Discounting the Facts, Part III · 12 June 2006

By Jacob Laksin


Michael Berube

Mr. Horowitz claims that Professor Berube believes that "religious people were to be regarded simply as irrational." The only evidence Mr. Horowitz cites to back up this claim is this quote from Professor Berube: "In [my] class…we talk about what it means to be an anti-foundationalist-that is, one of those sane, secular people who believe that it's best to operate as if our moral and epistemological principles derive not from divine will or uniform moral law, but from ordinary social practices." (72) As Professor Berube points out, "the fact that most secularists are sane does not mean that people of faith are not."

Notwithstanding Professor Berube's objections, this is in fact the clear implication of his statement.

Mr. Horowitz states that "Professor Berube described the university as 'the final resting place of the New Left,' and the 'progressives' only bulwark against the New Right.'"

He does in exactly those words. Professor Berube objects that he also characterized the university as "the research wing of the corporate economy" and several other things, and that he was reviewing books on the university. This objection is of dubious relevance. The university is a big place and the fact that its business schools can be described one way and its liberal arts schools another does not in the least affect the accuracy of the quote. These are Berube's characterizations and he doesn't challenge them. If he did not agree with the statements why would he not say so in his response to The Professors?

Mr. Horowitz goes on to claim that Professor Berube believes "Critics of this definition-in particular those who failed to regard 'feminist or queer theory as a legitimate area of scholarship'-were only perpetuating 'ignorance and injustice.'" (73) The two quotes above appear in separate paragraphs; Mr. Horowitz splices them together. In the first quote, Professor Berube is reviewing a book of essays and summarizing the work of other authors, not describing his own views.

To judge by the remainder of Professor Berube's essay, he does indeed agree with those views.

Here is the full context [i.e., Berube's actual statement]: "The picture is complicated still further by Greta Gaard's account of anti-lesbian intellectual harassment, Mary Wilson Carpenter's essay on ageism and antifeminism, and Elaine Ginsberg and Sara Lennox's analysis of antifeminism in scholarship and publishing. For one thing, the perpetrators of antifeminist intellectual harassment in each of these contexts can be women: whether it's a senior female administrator who refuses to regard feminist or queer theory as a legitimate area of scholarship, or the Sommers- Paglia-Roiphe crew dismissing nearly every kind of feminism since 1848."

The second quote ("ignorance and injustice") comes from the paragraph preceding the one above: "'What I truly believe,' Shaw said in 1994, 'is that second-rate traditionalist scholarship is ultimately more valuable to the country than first-rate feminist works' (5). Now, does this qualify as behavior that creates an environment in which feminist work is devalued? Absolutely. Is there anything we can do about it except to protest its ignorance and injustice? In a free society, absolutely not."

The added (tedious) context serves only to support the description of Professor Berube's views of feminism's critics. It is clear that, according to Professor Berube, those critics who question feminism's credentials as a scholarly discipline are guilty of "ignorance and injustice." This a telling insight into Professor Berube's intolerance of opinions at odds with his own.

Mr. Horowitz claims that "As Professor Berube himself acknowledges, his literature classes often have little to do with literature. For instance, a class he has taught for years, 'Postmodernism and American Fiction,' is merely a forum for the professor to dilate on the 'anti-foundationalist philosophy' of radical philosopher Richard Rorty." First, Mr. Horowitz has never sat in on Professor Berube's class, nor does not he cite any evidence from anyone who has to back up his claim. Second, Professor Berube has not acknowledged that "his literature classes often have little to do with literature," as Mr. Horowitz claims. The only evidence Mr. Horowitz cites to back up his claim is an essay by Professor Berube that appeared in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Contrary to Mr. Horowitz's claim, in the third sentence of this essay, Professor Berube states, "I usually assign a range of contemporary novelists, from well-known figures like Thomas Pynchon, Kathy Acker, and Toni Morrison to relatively unsung writers like Richard Grossman (author of The Alphabet Man and The Book of Lazarus) and Randall Kenan (A Visitation of Spirits). I also assign a packet or two of contemporary critical theorists-the authors of postmodernism's greatest hits (Fredric Jameson, Jean Baudrillard, Jean-Francois Lyotard), as well as some of its more trenchant critics (Nancy Fraser, Andreas Huyssen)."

The fact that David Horowitz has never sat in on Professor Berube's class is irrelevant, since the professor essentially admits that his course is exactly what Horowitz says it is: an extended discourse on post-modern theory long on radical criticism and short on actual literature. Professor Berube's contention that he also assigns a small selection of (mostly minor) novels, as well as supplemental readings from radical feminists like Nancy Fraser, does nothing to undermine the criticism and much to corroborate it. As previously noted, Professor Berube has been held to task for his attitude towards in-class activism by Stanley Fish, a noted liberal academic, in Fish's polemic against ideology in the classroom, Professional Correctness.

"[Mr. Horowitz] knows nothing about my classroom demeanor or my record as a faculty member; he simply cherry-picked a few phrases from a couple of my essays, and did it incompetently…. If he were a college student and tried to get away with this garbage, he would indeed be flunked-not for his conservatism, but for his mendacity."

The only observation The Professors makes about Professor Berube's "classroom demeanor" is to point out the fact -- which he does not dispute -- that he does not hesitate to introduce his anti-religious prejudices into the classroom. As for the notion that the criticisms in The Professors were "cherry-picked," it is refuted by the fact that Professor Berube has consistently defended the politicization of university curricula in various venues, not least in an article that he now suggests, falsely, says nothing of the sort.

These are all the charges made by "Facts Count" and Michael Berube against the profile of Professor Berube in The Professors.

Elizabeth Brumfiel

Mr. Horowitz writes that Professor Elizabeth Brumfiel "called on anthropology scholars to take a leading role as anthropologists against the Iraq War." Mr. Horowitz cites no evidence to back up this claim. Professor Brumfiel responds, "I have not 'called on anthropology scholars to take a leading role as anthropologists against the Iraq War.'"

