FrontPageMag's Laksin falsely claimed Media Matters "concede[d]" that half the professors in Horowitz's book "use their classrooms for political agendas"
SUMMARY: FrontPageMag.com senior editor Jacob Laksin falsely claimed that a Media Matters for America study of right-wing activist David Horowitz's book The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America "concede[d] that nearly half the professors [Horowitz profiled] do in fact use their classrooms for political agendas." Media Matters conceded no such thing.
In a June 12 article, FrontPageMag.com senior editor Jacob Laksin falsely claimed that a Media Matters for America study of right-wing activist David Horowitz's book The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America (Regnery, January 2006) "concede[d] that nearly half the professors [Horowitz profiled] do in fact use their classrooms for political agendas." In fact, Media Matters conceded no such thing; the study simply categorized, as inside or outside the classroom, the purported evidence Horowitz cited of professors using their classrooms to advance political agendas, and found that Horowitz listed only out-of-class activities for 52 of the 100 professors that he deemed "dangerous." The Media Matters study did not concede the validity of any claims Horowitz made regarding the professors he profiled. Indeed, many of his accounts of professors' classroom activities were based on unverified student descriptions gleaned from such sources as RateMyProfessors.com. In other instances, his entire case rested on the title of a course or a book assigned by the professor.
In point 8 of his "point-by-point refutation" of a Free Exchange on Campus report titled "Facts Count: An Analysis of David Horowitz's The Professors," Laksin took issue with a portion of the report that referenced the Media Matters study. The Free Exchange on Campus report paraphrased the Media Matters study as follows:
Overall, the majority of the profiles in Mr. Horowitz's book contain no evidence of professors' in-class conduct whatsoever. As an analysis by Media Matters shows, 52 of the 100 profiles in Mr. Horowitz's book are based exclusively on things professors have said or written outside of their classrooms.
Laksin then countered: "But even if the findings are accurate, they undermine their own critique, since they concede that nearly half the professors do in fact use their classrooms for political agendas." Laksin also asserted that Media Matters "routinely attacks conservatives ... and misrepresents their ideas, treating differences of opinion as differences of fact."
The Media Matters study of The Professors was in response to comments Horowitz made on the April 6 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, when he stated, as Media Matters noted, 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." Media Matters subsequently conducted a wider review of The Professors debunking Horowitz's claim that his book does not rely heavily on professors' activities and speech outside of the classroom but, rather, merely mentions extracurricular activities as part of a broader profile of each academic's "general perspectives." Contrary to Laksin's claim, the review did not accept Horowitz's interpretation of the in-class evidence he cited for the professors.
As Media Matters previously documented, in an August 29, 2005, article, Laksin criticized Media Matters as "a clearinghouse for leftwing outrage." He also described Media Matters President and CEO David Brock as a "Media Liar" in a September 21, 2005, column. Both articles also appear in Horowitz's DiscovertheNetworks.org database, which bills itself as a "guide to the political left."
From Laksin's June 12 FrontPageMag.com article:
8. "Overall, the majority of the profiles in Mr. Horowitz's book contain no evidence of professors' in-class conduct whatsoever. As an analysis by Media Matters shows, 52 of the 100 profiles in Mr. Horowitz's book are based exclusively on things professors have said or written outside of their classrooms. Our own count of Mr. Horowitz's footnotes reveals that overall, approximately 80 percent of the evidence he presents relates to things professors have said or written outside of the classroom."
Media Matters is a self-described "progressive" organization that routinely attacks conservatives, including David Horowitz, and misrepresents their ideas, treating differences of opinion as differences of fact. But even if the findings are accurate, they undermine their own critique, since they concede that nearly half the professors do in fact use their classrooms for political agendas. As previously indicated, moreover, The Professors is not merely about in-classroom indoctrination, nor is it always about individual styles of teaching. A professor in the Department of Feminist Studies at the University of California Santa Cruz is indoctrinating students as a part of her departmental responsibility quite apart from any individual commitment she may have to using the classroom for political agendas. To repeat: The Professors makes four distinct critiques, two of which focus on in-class conduct and two of which do not. In other words, half the critique is about activities that violate academic standards that are not confined to in-class presentations. These include the promotion of professors beyond their qualifications and the teaching of courses beyond their expertise. Professor Hamid Algar, to take another example, told Armenian students at the University of California, Berkeley, "You deserve to be massacred." This happened on campus but not in the classroom. Researchers who cannot detect these nuances can hardly be trusted to know whether 80 percent of the evidence presented in The Professors relates to one thing or another.
