Horowitz falsely claimed he doesn't attack professors' "political speech" outside the "classroom"
SUMMARY: Right-wing activist David Horowitz falsely claimed that although he has criticized what university professors teach in the classroom, he has refrained from criticizing "professors' political speech" outside the universities at which they teach. Horowitz added that he makes "a very clear distinction between what's done in the classroom" and "what professors say as citizens." In fact, in his most recent book, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America, Horowitz criticizes numerous professors for their political views and participation in political events outside the classroom.
On the April 6 edition Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, right-wing activist David Horowitz, the president of Students for Academic Freedom, falsely claimed that although he has criticized what university professors teach in the classroom, he has refrained from criticizing "professors' political speech" outside of the universities at which they teach. Horowitz added that he makes "a very clear distinction between what's done in the classroom" and "what professors say as citizens." In fact, in his most recent book, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America (Regnery, January 2006), Horowitz criticized numerous professors for their political views and participation in political events outside the classroom.
During a discussion regarding an April 6 debate at George Washington University between Horowitz and University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill, co-host Alan Colmes told Horowitz, "You attack professors fairly often, David. But often it's what they say outside of a classroom ... that you may not like politically." Colmes added that "[t]here's a difference" between "what they do in the classroom and what they do outside the classroom." Horowitz replied: "I make a very clear distinction between what's done in the classroom" and "what professors say as citizens." He claimed that he has "criticized [peace studies programs] harshly, but not professors' political speech."
However, an examination of Horowitz's writing in The Professors, reveals numerous occasions in which he has attacked professors' extracurricular speech and activities. In The Professors, Horowitz devoted a few pages to each professor, detailing why he believes they are "the most dangerous academics in America" as the book's title suggests. While Horowitz chronicled the professors' classroom activities in some instances, he also sought to support his assertions by pointing to some professors' personal history and political activities outside the classroom. Below is a list -- by no means exhaustive -- of examples from Horowitz's book:
● Professor Marc Becker of Truman State University. Horowitz criticized Becker for being an organizer and media developer for the anti-war group Historians Against the War . [Page 50]
● Professor Laurie Brand of the University of Southern California. Horowitz noted that while "temporarily working in Lebanon, [she] took to the streets to protest the planned effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power." Horowitz claimed that Brand is also dangerous because she "even drafted a letter of protest to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell... listing a number of anti-war arguments ranging from the tendentious ('regime change imposed from outside is itself completely undemocratic') to the ludicrous in charging that in excess of one million Iraqis could die because of damage to Iraq's water supply resulting from the war." [Page 75]
● Elizabeth M. Brumfiel, professor of archaeology and anthropology at Northwestern University. Horowitz pointed out that under her leadership as president, the American Anthropological Association's "principal campaign[] in 2004 was public support of same-sex marriage." He further noted that the group "refused to hold meetings in Louisiana, because of that state's laws against sodomy, and has pledged that its boycott will remain in effect as long as those laws are on the books." [Page 79]
● David Cole, law professor at Georgetown University. Horowitz criticized Cole for being a member of the board of directors at the Center for Constitutional Rights, a "radical" civil rights group, and for signing a "statement of conscience" condemning the "war on terror." [Page 96]
● Professor Angela Davis of the University of California, Santa Cruz. Horowitz noted that she "was a frequent guest speaker at anti-war rallies ... during the months preceding the 2003 war in Iraq." [Page 118]
● Professor Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University. Horowitz claimed that Ehrlich had "attacked the Bush administration" and characterized the professor as a "relentless critic of American foreign and domestic policies" because of an email he wrote into a forum titled "11 September 2001" on Bryn Mawr College 's Serendip website. Horowitz claimed that in the email Ehrlich "theorized that a central cause of the attacks against the United States was the unequal distribution of wealth worldwide; that American affluence was resented and viewed as unjust by much of the human race" and that "the Taliban, in his view, should have been permitted to remain in power." [Page 141] While Ehrlich did state in the email that the U.S. should "parachute[]... containers of food" and drop "some of our pre-packaged medical facilities, and leaflets volunteering to supply physicians on loan to operate them," he also said that "[t]his is not to say we should not continue to try to identify, defund, and destroy terrorist networks, and punish the perpetrators of the recent atrocities. But some move like this might make clear that the United States will not indiscriminately destroy innocent people to get revenge on the guilty."
● Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law and policy at Princeton University. Horowitz noted Falk's opposition to the Iraq war and cited an article Falk co-wrote in 2003 in which he stated: "Nothing in Iraq 's current behavior would justify a preemptive attack against Iraq. ... there are available alternatives to war that are consistent with international law and are strongly preferred by America's most trusted allies." [Page 162]
● Professor Gordon Fellman of Brandeis University. Horowitz attacked Fellman for, among other reasons, allegedly being "a leader of the protests at Brandeis against Operation Iraqi Freedom." Horowitz chastised Fellman for claiming that "this war has been planned since before Bush became president... and it sets a horribly dangerous example of preemptive war." [Page 172]
From the April 6 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
COLMES: The issue that I want to talk about is what you were debating with Ward Churchill. I don't agree with a lot of what Ward Churchill says. And I don't -- but I think the point is the right to say what you believe outside of a classroom. You attack professors fairly often, David. But often, it's what they say outside of a classroom, the fact that they run peace groups, they go to demonstrations, or that they do things that you may not like politically. And there's a difference, isn't there, between what they do in the classroom and what they do outside the classroom, which is their right as American citizens?
HOROWITZ: Actually, Alan, I make a very clear distinction between what's done in the classroom and what's done within the setup of the university itself and what professors say as citizens, as I said this evening. I defended Ward Churchill's right to say what he said on the Internet. Just as I would defend, of course, [co-host] Sean [Hannity]'s right to challenge him on that. What I have criticized is peace studies programs, which are not studies about the causes of war and peace, but which are indoctrination programs in a left-wing agenda, that the United States is an imperialist aggressor, that the military is the -- responsible for wars instead of preventing wars, and that terrorists are freedom fighters. That, I have criticized harshly, but not professors' political speech.
"Students for Academic Freedom?" Leaving aside all those students who are opposed to academic freedom - where is Mr. Horowitz a student?
Sounds like an "Astroturf" grass-roots organization to me.
Do they collect monies for their non-profit endeavors? I'm sure Horowitz works for free on this noble cause...
Great documentation on outright lying by Horowitz.
Is it me or do many pundits/activists feel free to lie when answering questions from Mr. Colmes? Hmm, why could that be?
Colmes is the "Balanced" part, and Hannity is the "Fair" part
Free Speech is DANGEROUS to America. So sayeth Horowitz, who of course exempts himself, because his own speech is GREAT for America, and so should be unfettered.
I wonder if he felt this way back when he was a raging "leftist"? Do you suppose he considered himself "dangerous" to America back then? Or was being a leftist more "dangerous" to his pocketbook, and it's much more profitable to have switched?
My father was fully prepared to put on a dress and deep kiss a man to stay out of Vietnam.
Now, as an old man, he fully supports Bush's decision to start the Iraq War.
Proof that as wealth increases the brain grows softer.
How can these rightwingnuts continue to deny what is in the public domain, he WRITES A BOOK, attacking professors for their political speech outside the classroom and then denies he does just that. Hey moron YOUR BOOK STILL EXISTS. They often say things on TV then later claim they never said it. Like they dont know that big machine in front of them actyually RECORDS their images and inanities. I guess once you leave so reality far behind you just think IF you say it then its true because you say it
and don't care. Opinion and propaganda blend as one with the truth. Horowitz is a neocon. He is a Nationalist. He wants the United States to control the Middle East with our military might. Ask him what he would propose to do about Iran: he will tell you that he would favor an invasion within a year. If these warmongers are those that Americans really want in charge, then there is nothing I alone can do about it. Maybe Albert Einstein had it right: "there are two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe."
I find it interesting to read about this guy's past endeavors (as well as his current)...
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
Not exactly what I would call a "fair and balanced" sort.
Next Horowitz will reply with an incoherently rant accusing Media Matters of attacking him. Then Media Matters will document his rant, pointing out the inconsistencies and outright lying. Horowitz will respond with more irrational rage and threats, which Media Matters will document. We go round and round to the delight of the crowd until Horowitz gets tired -- or maybe [fingers crossed!] he'll self-destuct in a spectacular fireworks display.
P.S. to Howie,
The turtleneck and goatee? Dude, they make you look like you're trying to sneak into a Mensa meeting. Are you just pissed because the real professors won't let you into their clubhouse or what?
What an odd claim by Horowitz. Liberalism, by definition, is open mindedness to ALL points of view, weighing arguments, a thinking, probing curiosity for knowledge. How dastardly! If you're a narrow-minded neocon afraid of alternative ideas, and whose entire mindset is predicated on ignorance and dystopian unilateralism. Then I can see his point.
Why is it whenever these right-wingers come up with an organization designed to LIMIT discourse, debate, or disagreement, they always include the word "freedom?"
who are the students standing behind Horowitz, I don't want names? I just want to know what college student would want to box up discussion as Horowitz and the Neo-Cons are want to do? Arguing and debating with professors was one of the great enjoyments of my college years. I learned a great deal in a few wide open shouting matches, that looked like a bad production of a "Paper Chase" clone. I remember reading within the last year that students did not think the 1st admendment was not all that important. Intellgent design, wishing to reign in speech, and the desire to stifle debate earnest disagreement -- what is the desire of certain pieces of the public and by extension students? The one time in your life you can experiment with the great ideas of the universe and the moment and no one wants to use that God-given bowl of jello behind their ears. I am amazed one could even print a book like this and make money and not folk heroes out of these professors. If I was a college student and saw a professor at my universities named in the book his/her would be the first class I would sign up for.