Mr. Horowitz claims, "As a self-conscious leftist working within the tradition of political Marxism, Brumfiel obviously has no problem with blurring the distinction between scholarship and politics." The only evidence Mr. Horowitz cites to back up this characterization is this quote from Professor Brumfiel, which does not seem to support his claim: "In what contexts will scientists be willing to develop weapons of mass destruction and to test them on human subjects without their knowledge or consent, as they did during the Cold War? And how do economic pressures, political pressures and a climate of patriotism discourage scientists from engaging in anti-war and anti-weapons advocacy? The contextual nature of human action and the impact of politics and economics on science are important messages for anthropologists to communicate to scientists and to the public. With increased participation by anthropologists... these messages can reach wider audience, which would benefit science, public policy, and anthropology." (80)

Professor Brumfiel's denials will not withstand scrutiny. As noted in The Professors, Brumfiel used her role as the president of American Anthropological Association (AAA), the leading professional association of American anthropology scholars, to urge anthropologists to explore how "economic pressures, political pressures and a climate of patriotism discourage scientists from engaging in anti-war and anti-weapons advocacy." [28] Considering that each of these areas reside outside the scope of anthropology, and that their connection to scholarship is questionable at best, it is clear that Professor Brumfiel was urging anthropologists to take a leading role in publicizing anti-war views and consequently blurring the distinction between scholarship and politics. Furnishing further evidence for this charge, Brumfiel also wrote that anthropologists should play a more active role in spreading anti-war messages: "With increased participation by anthropologists…these messages can reach a wider audience, which would benefit science, public policy and anthropology." [29] The book provides a footnote to the AAA website where Brumfiel's views originally appeared, so the authors' claim that it "cites no evidence" in support of its summary of Brumfiel's views must be construed as another falsehood.

These are all the charges made by "Facts Count" and Elizabeth Brumfiel against the profile of Professor Brumfiel in TheProfessors.

Kathleen Cleaver

After listing several articles whose content Mr. Horowitz believes disqualifies Professor Cleaver from holding her position, Mr. Horowitz writes that Professor Kathleen Cleaver "has no qualifications to teach at a major law school." (91)

As Professor Cleaver points out, she is a member of Phi Beta Kappa, holds a law degree from Yale University, and has clerked for the late Judge A. Leon Higginbotham, senior judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (and recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom). These types of qualifications-a degree from a top law school and an appellate court clerkship-are the same as those of scores of professors at major law schools across the country, but Mr. Horowitz fails to mention them.

David Horowitz is a member of Phi Beta Kappa and holds an M.A. degree in English literature. He also wrote a book on Shakespeare. By Professor Cleaver's reasoning, this would qualify him to be an English professor. A law degree does not qualify one to teach at a major law school or even to practice law. Nor is clerking for a judge (particularly a judge like the late Higginbotham, an ideologue who denounced conservative legal theory as racist) a sufficient qualification in itself. A professor at a leading law school is expected to have a record of legal scholarship. As The Professors demonstrates, Professor Cleaver does not even come close:

Cleaver has not one scholarly book or even article to her name. Her only publication in a legal journal is an article that appeared in the Yale Journal of Law an Humanities (1998): "Mobilizing in Paris for Mumia Abu Jamal," but this is a memoir not legal scholarship. In her academic bibliography, she lists op-ed columns in the Los Angeles Times, an "Open Letter to Julius Lester" printed in the National Guardian, and an article she wrote in the 1960s for the New Left magazine Ramparts, "On Eldridge Cleaver." [30]

The fact that Professor Cleaver lists a letter to the editor as a scholarly publication on her official university site would seem to indicate that she is ill-qualified to judge what a scholarly publication is.

Professor Cleaver adds, "[Mr. Horowitz] does not in any way deal with what I teach, which happens to be 'American Legal History: The Law of Slavery and Anti-Slavery,' and has absolutely no information from my course, my classes, etc."

This claim is demonstrably false and strongly suggests that Professor Clever did not trouble to familiarize herself with the book she finds so objectionable. Contrary to Professor Cleaver's allegations, The Professors points out that, "Cleaver's understanding of history and law fairly bristles with her political views. Even today, she has written, 'racist and white supremacist and exploitative practices are engrained' in American society and government. According to Cleaver, the 'inability to treat black people in a human fashion' has become 'part of the identity of the United States.'" [31] The book goes on to point out that "[t]hese extreme ideas make up the substance of Cleaver's seminar on the law of slavery and anti-poverty," [32] something Professor Cleaver openly admits. [33] The book additionally documents that Cleaver's politics "also figure in her other courses at Emory, most prominently her course 'American Legal History: Citizen and Race.'" [34]

These are all the charges made by "Facts Count" and Kathleen Cleaver against the profile of Professor Cleaver in The Professors.

Dana Cloud

Mr. Horowitz portrays Professor Dana Cloud as an "anti-American radical" who "routinely repeats the propaganda of the Saddam regime"; along with all the other professors in his book, Mr. Horowitz accuses her of the "explicit introduction of political agendas into the classroom."

Since this challenges none of the criticisms of Professor Cloud in The Professors, presumably the Free Exchange authors mean that the letter of one of Professor Cloud's students, which they cite in full, can be counted as a serious rebuttal. But the letter contains only one sentence that offers a substantive objection to the book: "It is painfully and pathetically obvious that Mr. Horowitz did not have the intellectual honesty nor the journalistic integrity to interview any of Dr. Cloud's students before writing his hit piece."

Personal attacks aside, the fact that the author did not interview Professor Cloud's students is immaterial to the criticisms set forth in the book. Indeed it is not even clear that the student has read the book, since she seems unaware of any of the specific points it makes. Had she taken the trouble to do so, she would have found that those criticisms are fully substantiated. As the book clearly demonstrates, Professor Cloud, as a member of the Leninist International Socialist Organization who blames the 9-11 terrorist attacks on the United States, is indisputably an anti-American radical. And in so far as she blames anti-American terrorism on U.S. support for Israel, and has held U.N. economic sanctions responsible for the brutality of Saddam Hussein's tyrannical regime, she plainly parrots pro-Saddam propaganda. [35]

Finally, the Free Exchange authors' claim that the book charges Professor Cloud with the "explicit introduction of political agendas into the classroom" is either careless mistake or a willful distortion of what the book in fact says. The phrase, which appears only once in the book, comes not from Professor Cloud's profile but from a later chapter titled "The Representative Nature of the Professors." The full paragraph reads:

