- Pennsylvania Academic Freedom Hearings – David French
- The Pennsylvania House Considers Academic Freedom
- What I Told Pennsylvania’s Academic Freedom Hearings
- David Horowitz Pennsylvania Testimony
- The Pitt of Academic Bias
- A Tale of Two Testimonies: Testimony from Stephen Zelnick and Logan Fisher at Temple University
- Testimony of Anne Neal, President of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni
- Penn State Ad: Know Your Rights
- Pennsylvania’s Academic Freedom Reforms
- Final Report of the Select Committee on Academic Freedom in Higher Education
Missing Diversity On America’s Campuses
By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 3, 2002
IN THE FALL OF 2001, I spoke at a large public university in the eastern United States, which will remain nameless to protect the innocent. It was one of more than 30 colleges I had visited during the school year and, as usual, my invitation had come from a small group of campus conservatives who also put together a small dinner for me at a local restaurant. Our conclave reflected the current state of conservatism in the American university. Not only were our numbers small, but there were no deans or university administrators present, and only one professor. Open conservatives are an isolated and harassed minority on today’s college campuses, where they enjoy little respect and almost no support from institutional powers.
Although I am a nationally known public figure-author of books that have been best-sellers and nominated for a national book award, a Fox News contributor and one of America’s 100 leading “public intellectuals” according to a recent study of the subject, at these dinners, which normally precede my campus speeches, the absence of administration representatives is wholly predictable. (In nearly 200 campus appearances, I can think of only two exceptions.) When I spoke at the University of Michigan to 1,000 students, there were three university vice presidents in the balcony, but none thought to introduce himself to me. Occasionally a professor will attend these dinners, but rarely more than one. My experience as a conservative is not unique. By contrast, if I were an anti-American, radical like Angela Davis, deans of the college would wait on me and professors would confer academic credits on students for attending my appearances. On many occasions my speech would be an official campus event.
Angela Davis-a lifelong Communist zealot with no noticeable scholarly achievement-is a celebrated campus figure (there is even an “Angela Davis Lounge” at the University of Michigan) and thus can be expected to attract the attention of like-minded peers now entrenched in university administrations. But the same disparity would be discernible between a less well-known leftist and almost any comparable conservative. It reflects the fact that while conservatives often make up a large proportion of the student body on American campuses-and in some cases even a plurality-conservative professors and administrators are notably hard to find. Not only are the overwhelming majority of college professors fashionably “liberal,” most faculties have a strong contingent of hard leftists whose views are extreme, and whose concentrated numbers make it possible for them to dominate (and even define) entire academic fields. These faculty activists are also available to be sponsors of an impressive array of radical campus political groups, which-if the university is large enough-may receive hundreds of thousands of dollars from general student funds.
Among those invited to the dinner was a silver-haired history professor, who served as the faculty sponsor of the club inviting me. This man represented a dying breed of faculty conservatives who had become tenured in an era when hiring committees were not yet applying a litmus to exclude those whose political views were not suitably left. The transformation that followed was succinctly described by the distinguished intellectual historian, John P. Diggins, at an annual meeting of the American Studies Association in Costa Mesa, Calif., a decade ago. Diggins told the assembled academics: “When my generation of liberals was in control of university faculties in the Sixties, we opened the doors to the hiring of radicals in the name of diversity. We thought you would do the same. But you didn’t. You closed the doors behind you.”
Diggins’ observation provides the template for what has happened to American universities in the last thirty years. The liberal academy of the 1950s and 1960s, whose ideals were shaped by Charles Eliot and Matthew Arnold and whose mission was “the disinterested pursuit of knowledge” is no more. Leftists tenured after the 1960s first transformed these institutions into political battlegrounds and then redefined them as “agencies of social change.” In the process, they first defeated and then excluded peers whom they perceived as obstacles to their politicized academic agendas.