[quote]How can these rightwingnuts continue to deny what is in the public domain, he WRITES A BOOK, attacking professors for their political speech outside the classroom and then denies he does just that. Hey moron YOUR BOOK STILL EXISTS. They often say things on TV then later claim they never said it. Like they dont know that big machine in front of them actyually RECORDS their images and inanities. I guess once you leave so reality far behind you just think IF you say it then its true because you say it[/quote]
Make outrageous claims, then deny later. It happens all the time on the far-right. A recent example being the ultra-religious Jerry Falwell referring to all Muslims as "Satanic." Now, in my opinion, that's very dangerous to say because the average Muslim in America is just trying to live their lives. It's hard enough without millions of bigots being brainwashed into thinking they're all Satanic.
So, he makes the claim, then later removes any reference to it. Well guess what? The words still resonate in the minds of those who heard it. They don't see the small footnote, if there even is one.
This is one of the far-right's most successful tactics.
"The American people don't read."
or does Horowitz remind you too of CWA, "Colonel Sanders Wit' Attitude"
Horowitz doesn't attack free speech, and O'Reilly DOES NOT engage in personal attacks or namecalling.
We have both men's WORD on these claims. What more should we ask? You gonna believe THEM, or your lying eyes and ears and those dozens of blatant examples on the record that make them out LIARS?
They keep 'em stupid.
It's a shame this man resorts so frequently to pure invective and a lot of falsehood when he speaks. If he could lose some of the name-calling and started lying less, he might have a somewhat interesting argument.
Alot of quotes, but not one "attack". I guess pointing out ones political slant is an attack. Then, by definition, MMFA does engage in attacks. Again, show me one quote that is an attack against anyone, not just pointing out their politics.
Read the last item on the list, Chevyman...
"Horowitz attacked Fellman for, among other reasons, allegedly being a leader of the protests at Brandeis against Operation Iraqi Freedom."
Although, I haven't read Horowitz's book, so I have to trust MMFA that he does, in fact, "attack" Fellman in the book. Either way, Horowitz definitely seems to have misspoken on that last sentence.
You have to read no further than the title of Horowitz' screed, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America. That in itself is an attack.
He then delineates what these professors do outside of the classroom. Then he says he does nothing of the sort. I'll give Horowitz the benefit of the doubt and stipulate that he probably never read his own book. Maybe his ghostwriter can explain it to him.
at·tack Audio pronunciation of "attack" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-tk) v. at·tacked, at·tack·ing, at·tacks v. tr.
1. To set upon with violent force. 2. To criticize strongly or in a hostile manner.
Let's not argue semantics though, eh? Attack/criticize, almost the same thing. The real point is that he claims he only cares about what professors say in class. The excerpts from his book prove this is a lie.
I've been thinking for years that David Horowitz needs to get more public exposure, because the country -- the Left, in particular -- need to realize that this guy is truly dangerous. I would, in fact, submit that he's far more dangerous than people like Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly. Not only is he, like them, a neofascist loon who doesn't hesitate to distort or ignore inconvenient facts or even tell outright lies, but he's also -- unlike them -- one of the most influential ideologues in the Republican Party. In 2000, his book The Art of Political War, which had been endorsed by Karl Rove, was distributed to every Republican member of Congress by Tom DeLay. Bills modeled on his "academic freedom" platform have been introduced in several state legislators.
To see this vile little man for what he is, visit his web site at FrontPageMag.com (if you can stomach it). Horowitz and his compatriots are a cancer on this country, and it's time more people woke up to that.
-K.Ai.-
Having been through many years of university classes and working with professors on projects, I realized that many of them are not as knowledgeable as many people assume.
Horowitz is just another academia nut.
The comment at the end of the segment falls under the fallacy of partial selection of the evidence. Horowitz is being asked about the rights of speech not criticism of speech. He says he draws distinctions between speech in a classroom and speech as citizens (as does the Supreme Court). He is criticizing the right to a peace studies program but not the professors’ right to political speech.
There is something called context:
Dictionary.com
con•text ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kntkst) n.
1.T he part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning. 2. The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.
He is being asked a question about distinctive rights not on criticism. Colmes himself said that Horowitz criticizes professors’ political speech outside the classroom and Horowitz does not deny this claim because Holmes then asks him about distinctions.
Obviously Churchill, who was sitting next to him, didn't interpret him as meaning he never criticizes opposition or they would have showed that, right? He wrote a book criticizing professors and was there for a debate with Churchill. All the evidence shows that he does criticize professors outside the classroom so how does one sentence taken out of context prove he wants to stifle speech?
I'm so sick of knee-jerkers on both sides.