Thus the problems revealed in this text--the explicit introduction of political agendas into the classroom, the lack of professionalism in conduct, and the decline in professional standards--appear to be increasingly widespread throughout the academic profession and at virtually every type of institution of higher learning. [36]

It should be clear that this paragraph is an overview of the broader themes covered in the book and not, as the report misleadingly suggests, a criticism of Dana Cloud specifically. On the other hand, the following is Dana Cloud's own description of the course in "Communications and Social Change" she gives at the University of Texas. Readers may judge for themselves whether it has a political agenda:

The main purpose of this class is to encourage your engagement with the tradition and ongoing practice of movement for social change in the United States. I believe this goal requires some history so that we can become familiar with the ways in which social change agents have used communication-from oratory to the internet-to raise awareness of injustice, demand redress, mobilize others in the cause, and prompt other kinds of direct action including civil disobedience and strikes. This historical knowledge is key to understanding the renaissance of social movements going on around us today-from the WTO to the University Staff Association. After the historical survey of social movements, the second part of the course asks you to become involved as an observer and/or as a participant in a local social movement. We will specifically address two prominent causes locally, the movement against the death penalty and the movement of University staff for higher wages and better treatment. We will also discuss some other current social movements including the fight against corporate globalization and the movement against sanctions in Iraq.

The guiding questions for the course are (1) How does social change happen? And (2) How can we use communication to intervene effectively and with integrity in the process of social change? [37]

These are all the charges made by "Facts Count" against the profile of Professor Cloud in The Professors.

Marc Ensalaco

The criticisms of Horowitz's treatment of Marc Ensalaco are answered in the response to the Executive Summary above. They are all the charges made by "Facts Count" and Marc Ensalaco against the profile of Professor Ensalaco in The Professors.

Larry Estrada

Mr. Horowitz claims that Professor Larry Estrada "believes that 'Aztlan' should secede from the United States," based on Professor Estrada's membership in the group MEChA. (154) As Professor Estrada responds, "I've never advocated secession. Certain right-wingers accuse people of that, because if you're a member of MEChA, they throw the Aztlan thing at you. MEChA doesn't advocate secession…. the bulk of MEChA members are proud to be both Latino and Americans."

One need hardly be a "right-winger" to see that MEChA is perfectly candid about its secessionist aims. The "Plan Espiritual de Aztlan," a foundational document adopted by MEChA in 1969--the year Estrada joined the organization-- states: "Once we are committed to the idea and philosophy of El Plan de Aztlán, we can only conclude that social, economic, cultural, and political independence is the only road to total liberation from oppression, exploitation, and racism." Similarly, Article II, Section 1 of MEChA's constitution makes clear that "general membership shall consist of any student who accepts, believes and works for the goals and objectives of MEChA, including the liberation of AZTLAN, meaning self-determination of our people in this occupied state and the physical liberation of our land."

Mr. Horowitz claims that Professor Estrada "used his position as the National Association of Ethnic Studies head to defend Colorado professor Ward Churchill." (154) Professor Estrada responds, "I do not condone [Churchill's] words on 9/11. I defend his right to say what he wants to say as an academic. The inference that I agree with his analogy is totally fallacious."

The book makes no "inferences." Here is what the book actually says: "Professor Estrada had no patience for claims that Churchill's statements were extreme or that his academic record was questionable." [38] This statement is documented with evidence. For instance, rather than condemning Churchill's notorious article, which likened the victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks to Nazis, on at least one occasion Professor Estrada went so far as to suggest that Churchill had made an important contribution to scholarship, one that deserved serious attention, not admonition. "Churchill is really getting a bad rap for what he was trying to do, which was to explain why events like 9/11 transpired," Estrada said in February of 2005. In claiming that he defended only Churchill's free-speech rights (which were never in question) Professor Estrada is misrepresenting his past statements.

Mr. Horowitz calls Professor Larry Estrada a "radical ethnic separatist." Professor Estrada responds, "Most would consider me a moderate in terms of my political viewpoints…"

As noted above, Professor Estrada's membership in and continued support for MEChA, a Chicano separatist organization motivated by explicitly ethnic goals, fully supports this description of the professor.

These are all the charges made by "Facts Count" and Larry Estrada against the profile of Professor Estrada in The Professors.

Matthew Evangelista

Mr. Horowitz claims that Professor Matthew Evangelista "has predicated an entire course around his idiosyncratic account of the Cold War's end." The only evidence Mr. Horowitz offers for this characterization is the course description below. Readers can decide for themselves whether this course represents an "idiosyncratic account of the Cold War's end."

This class examines the origins, course, and ultimate demise of this conflict that pitted the United States and NATO against the Soviet Union and its allies. It seeks to evaluate the competing explanations that political scientists and historians have put forward to explain the Cold War by drawing on the new evidence that has become available. The course considers political, economic, and strategic aspects of the Cold War, including the nuclear arms race, with particular focus on the link between domestic and foreign policy in the United States and the Soviet Union. The course emphasizes writing, and includes a final research paper for which students will use original archival materials.

The key aspect of the above course description is the nebulous allusion to the "link between domestic and foreign policy in the United States and the Soviet Union." As demonstrated in The Professors, this theme figures prominently in Professor Evangelista's academic writings about the Cold War, where it is interpreted to mean that efforts by the US to arm itself against the Soviet threat were primarily responsible for prolonging the Cold War. In light of the fact that the historical consensus holds precisely the opposite -- namely that Soviet aggression rather than American self-defense was the primary engine of the Cold War -- it seems accurate to describe his account as "distinctive."

Mr. Horowitz writes that Professor Matthew Evangelista "published an article blaming the United States for Saddam's criminal regime: 'If Saddam Hussein is a monster … then the United States is in many respects his Dr. Frankenstein.'"

The full quote is: "If Saddam Hussein is a monster, as hardly anyone would doubt, the United States is in many respects his Dr. Frankenstein."

The point of the quote is that the United States created the monster. The more monstrous the monster, the more culpable is the United States. Citing the quote in full obviously does not change its meaning.

As Professor Evangelista goes on to explain, this metaphor is based on the widely accepted knowledge that the United States government provided critical financial and military assistance to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, much of which helped strengthen Saddam's regime.