Laksin also asserted that Media Matters "routinely attacks conservatives ... and misrepresents their ideas, treating differences of opinion as differences of fact."
Well, no. It's many conservative pundits who want to mask differences of fact as differences of opinion.
The irony there is, these so-called 'pundits' are the ones who routinely misrepresent their own ideas as 'fact', 'common knowledge', and the will of the people.
Repeating what conseratives say, does not misrepresent their ideas.
... that they always quote in context. ;)
EVERYTHING is an opinion. So when you crash reality headlong into their fantasies they just say well thats your opinion.
We see this ALL THE TIME, not only in the media, but on this VERY BOARD.
The "it's just my opinion" defense is second only to "it was just a joke" in the annals of Lame Excuses for False Statements.
It's my opinion that the moon is made of green cheese. It's my opinion! Who are you to challenge it?
What nonsense.
..and just dropped this entire argument. Write a new book and then argue about that one. This case was lost a long time ago.
a small wave of attacks against the integrity of MMFA.
MMFA, to my knowledge, has never attacked any conservatives.
It's been my experience that MMFA is a purely defensive weapon, a weapon against conservative attacks.
Several items strike me as I read about Horowitz. First, there must be several million interactions per day between students and faculty. His information is, therefore, anecdotal at best. Second, if we as faculty were actually good at spreading this supposed propaganda then Gore or Kerry would be in the White House, not Bush. Third, few students and some faculty have no interest in rational thinking. Rational thinking asks that you actually view the facts and ask real questions about where information and ideas have come from. Finally, real conversion through persuasion in very difficult to achieve.
his information is both anecdotal and are otherwise just plain lies ([link to www.freeexchangeoncampus.org]
Horowitz is trying to do the same as he did for the media: create a hostily climate by suggesting there is 'liberal bias', whatever that may be. He continues to abuse voting patterns for pointing out that liberal bias. Further, he tries to equate young and older adults as brainless followers that can be easely influenced. In my experience, he could not be more wrong. My students have always been very critical: to me, my methods, the scientific material etc.
However, Horowitz has another program than making the academic world 'less liberally biased': in efforts to remove that bias he suggests that politicians should decide the cirriculum. Thus, he wants to remove academic freedom and make it an arm of politics. He tries to create that by a wedging method claiming liberal bias in teaching and research.
Although I only teach philosophy part-time, is it possible for me to be added to Horwitz's list? It would be a badge of distinction to be considered a contributing influence to the opening of the minds of my current and future students!
I'd be famous!
Of education was to expose one to the knowledge outside thier own realm of existence and to open up thier minds and challenge thier views. When I first attended college I attended Berea. This is a Christain influenced college providing a "Liberal Education" to students to provide them with the tools to become successfull and add to the development of soceity. At least that was what we were told then. I like to see how Berea College falls now. In 1991 it was considered a Liberal Arts College. That was when most people understood what Liberal actually stood for. As a "christain College" i just wonder where it would fall now. It was here that I first learned to question those "values" I grew up with and discover what real "values" where. It supported the idea of Christianaity without ties to a Demonation and because of that we had learned the true meaning of Christainaity. Not the meaning that the Republican party seems to push at us. It is because of that education I do have my own faith independent of organized religion and therefore not likely to fall victim to tactic that are meant to use my faith to manipulate me and to subject to thier will.
The one thing Berea taught is that a liberal education is the only true path to freedom. As long as you are keep in ignorance then those that have the knowlege are able to "rule" with your consent simply because you do not realize the difference.
As long as you are keep in ignorance then those that have the knowlege are able to "rule" with your consent simply because you do not realize the difference.
Absolutely right on!