Some years ago a distinguished member of this radical generation, Richard Rorty, summarized its achievement in the following words: “The power base of the left in America is now in the universities, since the trade unions have largely been killed off. The universities have done a lot of good work by setting up, for example, African-American studies programs, Women’s Studies programs, Gay and Lesbian Studies programs. They have created power bases for these movements.” Rorty is a professor of philosophy at the University of Virginia and one of the nation’s most honored intellectual figures. He is also an editor of the democratic socialist magazine Dissent and a moderate in the ranks of the left. That such an intellectual should celebrate the conversion of academic institutions into political “power bases” speaks volumes about the tragedy that has befallen the university.
On the occasions of my campus visits, I am always curious to discover the local circumstances that conspire to create a situation so otherwise inexplicable in an open society. How, in particular, does an institution that publicly promotes itself as “liberal” and “inclusive,” as dedicated to “diversity” and the “free exchange of ideas,” devolve into such a political monolith? The conservative history professor who had come to dinner was obviously a senior member of his academic department, which was really the only status a conservative faculty member could have, since the hiring doors had been closed nearly a quarter of a century earlier. So I asked how conservatives like him were treated by faculty colleagues.
Catching my drift he replied, “Well, they haven’t allowed me to sit on a search committee since 1985.” He was referring to the committees that interview prospective candidates to fill faculty openings. “In 1985, he continued, “I was the chair of the search committee and of course we hired a Marxist.” “Of course,” I said, knowing that for conservatives who believed in the traditional mission of academic inquiry, diversity of viewpoints would make perfect sense. Others might be guided by different imperatives. Their very dedication to “social change” would commit them to an agenda, which is about power, and which inspires them to clear rivals from their path.
The professor went on: “This year we had an opening for a scholar of Asian history. We had several candidates but obviously the most qualified one was from Stanford. Yet he didn’t get the job. So I went to the chair of the search committee and asked him what had happened. ‘Oh,’ he said, ‘you’re absolutely right. He was far and away the most qualified candidate and we had a terrific interview. But then we went to lunch and he let out that he was for school vouchers.”
In other words, if one has a politically incorrect view on K-12 school vouchers, one must be politically incorrect on the Ming Dynasty too. This is almost a dictionary description of the totalitarian mentality. But there is more than dogmatism at work in the calculation. The attitude also reflects the priorities of an entrenched oligarchy, which fears to include those it cannot count on to maintain its control.
A certain focus on control is normal for bureaucrats in any institution. But in an institution like the university, whose very structures are elitist, there are few natural limits to such political agendas. Outside the hard sciences and the practical professions, what is the penalty for bad ideas? There is none. Once a discredited dogma like Marxism is legitimated through the hiring process, there is no institutional obstacle to its expansion and entrenchment as a “scholarly” discipline.
The structural support for ideological conformity is intensified by the introduction of overt political agendas. These agendas were originally imported into the university by radicals acting as the self-conscious disciples of an Italian Marxist named Antonio Gramsci. As an innovative Stalinist in the 1930s, Gramsci pondered the historic inability of Communist parties to mobilize workers to seize the means of production and overthrow the capitalist ruling class. Gramsci’s new idea was to focus radicals’ attention on the means of intellectual production as a new lever of social change. He urged radicals to acquire “cultural hegemony,” by which he meant to capture the institutions that produced society’s governing ideas. This would be the key to controlling and transforming the society itself.
To illustrate how ingrained this attitude has become and how casually it is deployed to justify the suppression of conservative ideas, let me cite an e-mail I received from a professor at Emory University. The professor was responding to an article I had written about the abuse of conservative students by administrators at Vanderbilt and the exclusion of conservatives from the Vanderbilt faculty. He was not especially radical, yet he did not have so much as a twinge of conscience at the picture I drew of a faculty cleansed of conservative opinions. “Why do I and other academics have little shame here?” he asked rhetorically, then answered the question: “We are not the only game in the marketplace of ideas. We are competing with journalism, entertainment, churches, political lobbyists, and well-funded conservative think tanks.”