It is also "widely accepted knowledge" that Saddam's main financial and military supporters were France, Russia, Germany, China and Egypt. Professor Evangelista's unwillingness to acknowledge these facts is part and parcel of his view that the United States is Saddam's Dr. Frankenstein and strengthens the criticism of his work in The Professors: his tendency dramatically to exaggerate alleged wrongdoing by the United States while papering over evidence inconsistent with his political prejudices. This tendency is evident in the 2002 article from which the above quote is taken, and in which Professor Evangelista leveled the ludicrous charge (also recorded in The Professors) that in planning to oust the regime of Saddam Hussein "the United States intends to continue its military domination of the world". [39]

Mr. Horowitz claims that "In February 2003, Professor Evangelista played a key role in organizing a series of anti-war events called 'Week against War.'"

Mr. Horowitz cites no evidence to back up this claim. Professor Evangelista responds, "I have, in fact, not played an organizing role in any of Cornell's anti-war events, but I have accepted invitations to speak at them. I do organize weekly seminars for the Peace Studies program, but these are of an academic rather than activist character, contrary to Mr. Horowitz's insinuations."

Here is what The Professors actually says: "In February 2003, Professor Evangelista played a key role in organizing a series of anti-war events called 'Week against War.' To mark the event, Professor Evangelista lent his signature to an anti-war declaration by Cornell faculty members. Called 'An Appeal to Cornell Faculty, Staff and Graduate Students in a Time of War,' it urged 'Cornell faculty and instructional staff to make class time available during the week of February 10-14 to discuss issues relating to the war in Iraq.'" [40]

As should be apparent to any objective reader, the anti-war letter was the document that announced the onset of "Week against War." Perhaps the phrase "key role" was misleading. But for Professor Evangelista to now protest that he played no organizing role in the anti-war events is only marginally less truthful than the Free Exchange authors' transparently false accusation that the book provides "no evidence to back up this claim."

Mr. Horowitz claims that Professor Evangelista once "suggested that the terrorists were avenging the grievances of the oppressed." His claim is based entirely on this quote from Professor Evangelista: "We should separate those who sympathize with some of the same concerns as the terrorists from those who are actually willing to carry it out." Professor Evangelista responds, Mr. Horowitz's characterization is "a view that I have never expressed in language that I would never use."

The quote originally appeared in a article ("Today's Lesson: Peace at Any Price," October 2002) by Professor Joseph Sabia, then a graduate student and journalist at Cornell, who attended the teach-in and reported Professor Evangelista's remark. Professor Sabia stands by what he wrote.

Mr. Horowitz states that "during a discussion of Iraq with Cornell faculty members, Professor Evangelista declared that the planned American bombing attacks [on Iraq] would make American forces look like "war criminals.'" Professor Evangelista's full statement contains and important qualifiers that Mr. Horowitz leaves out. What Professor Evangelista actually said is that if the United States were to proceed specifically with Operation Shock and Awe, "we are more likely to be viewed by the Iraqi people as war criminals, not liberators."

The extended quote does nothing to undermine the book's observation that Professor Evangelista made some "overwrought predictions about American intentions" in Iraq. American forces did proceed with the "Shock and Awe" campaign and, contrary to Professor Evangelista's claims, were indeed greeted as liberators upon the fall of Baghdad. [41]

Mr. Horowitz refers to the "overtly one-sided character of his [Professor Matthew Evangelista's] teaching." Mr. Horowitz cites no evidence to back up this claim. Mr. Horowitz has never sat in on any of Professor Evangelista's classes, nor does he cite any evidence from anyone who has. Professor Evangelista responds, "If anything, my students become rather frustrated with my unwillingness to tell them 'the right answer.' Instead, my teaching style emphasizes contending explanations for political phenomena and my courses air a wide range of views, including presentations by guest speakers. Several of my students and advisees over the years have been members of Cornell's ROTC program or serving military officers and none has ever complained about any political bias on my part."

As would be clear to any fair-minded person who bothered to read The Professors, it does indeed contain evidence of the one-sided nature of Professor Evangelista's courses. For instance, the book discusses his course, "Gender, Nationalism, and War", "which takes as its subject the 'relevance of gender to nationalism, conflict, and war,' and explores the 'political formation of gender identity." [42] In common with other similar courses analyzed in the book, the entire foundation of the course is not academic inquiry but a narrowly conceived brand of left-wing identity politics. One does not have to sit in on Professor Evangelista's course to learn that obvious fact. Moreover, considering that the professor's course requires students to view issues of war and conflict through the ideological lens of "gender" politics, the professor's claim that he "emphasizes contending explanations for political phenomena" and that his "courses air a wide range of views" is difficult to credit.

Mr. Horowitz claims that "Evangelista's opinion will naturally carry great weight within his faculty, both regarding the hiring and the promotion of future scholars, for decades to come." Mr. Horowitz appears to base this claim entirely on his own knowledge of universities' hiring and promotion practices. From Mr. Horowitz's credentials, it appears that he is neither an expert on academia nor an academic himself, nor does he explain why his opinion on these matters merits his readers' credence. Professor Evangelista responds, "This contention reflects a naïve and uninformed perspective on how such decisions are made in academic departments. In my case, for example, I am one of several dozen people contributing to the department's decisions. Even if I judged colleagues or potential colleagues on the basis of their adherence to my own political views-a charge for which Mr. Horowitz would be hard pressed to find the slightest evidence-I have only one vote and there are several subsequent evaluations above the level of our department that help assure that such decisions are made according to the faculty members' teaching and research qualifications, not their political affiliations."

David Horowitz replies: "The comment about my lack of expertise on the influence tenured faculty is typical of the tendentiousness of the Free Exchange authors' attack. They don't deny that what I said is true. If it's true (as it most assuredly is) why would my credentials be an issue? As it happens, this book was vetted in its entirety by a full professor at a major university who has chaired tenure committees. As professor Evangelista knows, Department chairs and the search committees they appoint have far more weight in determining who is hired than the rest of the department. See my account of the hiring process in chapter 4 of The Professors. Professor Evangelista does not mention this account and probably hasn't read it. He certainly doesn't refute it. Finally, if, as Professor Evangelista claims, politics doesn't enter into hiring decisions, how does he account for the fact that conservatives are so scarce on his faculty?"

