy has since rescinded his money offer.) A "diverse" college education is a popular topic with Horowitz, so it's no surprise that the Times called on him to provide an opposing viewpoint to the UCLA professor.
If Horowitz wants to make a case in response to some else's column, why can't he base what he says on facts? If he has to rely on apocryphal stories then he shouldn't use those which have been discredited over and over again. If what he wants is right wing directed education, he should at least be honest enough to come right out and say so. Then he can have his arguments discussed on their own merits, such as they are, without having to invoke the specter of the "rabid left-wing professors" who are distorting the minds of our poor, helpless college students.
Thanks for finding the whole story. Very interesting reading indeed.
Wow. That says a lot.
And yet, Horowitz fails to provide anything more than anecdotes, voter propensities and unsupported assertions.
And thanks for Makdisi's column. Her insightful essay is backed by the facts, like any good scholarly work always is.
The fact that the Website of one group, founded by a former UCLA campus Republican head affiliated with David Horowitz, has offered to pay students for notes, papers and "illicit recordings" is reminiscent of right-wing payments to "witnesses" willing to lie about Bill Clinton and his wife in the 1990s.
Horowitz admits in his opposing essay that it is he, not students, who "began the campaign" in 2003. Yet his column is filled with assertions and purported testimony. As Professor Makdisi alleged, Horowitz cites no data to back his claims of liberal indoctrination in the classroom.
Indeed, the Pennsylvania legislative hearings Horowitz cites are described in a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette story as "high on buzzwords but low on data."
[link to www.post-gazette.com]
As a Pennyslvania resident, I can attest that the "hearings" were an innuedo-laden joke. The panel - which is now defunct - had no legislative authority (it was not signed by the governor) and was approved on a strict party-line basis. And Republican Pa. state Rep. Gibson Armstrong, whom Horowitz lauds for founding the committee, claimed to have received 50 student complaints of indoctrination. Yet, when pressed, Gibson failed to provide even one of the alleged complaints.
Thank you Professor Makdisi and MMFA. And shame on you Mr. Horowitz.
I have subscribed to the LA Times for 30 years and have seen the slow shift in focus. As with TV media, the intent is to foster "controversy" and not structured and considered commentary. Screaming heads are the current rage within what we would think of as reputable media.
Newspapers have a problem because they find it hard to get a "screaming head" onto paper. So they use columns by people that they know will cause controversy. These kinds of people must write outrageous and often inaccurate columns because they really have nothing else to offer (the facts don't stir up strong emotions).
So they routinely include columns by people like Horowitz that really have little to offer in terms of ideas and, when they do offer ideas, you always have to wonder if they are telling the truth.
So the question is; do I read the opinion section to listen to the irrational rants of lunatics or do I look for reasoned analysis of current events that cause me to reevaluate my own ideas.
It's sad to see a fine newspaper like the Times paint itself up in clown makeup and start acting like Bill O'reilly, just to make a few bucks.
I appreciate Sluggo's comment. It certainly makes a great deal of sense (despite the "liberal bias" which the "right" so often attributes to the press.)
I read one of Horowitz's books a few years back hoping he might say something substantial. What I found, as I said in a review, is someone infected with a "McCarthy virus." The things he could morally justify...he made me think of Josef Goebbels. What I don't know is whether he just sold out or really believes in the nonsense he's spouting constantly.
Then I read an article not long ago, I forgot where, which said that Horowitz and Christopher Hitchens are psychologically similar. I liken them to Lyndon LaRouche--a former lefty turned extreme right. But these guys have an "educated" aura about them.
The LA Times should be ashamed to print such balderdash. I'm glad I don't live in a place where I can even buy it.
Unfortunately, it has been observed many times that the media, particularly the network and cable news shows, are really there more to entertain us than to inform us. I personally have no problem with Horowitz appearing in the opinion section of a paper - it's not "news" it's his "opinion", and is labeled as such by the paper. Admittedly Horowitz has the right to make any statements he likes and it is his "opinion" that universities are over-run with "liberal bias". It is problematic that his basis for his opinions have been based on inaccuracies. Although I do wonder why the LA Times would continue to publish a guy who has been proven to be a fraud many times over, it is their right to do so, just like it is MMFAs right to point it out. I will continue to applaud MMFAs efforts to expose these frauds, just as I will continue to support Mr. Horowitz's right to his opinion. As long as they don't label his tripe as "news" or "fact" he can lie his way to irrelevance to the point where no one will listen any longer. We're all entitled to our own opinion, but not to our own facts.
...to lie through his teeth. The sad thing is that so many people believe this fake paradigm that Conservatives have manufactured. In essence, they live in fear that those pointy-headed Liberals are trying to seduce their children and turn them into Gay Atheists. I have a friend who was talking about college choices for his daughter, and ruled out a very good university in New York because "her conservative viewpoints would condemn her to failure there." How paranoid can you get?
The real crime here is that the moderates and liberals have allowed the Troglodytes to define the debate. It will take years to undo this damage.
We should start on the same page here: the majority--even the vast majority--of professors are liberal in their beliefs. I don't mind saying that, and no one else should either. It's nothing scandalous, it's just the natural order of things.
A person's political beliefs are part of his or her mental make-up. These things will also tend to lead such a person into particular career choices. Liberals have always felt more comfortable with the arts, humanities, history, and teaching. Conservatives, on the other hand, naturally find themselves in business, finance, military, religion, and athletics.
There are always exceptions, of course, but by and large these things are true, have always been true, and will always be true.
I work at a major university, and you could wander through the parking lot at the business school and see an ocean of Bush/Cheney bumper stickers, and you could stroll by the school of social work and see the same percentage for Kerry/Edwards. It's just the natural order.
Is Hollywood liberal? Of course! Anything creative is. I suspect that most low-level journalists are liberals (which is why conservatives say there's proof of liberal bias in the media), but the vast majority of editors and publishers--whose expertise is finance, not journalism--are conservatives.
But having said this, Horowitz' point is still all wrong. He claims that professors "were determined to indoctrinate students with their own political opinions." Professors know fully well that they are graded not only on the academic prowess of their students, but also on their students' evaluations of them. A professor who mouths off on his personal political beliefs (something I've never heard one do, and I've probably heard hundreds) is setting himself up for controversy, which leads to poor evaluations by the students. In other words, most professors wouldn't do such a thing because of the risk.
Thank you, MMFA, for keeping us all alert! I've been studying the media for a couple of decades now, but I wouldn't have realized just how bad the misinformation had got had it not been for this site.