In other words, contemporary academics see themselves not primarily as educators, but as agents of an “adversary culture” at war with the world outside the university. But the university was not created-and is not funded-to compete with other institutions. It is designed to train employees, citizens and leaders of those institutions, and to endow them with appropriate knowledge and skills. Because of its strategic function as an educator of elites however, it can be effectively used in the way Gramsci proposed to subvert other institutions too.
There is an organic connection, for example, between the political bias of the university and the political bias of the press. It was not until journalists became routinely trained in university schools of journalism that mainstream media began to mirror the perspectives of the adversary culture. Universities have become a power base of the political left, and the Emory professor’s argument only makes sense, really, from the vantage of someone so alienated from his own society as to want to subvert it. His suggestion that universities somehow “balance” conservative think tanks of the wealthy is patently absurd. “Well-funded” conservative think tanks may stand in intellectual opposition to subversive agendas, but what wealthy think tank can compete with Harvard, its centuries of tradition, its hundreds of faculty members, its government subsides and its $18 billion, tax-free endowment?
Academics who are not self-conscious radicals may also harbor resentments against the larger culture and be inspired to seek like-minded colleagues. When they are imbued with a sense of social mission that requires ideological cohesion, the result is an intellectual monolith. How monolithic? Last spring I organized college students to investigate the voting registrations of university professors at more than a dozen institutions of higher learning. The students used primary registrations to determine party affiliation. Here is a representative sample:
• At the University of Colorado-a public university in a Republican state-94% of the liberal arts faculty whose party registrations could be established were Democrats and only 4% percent Republicans. Out of 85 professors of English who registered to vote, zero were Republicans. Out of 39 professors of history-one. Out of 28 political scientists-two.
How Republican is Colorado? Its governor, two Senators and four out of six congressmen are Republican. There are 200,000 more registered Republicans in Colorado than there are Democrats. But at the state-funded, University of Colorado, Republicans are a fringe group.
• At Brown University, 94.7% of the professors whose political affiliations showed up in primary registrations last year were Democrats, only 5.3% were Republicans. Only three Republicans could be found on the Brown liberal arts faculty. Zero in the English Department, zero in the History Department, zero in the Political Science Department, zero in the Africana Studies Department, and zero in the Sociology Department.
• At the University of New Mexico, 89% of the professors were Democrats, 7% Republicans and 4% Greens. Of 200 professors, ten were Republicans, but zero in the Political Science Department, zero in the History Department, zero in the Journalism Department and only one each in the Sociology, English, Women’s Studies and African American Studies Departments.
• At the University of California, Santa Barbara, 97% of the professors were Democrats. 1.5% Greens and an equal 1.5% Republicans. Only one Republican professor could be found.
• At the University of California, Berkeley, of the 195 professors whose affiliations showed up, 85% were Democrats, 8% Republicans, 4% Greens and 3% American Independent Party, Peace and Freedom Party and Reform Party voters. Out of 54 professors in the History Department, only one Republican could be found, out of 28 Sociology professors zero, out of 57 English professors zero, out of 16 Women’s Studies professors zero, out of nine African American Studies professors zero, out of six Journalism professors zero.
• At the University of California, Los Angeles, of the 157 professors whose political affiliations showed up 93% were Democrats, only 6.5% were Republicans.
• At the University of North Carolina, the Daily Tar Heel conducted its own survey of eight departments and found that, of the professors registered with a major political party, 91% were Democrats while only 9% were Republicans.
In an ideological universe in which university administrators claim that “diversity” is their priority, these are striking facts. How can students get a good education, if they’re only being told half the story? The answer is, they can’t.