A full professor at a major university further points out that Professor Evangelista's claim that he has only one vote, while technically true, is disingenuous. The professor observes: "Professor Evangelista may have only one vote, but he is a full professor and a quite famous figure. It is naive in the extreme to think that all he has is one vote--it's technically true but disingenuous, given his career. It's naive to think that his opinion isn't listened to very seriously by others; that he doesn't express it forcefully; or that he is treated as junior faculty (assistant professors), or even as an ordinary associate professor. In my own Department, for instance, Professor X and Professor Y are quite famous Americanists -- the most prominent people in the Department. Their opinions sway many people in meetings (and--very importantly--before meetings), and among those swayed is the Dean of our College. In fact, they have determined who is here on the faculty in American History although technically (to be sure) they each had only one vote, and this is true whether or not they even served on the search committee. Those are political facts."

These are all the charges made by "Facts Count" and Matthew Evangelista against the profile of Professor Evangelista in The Professors.

Richard Falk

Mr. Horowitz claims that Professor Richard Falk was once "an enthusiastic supporter of the Islamic radical, the Ayatollah Khomeni whom he hailed as a 'liberator' of Iran." Mr. Horowitz cites no evidence to back up this claim. Professor Falk responds, "I never described Khomeini as a 'liberator' of Iran…In fact, I was chair of a committee that was seeking to protect human rights in Iran against the excesses of the Khomeini leadership."

Whether or not Professor Falk used these precise words to describe Ayatollah Khomeini, there can be little doubt that he viewed him as a liberator. It was Professor Falk, after all, who insisted in a notorious 1979 op-ed in the New York Times that the "depiction of Khomeini as fanatical, reactionary, and the bearer of crude prejudices seems certainly and happily false," and that "Iran may yet provide us with a desperately-needed model of humane government for a Third World country." Of Khomeini's followers, Professor Falk claimed at the time that they "were uniformly composed of moderate progressive individuals" and had a "notable record of concern for human rights." Little wonder that the Middle East expert Martin Kramer, a onetime student at Princeton, recalls Professor Falk as "the leading campus enthusiast of the Ayatollah Khomeini." [43] Professor Falk's attempt at historical revisionism is understandable, given the disastrous consequences of the Iranian revolution he enthusiastically cheered. But it does not make him a credible critic.

Mr. Horowitz claims that Professor Falk "is a longtime prominent member of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL)-a Communist front group." Mr. Horowitz cites no evidence to back up this claim. Professor Falk responds, "I never was a member of the IADL, although I gave some talks under their auspices." Mr. Horowitz fails to makes this distinction.

If Professor Falk says he was never actually a member of the IADL, this statement is in error. However, his admitted affiliation with the IADL -- an organization that once served the interests of the Soviet Union and today defends Islamic terrorism -- is itself a revealing commentary on his radical political views, which are supported by additional evidence detailed in The Professors.

These are all the charges made by "Facts Count" and Richard Falk against the profile of Professor Falk in The Professors.

Gordon Fellman

Mr. Horowitz quotes Professor Gordon Fellman as writing, "Making war is for the imagination challenged, it only reasserts masculinity," and draws the conclusion, "Apparently Professor Fellman views masculinity as an undesirable trait." Professor Fellman responds, "Mr. Horowitz has my comment about war and masculinity exactly wrong. My claim is that a certain kind of masculinity expresses itself in violence, including war. There are other kinds of masculinity out there. Think of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama. I prefer masculinity that is life affirming, as that of those great leaders was, to that which is life-denying. I meant my remark to refer to the most common or traditional form of masculinity. There are others."

Professor Fellman's quote speaks for itself. His subsequent qualifications, which disprove nothing at all in the book, do nothing to enhance Professor Fellman's credibility as an academic. Professor Fellman evidently thinks that the only admirable form of masculinity expresses itself in a political commitment to doctrinaire pacifism. Male students enrolled in his Peace, Conflict, and Coexistence Studies Program at Brandeis would be well advised to take note that if they believe war can sometimes be a means of achieving peace they are "life-denying" and will never make great leaders. In this context, Professor Fellman's inclusion of Nelson Mandela among the ranks of supposedly "life affirming" leaders is particularly ironic. Mandela after all was the founder of the Umkhonto we Sizwe, the militant wing of the African National Congress that carried out terrorist attacks against civilian whites and Africans, and has never wavered in his commitment to "armed struggle." But in the land where ideology is king, facts are dispensable.

Mr. Horowitz claims that Professor Fellman "is notorious for grading his students subjectively." Mr. Horowitz cites no evidence to back up this claim. Professor Fellman responds, "That criticism never appeared in any of the course evaluations I've seen."

The Free Exchange authors' assertion that the book provides no evidence that Professor Fellman grades his students subjectively is not only false but, one suspects, intentionally false, since the evidence appears in the same sentence from which the above quote is taken and which notes that Professor Fellman makes "'personal evolution' in class, i.e., the assimilation of his perspective on the world, count for one-third of the grade." [44] This was the complaint made personally to David Horowitz by one of Professor Fellman's former students. (According to students Horowitz interviewed, Fellman also called students who supported the war in Iraq "freaks.") The student dropped Fellman's course after learning about the "personal evolution" component on the not unreasonable fear that agreement with Professor Fellman's politics would be required in the course. This would also explain why the student never filled out a course evaluation.

Professor Fellman adds: "Mr. Horowitz understands so little about what higher education is about. It is not about going to college to have every assumption you brought there confirmed by the college process. Being challenged in one's basic assumptions about just about everything is a classic function of higher education. It is ironic that Horowitz criticizes the procedures of an institution about whose purposes and traditions he seems to grasp so little."

David Horowitz replies: "Since the Academic Bill of Rights and the intellectual diversity campaign are designed to ensure that students hear more than one side of an issue, it is obvious that it is Professor Fellman doesn't know what he is talking about."

These are all the charges made by "Facts Count" and Gordon Fellman against the profile of Professor Fellman in TheProfessors.

