Justin on David Horowitz and the "Academic Bill of Rights"

In Counterpunch.org, Justin Smith (3QD contributor) looks at David Horowitz's "Academic Bill of Rights".

Horowitz regularly raises alarms on his website (www.frontpagemag.org) over 'the 100 most dangerous academics in America,' and has helped Students for Academic Freedom to draft an 'Academic Bill of Rights,' in which it is proposed that '[a]ll faculty shall be hired, fired, promoted and granted tenure on the basis of their competence and appropriate knowledge in the field of their expertise,' that '[n]o faculty shall be hired or fired or denied promotion or tenure on the basis of his or her political or religious beliefs,' and that '[e]xposing students to the spectrum of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects examined in their courses is a major responsibility of faculty. Faculty will not use their courses for the purpose of political, ideological, religious or anti-religious indoctrination.' ...

Let me briefly describe what it's like to be a left-wing humanities professor. In my spare time, I seek the abolition of the death penalty, and the conservation of mountain gorillas. These are good causes, I think, and I hope to see progress made on them in my lifetime.

In my classes, I drone on about Descartes's cogito argument, Leibniz's monads, etc. Students ask for extensions on their papers, go MIA for weeks at a time, eventually turn in essays on 'Dick Hart's cogito argument' and 'Liebniz's nomads,' and after it's all over plead with me to bump their grades up an extra notch or two since, as they're sure I understand, law school admissions are really competitive. I apply for federal grant money for my research on 17th-century theories of natural motion, and the agency asks me to explain the 'relevance' and 'applicability' of my work for 'today's society.'

Comments

[Luke Lea]

Dear Robin,

So therefore you don't have a problem with Horowitz's proposal?

Or are you saying there is no need for rules because I myself do not misbehave?

[Robin]

There are few things that Horowitz does that I do not have a problem with, and most of those involve basic biological functions.

More importantly, there are rules and practices to do involve exposure the multiple sides, believe it or not. Where a point of view, syllabus, etc., constitutes indoctrination is a matter of disagreement. Do we need, as the sledgehammer oft-used example goes, texts denying the Holocaust on the syllabus, to pevent political indoctrination? Basically, the proposal's aim is to set up a ministry of truth.

Finally, anyone who was a strong Panther/SDS PL (or whatever far left group) member-activist ally, however smart, was clearly a little, if not a lot, nuts. I have as much or more reason to think that they'll trade one insanity for another (Eldrige Cleaver comes to mind) as that will see the light. Both intuition and evidence tells me that Horowitz is still wacked.

And Lisa Anderson as one the country's 100 most dangerous academics?!?! Please, unless you mean promoting critical and independent thinking. Rachel Bronson, who is very smart, was one of Lisa's student; Rachel was a strong advocate of the war. I know Lisa having TAed for her and having taken a couple of classes with her. The Frontpage Ragazine "case" against Lisa is so stupid as to be not even laughable.