The present academic monolith is an offense to the spirit of free inquiry. The hiring practices that have led to the present situation are discriminatory and illegal. They violate the Constitution, which prevents hiring and firing on the basis of political ideas and patronage laws that bar state institutions from servicing a particular political party. Yet university administrators have not shown any inclination to address this problem, or to reform the practices that perpetuate it. Nor have self-identified “liberal” professors who are themselves the source of the problem. If there is to be reform, it will have to come from other quarters.
his article is taken from our booklet “You Can’t Get a Good Education If They’re Only Telling You Half the Story.” Copies of the full booklet are available for purchase now by calling 1-800-752-6562; and on FrontPageMagazine.com‘s online bookstore.
My Visit to Brandeis
By David Horowitz–Frontpagemag.com–04/03/04
Readers of the New York Times article posted in today’s issue of FrontPagemag.com will appreciate that this is a milestone in the efforts of the academic freedom movement to reform higher education and restore the integrity of the educational mission to our institutions of higher learning. We have changed the original title (“Taking Liberalism Out of Liberal Arts”) because we thought it was misleading. This is a problem of our political lexicon created by the left’s successful determination to hide its totalitarian agendas and history behind the term “liberal.” Actually, the purpose of the academic freedom movement is to restore liberal values — tolerance, inclusion, fairness — to academic institutions where leftists posing as liberals have created an environment that is intolerant, exclusionary and anything but fair.
How so? Last week I was in the Boston area to speak at three liberal colleges, including Brandeis. My speech at Brandeis was scheduled for Tuesday as a climax to Conservative Coming Out Week, an event organized by the College Republicans to show the family flag as it were. College Repubicans at Brandeis are routinely harassed by professors, administrators and students. One out of control academic Gordie Fellman, a sixties radical who never grew up, is the organizer of the Faculty Coalition Against the War. Bad enough to have a professor setting an example of how not to be scholarly or professional. Worse that when conservative students (there appears to be only one conservative professor — and he is not about to demonstrate) organized a counter-protest in favor of the war, Fellman went over to them and called them “freaks.” Fellman is known for making “personal evolution” — a third of a student’s grade. What Fellman seems to mean by this is that students who take his course are expected to evolve into good progressives.
As noted, I was to speak on Tuesday. On Thursday, the administrators in charge of events told my hosts that they could not hold my speech in the “Atrium” as scheduled. The reason given was that the Atrium was an open space and students passing by might be “offended” by what I said. This is a school that rolled out the red carpet for Angela Davis, a lifelong Communist who once received a Lenin Prize from the East German police state. This is a school that boasts about the presence of Dessima Williams on its faculty. Williams is a former member of the Communist dictatorship in Granada, who has not had second thoughts about her politics. The regime came to an end when her political comrade, Bernard Coard who was Minister of Defense, murdered half the cabinet including the pregnant Minister of Education in a coup d’etat. Coard was subsequently removed by the U.S. Marines.
And of course this is a university which appears to think it’s ok to have a professor call his students “freaks” because they disagree with him about the war in Iraq. (It is also, by the way, a university at which a speech to be given by former UN ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick was canceled by the university itself which said it couldn’t guarantee her safety.
The events administrators at Brandeis wanted to shift my speech to a classroom with twenty seats. The College Republicans resisted and it was eventually held in a theater that was closed so that students passing by wouldn’t be offended.
However, prior to the speech professors in three classes, including a Spanish class that devoted a full ten minutes to the subject, warned students not to attend my talk because I was a bad person and would say bad things.
Conservative students at Brandeis and virtually all the other schools I have visited are treated as second class citizens. It is this situation that Students for Academic Freedom was designed to address. We have organized Students for Academic Freedom clubs on 133 campuses and that is just since September. Our website at www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org has been visited 125,000 unique individuals since September as well. We have passed legislation on the Academic Bill of Rights in Georgia and gotten the university system in Colorado to agree to put its protections in place. We have legislation proceeding in 7 other states and the US House of Representatives. And we have made a big enough impact to come to the attention of the Chronicle of Higher Education and the New York Times.