Eric Foner

Mr. Horowitz claims, "Professor Foner participated in an anti-war 'teach in' at Columbia University, where he invoked Communist Party icon Paul Robeson as a model of patriotism." The Robeson quote Professor Foner used is, "The patriot is the person who is never satisfied with his country." Professor Foner responds, "I wonder how Mr. Horowitz explains that if Robeson is an enemy of America, the postal service recently issued a stamp in his honor."

Professor Foner's reply, like much of what he writes, is a calculated evasion. The words "enemy of America" appear nowhere in the book. Instead the book fills in the historical context that Professor Foner seems determined to ignore: "Robeson, a recipient of the Stalin Peace Prize, had made headlines in the early Cold War by proclaiming that 'American Negroes' would not fight to defend American in a war against the Soviet Union.'" [45] Robeson, a lifelong Communist, was unsatisfied with his country because he was loyal to the Soviet Union. Yet this is the man that Professor Foner held up as a model of patriotism.

Referring to the same teach-in at Columbia, Mr. Horowitz writes, "Professor Foner had been preceded on the podium by fellow Columbia professor Nicholas DeGenova, who told the 3,000 students and faculty in attendance, 'The only true heroes are those who would find ways that help defeat the U.S. military. I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus.'" Mr. Horowitz fails to mention that Professor Foner "publicly reprimanded De Genova, calling his statements idiotic."

This is a fair comment, although The Professors neither claims nor implies that Professor Foner endorsed the content of DeGenova's remarks.

Mr. Horowitz quotes a negative review of Professor Eric Foner's work by the intellectual historian John Patrick Diggins, in which Diggins describes Foner as "'an unabashed apologist for the Soviet system and an unforgiving historian of America.'" Mr. Horowitz fails to mention that in the same article, Diggins writes, "Professor Foner himself, I happily hasten to add, has been willing to hire and support teachers of differing ideological loyalties, and in his remarkable academic career he has been more professional than political, a gentleman scholar rather than an academic apparatchik."

This objection is irrelevant since Professor Foner's personal relationship with his fellow academics is not at issue and, in any case, Horowitz disagrees with Diggins's evaluation of Foner's hiring practices, observing that there are no conservatives on the history faculty at Columbia. What the book contends, and what John Diggins, as well as historians like Theodore Draper (also cited in the book) confirm, is that Professor Foner's ongoing historical project has been the rehabilitation of the Communist legacy, both in the United States and in the late Soviet Union.

Mr. Horowitz claims that following the 9/11 attacks, "Professor Foner focused not on the atrocity itself but on what he perceived to be the threat of an American response" - based on an essay that someone else wrote but which Mr. Horowitz attributes to Professor Foner…. Confronted with this error, Mr. Horowitz blamed it on the fact that his book was "the work of 30 researchers" and stated that it did not change the content of his profile on Professor Foner.

Here is what David Horowitz actually wrote:

The article is correct about the error. The question is how did it happen and how does it affect the validity of the profile of Foner in my book.

As I pointed out in the introduction to The Professors, the 101 profiles were the work of thirty researchers. In these circumstances, juxtaposing a quote - which is clearly what happened -- is not too difficult a possibility to imagine. The Foner quote and the [erroneous] quote appeared in sequence on a page in the London Review of Books which was referenced in The Professors, and during the many revisions of the manuscript that's how the error was made.

Now for the really important question: Does this error affect the claim made about Professor Foner in my profile?

This is how the quote is introduced in my text (the claim I make is marked in boldface type: "On October 4, 2001 following the attack on the World Trade Center, Professor Foner contributed to a London Review of Books symposium of reactions to the atrocity. In his contribution, Professor Foner focused not on the atrocity itself but on what he perceived to be the threat of an American response:"

What followed in my text as it appeared in the printed book was the [erroneous] quote. Here are two paragraphs from the actual Foner quote as it appeared in The London Review of Books:

"I'm not sure which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House. 'We will rid the world of evil-doers,' President Bush announces as he embarks on an open-ended 'crusade' (does he understand the historical freight this word carries?) against people who 'hate us because we are free.' This Manichean vision of the world, so deeply rooted in our Puritan past and evangelical present, is daily reinforced by the media as an emblem of national resolve….

"One remarkable result of the crisis has been the Bush Administration's sudden transformation from isolationists to internationalists. An Administration that for months disdained world opinion on issues like global warming, missile defense, and global arms sales now finds itself trying to construct an international coalition. Already, newspapers are reporting that our European allies are unenthusiastic about the prospect of an open-ended war against the Islamic world. Americans reluctant to embark on an armed 'crusade' to rid the world of evil are now relying on our allies to impose some restraint on the White House."

I think a fair minded reader will agree that the actual Foner quote provides an even stronger support for the claim I make about Foner in the text, than the Foot quote which was erroneously substituted for it. (That it was my intention to cite the authentic quote will be evident to anyone familiar with my book Unholy Alliance where it is cited as Foner's reaction to 9/11.) In other words, the error in my book is an inconsequential one and does not affect the accuracy of its portrait of Professor Foner. Readers can judge themselves whether this is a reason for dismissing my work as Foner advises. And they can judge his honesty by the same measure.

These are all the charges made by "Facts Count" and Eric Foner against the profile of Professor Foner in The Professors.

Todd Gitlin

Mr. Horowitz writes, "In an article titled 'Varieties of Patriotism,' Professor Gitlin recently reflected upon the decades he has spent harboring the belief that his country is ultimately unworthy of his respect and even allegiance." (195)

As Professor Gitlin responds, the argument of his essay was "exactly the contrary." In the essay in question, Professor Gitlin writes, "I distinguish between the country that is worthy of respect and allegiance and the government policies that are not."