While the Times story is refreshingly fair, it understates the progress we have made. The fact is that the Brown Administration has publicly embraced the inclusion of “intellectual diversity” in its diversity mandate. It has also made good on its promise by providing money to Brown’s College Republicans to bring a conservative speaker to campus after the leftwing student activities board denied the requested funds. I spoke to top administrators at three schools and the Chancellor of Higher Education for Massachusetts while I was in Boston and all agreed to consider including “intellectual diversity” in their diversity programs. When you think about it, it’s pretty difficult for anyone committed to diversity to say no to this request.
My final quibble with the Times story is that it fails to mention that I have answered the Orwellian attack on the Academic Bill of Rights by the American Association of University Professors. You can read my response on our academic freedom website here along with the AAUP statement. The AAUP has posted its own comments but consistent with its leftwing politics has failed to post my response.
California’s Betrayal of Academic Freedom
By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 14, 2004
A study conducted in 2002 by the American Enterprise Magazine at the request of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture showed that of 394 faculty members whose party registrations could be identified at four University of California campuses (Berkeley, UCLA, San Diego and Santa Barbara), 371 were registered Democrats or Greens, as compared to only 23 Republicans or Libertarians. This was true not only for sociology, a traditionally leftwing field, but political science where 94% of party registrations were also on the left.
Such extreme lack of intellectual diversity suggests a problem in the hiring process throughout the U.C. system. There is no possibility that in a nation as evenly divided between liberals and conservatives such a distribution would be statistically possible if there were no bias in the hiring process itself.
Do instructors use the classroom for political indoctrination? There is ample testimony that they do, including a recent book by a recent UCLA graduate (Ben Shapiro, Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America’s Youth, WND 2004). The evidence is available to anyone who takes time to look, from UC’s own websites. Here is a course description that appeared in this year’s UCLA online catalogue. The course in question is the “Fiat Lux Seminar: Honors Collegium 98.” The seminar incorporates “History 19,” and “Public Policy 1284.”
The Fiat Lux Seminar is subtitled “Re-Reading Democracy in America: Politics Before and After 9/11.” It is taught by Professor Vinay Lal, a member of the UCLA History Department. According to the catalogue, there are “two requirements” for students to complete the course — a paper on one of the two class texts and an in-class presentation. Here is how the presentation is described in the UCLA catalogue:
“Requirements: … Each student will also do a succinct class presentation of no more than ten minutes accompanied by a handout (1 pg.). In this presentation, the student will draw upon some aspect of American political, cultural, or social life which has a bearing on the subject matter of the course. For example, a presentation might focus on what the election to California’s governorship of a movie star who has been charged by a dozen women with sexual molestation, drives perhaps the most environmentally unfriendly vehicle in the world, and appeared not to have a single idea about governance says about American “democracy.” Other presentations can focus on corporate ownership of the media, the rise of Fox News, the MTA and grocery chain strikes in Los Angeles, the trade union movements, the presence of African-Americans and Latinos in the US army, the film “Bowling in (sic) Columbine”, the assault on civil liberties, the indefinite detention of hundreds of Muslims without any accountability to notions of justice, or thousands of such phenomena.”
The mere fact that a description like this could appear in a college catalogue – let alone the catalogue of one of America’s premier universities – is evidence of the extensive corruption of the university curriculum by radical ideologues who have debased the academic classroom and turned it into a platform for political agendas. In passing it should be noted that, as governor, Schwarzenegger has the highest approval ratings of any governor in the history of the state. This course description is political argument, which could not be more remote from any pedagogical enterprise or scholarly inquiry. It will not surprise anyone that the text assigned for the Fiat Lux Seminar is Vietnam and Other American Fantasies by H. Bruce Franklin, a notorious radical who in the past has edited (and provided a favorable introduction for) a collection of writings by Joseph Stalin. In the Seventies, Franklin was head of a violent radical group called “Veneremos,” whose activities led to his being fired by Stanford University, an act of academic wisdom, which could not be repeated today.