Professor Giltin is misrepresenting his own writings. The Professors goes on to note that in the abovementioned essay Professor Gitlin "traced the root of that sentiment back to the fires of the Vietnam War. 'For a large block of Americans my age and younger,' he writes, 'too young to remember World War II--the generation for whom 'the war' meant Vietnam and possibly always would, to the end of our days the case against patriotism was not an abstraction. There was a powerful experience underlying it: as powerful an eruption of our feelings as the experience of patriotism is supposed to be for patriots. Indeed, it could be said that in the course of our history we experienced a very odd turn about: The most powerful public emotion in our lives was rejecting patriotism.' Coming of age in the era of the Vietnam War, then, was the perceived cause of what Professor Gitlin described, on another occasion, as his persistent sense of 'estrangement,' 'shame,' and 'anger at being attached to a nation.'" [46]

After the September 11 attacks, however, Professor Gitlin once again found himself questioning his allegiance to his country. In the same article, he went on to write, "By the time George W. Bush declared war without end against an 'axis of evil' that no other nation on earth was willing to recognize as such - indeed, against whomever the president might determine we were at war against,…and declared further the unproblematic virtue of pre-emptive attacks, and made it clear that the United States regarded itself as a one-nation tribunal of 'regime change,' I felt again the old estrangement, the old shame and anger at being attached to a nation - my nation - ruled by runaway bullies, indifferent to principle, their lives manifesting supreme loyalty to private (though government slathered) interests, quick to lecture dissenters about the merits of patriotism." [47] As these excerpts make clear, the object of Professor Gitlin's scorn was his country and not, as he implausibly suggests, the specific policies of his government.

Mr. Horowitz claims that Professor Todd Gitlin, "immerses students in the obscurantist texts of leftist icons like Jurgen Habermas so that they understand the oppressive nature of capitalist media." (194)

Professor Gitlin points out that while he has indeed assigned works by Habermas to students in a graduate seminar, he has "also, to take only the last few years, 'immersed' students in texts by Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Hobbes, Locke, Burke, Adam Smith, and, for that matter, the Gospels."

The Professors does not suggest that Professor Gitlin assigns texts only by leftist writers like Habermas and moreover does not focus on his classroom instruction.

Mr. Horowitz writes that Professor Todd Gitlin "participated in the infamous March 2003 Columbia University 'teach-in,' at which his colleague Professor Nicholas DeGenova expressed his wish that American soldiers might be slaughtered en masse in 'a million Mogadishus.'" (195) Professor Gitlin points out that while he did participate in the teach-in, he "was not present for the statement of-and did not hear, nor have I ever knowingly laid eyes on-Professor DeGenova, who at another session of the teach-in 'idiotically' (to quote my fellow dangerous colleague Eric Foner) called for 'a million Mogadishus.' Had I been present when Professor De Genova made his remark, or heard that he had done so, I would have expressed my disgust."

The Professors at no point suggests that Professor Gitlin endorsed the content of Professor DeGenova's remarks. On the contrary, it stresses that he broke ranks with the more radical voices on the anti-war Left: "After 9/11 Professor Gitlin wrote an article critical of leftists who opposed the war in Afghanistan and unfurled an American flag and hung it from his apartment window…" [48] Professor Gitlin's participation in the teach-in is instead cited in support of the clearly correct statement that Professor Gitlin, while occasionally critical of its more extreme elements, "has been a strong supporter of the anti-war movement," something he does not deny.

These are all charges made by "Facts Count" and Todd Gitlin against the profile of Professor Gitlin in The Professors.

Mari Matsuda

Mr. Horowitz claims that Professor Mari Matsuda is a "leading legal architect of politically correct speech codes in universities" and that the speech codes at Georgetown University are a "mark that Professor Matsuda has left on the Georgetown campus." Mr. Horowitz cites no evidence to back up this claim. Professor Matsuda responds, "I have never, not once, at any university, participated in the drafting, debate over, or implementation of a speech code. I had absolutely nothing to do with the code at Georgetown and I have never read it. I joined the Georgetown faculty in 1992, and would not have been in a position to influence the administration as a newcomer, and I have no idea when they adopted a code. The codes I am supposedly the architect of were largely written before my book, Words That Wound, was ever published."

Professor Matsuda's claim that she had nothing to do with the drafting or implementation of the notorious speech codes is irrelevant, since The Professors makes no such claim. What it does say is that Professor Matsuda is "an architect of the legal rationale behind campus speech codes, which attempted to outlaw 'fighting words' in American universities in the late 1980s and early 1990s before they were declared unconstitutional." [49] This is hardly a controversial claim. What is more, contrary to the assertion of the Free Exchange authors, the book does provide exhaustive evidence in support of this judgment. For instance, the book points out that Professor Matsuda considered censorship of hate speech preferable to the potentially devastating effects it might otherwise have on its ostensibly defenseless targets. Racist speech, Professor Matsuda wrote, "is best treated as a sui generis category, presenting an idea so historically untenable, so dangerous, and so tied to perpetuation of violence and degradation of the very classes of human beings who are least equipped to respond that it is properly treated outside the realm of protected discourse." [50]

Considering that her book Words That Wound became the "legal cornerstone of the campus movement to restrict campus speech" (as The Professors notes), it is disingenuous for Professor Matsuda to protest that she never participated in the debate over speech codes.

Mr. Horowitz claims that "Arbitrary censorship of hate speech, according to Professor Matsuda, was therefore preferable to the potentially devastating effects it might otherwise have on its ostensibly defensive targets." Mr. Horowitz cites no evidence to back up this claim. As Professor Matsuda responds, "[Mr. Horowitz's] statement is untrue. I have never advocated censorship, nor arbitrariness. My first amendment work-which I am sure the researcher, who relied on Web sources, has not read-responds to 100 years of First Amendment scholarship, suggesting non-arbitrary ways to distinguish among different kinds of assaultive speech. The law already provides penalties for speech constituting libel, fighting words, threats, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. My book argued that there are nonarbitrary ways to add assaultive racist speech to the list, but cautioned against doing this broadly or without limits."

These claims are false. The Professors does substantiate the charges that Professor Matsuda advocated both censorship and arbitrariness. An example of her call for censorship is cited above and there is no shortage of evidence validating this point. Professor Matsuda urged censorship of hate speech far beyond what many advocates of speech codes were willing to defend. In Words That Wound, for instance, Professor Matsuda writes: "Taking inspiration from [Richard] Delgado's position, I make the further suggestion that formal criminal and administrative sanction--public as opposed to private persecution-- is also an appropriate response to racist speech." [51] Seen against this background, Professor Matsuda's insistence that she has never advocated censorship is preposterous.