Professor Lal explains the importance of Franklin’s text in this way: “Though many commentators have unthinkingly rehearsed the cliche that after 9/11 all is changed, our other principal text comes from one of the most respected scholars of American history [Franklin is in fact a Professor of English Literature}, whose relatively recent inquiry into the meaning of the Vietnam war in American life suggests that nothing has changed, insofar as the US remains on course in exercising its ruthless dominance over the rest of the world.” [Emphasis added.]
There is not the slightest indication that this course will present students with alternative viewpoints to this jihadist perspective, or that it will open minds to the complex realities of American democracy. This is a course designed to draw one ideological conclusion, and to indoctrinate students in an extreme leftwing point of view.
Given the pervasive leftwing bias in UC’s academic hiring process, which has gone on for more than thirty years, this travesty of an academic seminar is neither surprising nor unique. The present UC administration is not only willing to tolerate such abuses, it has recently capitulated to the faculty ideologues and eliminated the remaining safeguards of academic integrity from its policy guidelines, and formally accepted the politicization of its teaching programs.
Until this moment, political indoctrination by faculty has been traditionally (and formally) regarded by the American Association of University Professors and all academic administrations as a violation of the educational mission of the university. Until this year, in fact, indoctrination was explicitly recognized by the UC administration as academically unacceptable. Thus rule APM 0-10 of UC Berkeley’s Academic Personnel Manual, written by UC President Robert Gordon Sproul in 1934 stated quite clearly:
“The function of the university is to seek and to transmit knowledge and to train students in the processes whereby truth is to be made known. To convert, or to make converts, is alien and hostile to this dispassionate duty. Where it becomes necessary in performing this function of a university, to consider political, social, or sectarian movements, they are dissected and examined, not taught, and the conclusion left, with no tipping of the scales, to the logic of the facts….Essentially the freedom of a university is the freedom of competent persons in the classroom. In order to protect this freedom, the University assumed the right to prevent exploitation of its prestige by unqualified persons or by those who would use it as a platform for propaganda.”
Unfortunately, these noble words have been honored more in the breach than in the observance for a long time in the UC system. But the mere fact of their existence was annoying to faculty ideologues at Berkeley. Consequently, at the behest of former UC president Richard Atkinson, they were summarily removed this year by a tiny minority of the UC community in a 43-3 vote of the faculty Senate, which took place on July 30. 2003. The academic freedom clause was replaced by another, which essentially said that professors can teach anything they want in the classroom. This is a momentous and ominous event in the life of American universities, and therefore the academic context in which it occurred needs to be understood.
Two incidents precipitated the change in UC policy on academic freedom. The first was the complaint of a student at UC Berkeley that her Middle Eastern studies lecturer had told students that the notorious Czarist forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, was true. The Protocols describes a Jewish plot to control the world and was a document used by the Nazis to justify the extermination of Jews. The student’s complaint was dismissed by university authorities. An official of the UC Academic Senate defended the professor’s preposterous and bigoted statement as coming under the protection of “academic freedom,” and explained the view that was eventually codified in the Academic Personnel Manual as APM 0-15:
“I too had assumed these “Protocols” are a fraud but I am hardly an expert on the subject. [B]ut quite frankly there are many theories in social science I think are pure nonsense that have currency; I guess that is part of the messiness of academic freedom…and we each have our favorite ‘excesses.'” (emphasis added)
It hardly needs to be emphasized that traditionally academic freedom had nothing to do with the propagation of proven forgeries like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as though they were true.
The second incident involved a required freshman English writing class conducted by instructor Snehal Shingavi. Shingavi is the head of the International Socialist Organization, a group that describes itself as “Leninist” and calls for violent revolution. He is also head of Students for Justice in Palestine. Shingavi organized an anti-American demonstration on September 11, 2001 after the World Trade Center attacks and has been arrested for leading illegal and violent demonstrations on campus. Shingavi’s course was called “The Politics and Poetics of Palestinian Resistance,” and was listed in the catalogue along with the warning “Conservative thinkers are encouraged to seek other sections.” This sentence led to public ridicule and outrage. It was removed from the catalogue by university officials, but the course itself was allowed to continue.
When UC President Atkinson introduced the idea of altering the existing academic freedom code he specially mentioned the Shingavi course as an instance of why the existing code (which explicitly disapproved of such courses) was no longer useful in addressing contemporary questions. It was “outdated.” Atkinson’s statement was the university’s formal capitulation to the political forces that have taken over the university. The new guidelines leave the university’s standards in this matter to the Academic Senate, and limit the criterion for what is acceptable in the classroom to academic “competence.” This competence, however, is certified by the credentialing system before the professor enters a classroom. In other words the revision of the guidelines for academic freedom in the UC system is a direct and explicit surrender of the academic curriculum to the political ideologues on the UC faculties. It is an announcement that UC administrators now sanction the political abuse of California’s system of higher education by radical activists who have seized its faculties and who are bent on its exploiting its curriculum for the most extreme agendas of the radical left.
——————————————————————————–
David Horowitz is the author of numerous books including an autobiography, Radical Son, which has been described as “the first great autobiography of his generation,” and which chronicles his odyssey from radical activism to the current positions he holds. Among his other books are The Politics of Bad Faith and The Art of Political War. The Art of Political War was described by White House political strategist Karl Rove as “the perfect guide to winning on the political battlefield.” Horowitz’s latest book, Uncivil Wars, was published in January this year, and chronicles his crusade against intolerance and racial McCarthyism on college campuses last spring. Click here to read more about David
State of the Campus
How to Get an “A” at One Elite School
By David Horowitz–FrontPageMag.com–05/11/05
Close your eyes and lie.
more
An Ill-Bred Professor, and a Bad Situation
By David Horowitz–FrontPageMag.com–04/25/05
How the chairman of the Political Science Department at the University of Hawaii used the occasion of my visit to insult his students.
more
Bowling Green Barbarians
By David Horowitz–Frontpagemag.com–04/04/05
How Communists and college professors tried to stifle my right to free speech.
more
It’s Time for Fairness and Inclusion in Our Universities
By David Horowitz–FrontPageMagazine.com–12/13/04
Two studies have appeared that reveal a serious corruption of the academic enterprise in America and a troubling situation on our campuses.
more
California’s Betrayal of Academic Freedom
By David Horowitz– FrontPageMagazine.com–09/14/04
How the core principles of academic freedom were scuttled to protect anti-Semitic professors.
more
My Visit to Brandeis
By David Horowitz–Frontpagemag.com–04/03/04
Last week I was in the Boston area to speak at three liberal colleges, including Brandeis.
more
My Visit to Brown
By David Horowitz–FrontPageMagazine.com, 11/18/03
In the spring of 2001, I placed an ad in the student paper at Brown giving “Ten Reasons Why Reparations For Slavery Is A Bad Idea – And Racist Too.”
more
Missing Diversity On America’s Campuses
By David Horowitz–FrontPageMagazine.com–09/03/02
In the Fall of 2001, I spoke at a large public university in the eastern United States, which will remain nameless to protect the innocent.
more
Wake Up America: My Visit To Vanderbilt
By David Horowitz–FrontPageMagazine.com–09/04/02
Vanderbilt University is a venerable institution in Nashville and the premier seat of higher learning in the state of Tennessee.
more
Visit To A Small College
By David Horowitz–FrontPageMagazine.com–04/26/99
It’s the season when high school graduates, parents in tow, set out on their tours of ivied campuses, in search of the right investment for their education dollar. This spring I made a parallel tour.
more