With respect to the second claim, The Professors makes clear that Professor Matsuda did not consider all forms of hate speech actionable. As The Professors pointed out, she has written that "[e]xpressions of hatred, revulsion, and anger directed against members of historically dominant groups by subordinated-group members are not criminalized by the definition of racist hate messages." In other words, hate speech by Asians or African Americans against whites is not subject to legal penalties. Professor Matsuda argued that while hate speech leveled by black Americans against whites may be "troubling" it was permissible because of the "historically dominant" role of whites. In Professor Matsuda's judgment, some groups should receive preferential treatment under speech codes. Others not. A more arbitrary -- and anti-First Amendment -- application of legal principle would be difficult to imagine.

Mr. Horowitz claims that Professor Mari Matsuda only teaches "one course with a discernible connection to law." Mr. Horowitz cites no evidence to back up his claim. Contrary to Mr. Horowitz's claim, Professor Matsuda responds, "most of my teaching is in a strictly traditional, doctrinal course: Torts."

"This semester I have one hundred and twenty-five students in 'Torts' and fifteen in 'Organizing for Social Change.' This has been the ratio for my entire teaching career, and if I were not teaching my students the common law of torts, and teaching it well, I would not have been hired to teach at major law schools." Moreover, Professor Matsuda continues, "my students' evaluations for Torts are among the highest in the law school, and I am known as an outstanding teacher of the basic law for first year students. (This can be confirmed by evaluations records and with Dean Carol O'Neill-Horowitz never checked) This means an entire section of students, including many conservative students, randomly assigned to take a traditional law course from me, feel they are learning 'the law' well."

It is highly doubtful that Professor Matsuda was hired solely for her expertise in tort law, which The Professors does not question, since most of her courses are, as the book observes, "distinguished by their unmistakable preference for activist recruitment over legal instruction." Notwithstanding the false claim of the Free Exchange authors, the book bases this charge on a detailed analysis of the courses in question, which takes up three of the four pages comprising Professor Matsuda's profile. For example, the book notes that Professor Matsuda's preference for political activism

is perhaps most transparent in a course called "Organizing for Social Change: Anti-Subordination Theory and Practice," co-taught by Professor Matsuda and adjunct law professor Marilyn Sneiderman, who is the director of the field organization for the AFL-CIO and a winner of the "Harrington-Thomas-Debs Award" from the Democratic Socialists of America. "This class is designed for the lawyer as a change agent," explains the course description in the Georgetown catalogue. The course is concerned less with educating a new generation of lawyers than with honing "the strategies of professional organizers." Having absorbed "readings from Critical Race Theory, feminist legal theory, peace studies, and other social justice traditions," each student "is expected to complete a social change organizing project as part of the course requirements." There are no alternatives to activism, for as the course description cautions: "Students who take this class should have in mind a social justice project that includes some form of public outreach, education or institution building." [52]

Another course taught by Professor Matsuda and analyzed in the book, "Peacemaking," is a one-sided political instruction tailored specifically to lawyer-activists aspiring to oppose American military intervention and is organized around the question: "How have lawyers participated in peace movements, from draft resistance to Constitutional challenges?" Still another course, "Asian Americans and Legal Ideology Seminar," centers on the "relationship between law and social change, and the limits of liberal legal ideology." (Conservative legal ideology, it almost goes without saying, is nowhere considered.) Although The Professors limits its discussion to these three courses, there is no scarcity of auxiliary evidence attesting to Professor Matsuda's elevation of left-wing politics over traditional scholarship. "Legal Justice Seminar," another course that Professor Matsuda teaches, is heavily informed by "feminist legal theory and critical race theory." In this respect, it is no different from nearly all of Professor Matsuda's courses at Georgetown.

These are all the charges made by "Facts Count" and Mari Matsuda against the profile of Professor Matsuda in The Professors.

Aminah Beverly McCloud

Mr. Horowitz claims that Professor Aminah Beverly McCloud is "[a] member of the Nation of Islam." Mr. Horowitz cites no evidence to back up this claim. Professor McCloud responds, "I am not and never have been" a member of the Nation of Islam.

If this is true, The Professors is mistaken on this point. But as the following excerpt from an article on Professor McCloud by Richard Carlson (FrontPage Magazine, April 8, 2004) makes clear, this is yet another distinction without a difference:

"Islam is frequently cited in the media as the fastest growing religion in America. Perhaps in recognition of this trend the New York Times recently featured an Arts & Ideas section profile of Aminah McCloud, an Associate Professor in the Religion Department of Chicago's DePaul University, the largest Roman Catholic university in America. The front page story was titled 'An Islamic Scholar With the Dual Role of Activist.' A large accompanying photo shows that McCloud is a portly 56-year-old African-American woman wearing a black leather jacket and knit cap. She is seen in her Islamic prayer room.

"At the beginning of the piece, written by Felicia R. Lee, McCloud, the professor is cited as exchanging 'Assalamu Alaikum' greetings with two young men guarding the front door of Muhammad University in Chicago, a school for young children, not college students, run by the Nation of Islam and its leader Louis Farrakhan. McCloud has been an 'academic consultant' to the school, says the Times' article, and was treated like a 'visiting dignitary' on her visit to gather materials for her 'forthcoming books on the nation of Islam and black American Muslims.' The Times says that McCloud has spent a great deal of time with Mr. Farrakhan 'and finds him an intelligent and charismatic man.' She believes the public view of him as a social and religious leader is distorted because of the focus on his incendiary statements. 'To distill his views down to one sentence to what he utters about Jews is an utter negation of what he has done, in the same way that no one has written off Thomas Jefferson because he raped a slave woman.'"

Whether Professor McCloud is a card-carrying member of the "The Nation" is irrelevant to criticism of her academic performance in The Professors, including the fact that in her courses on Islam Professor McCloud assigns books that liken Muslim terrorists to the American founders and describe their cause as a "struggle in the name of justice." Nor does it address the complaints of Professor McCloud's students, who describe her as an in-class bully intolerant of opinions that differ from her own.

These are all the charges made by "Facts Count" and Beverly McCloud against the profile of Professor McCloud in The Professors.

Oneida Meranto

Mr. Horowitz writes that Professor Oneida Meranto is an associate professor of political science. Professor Meranto is a full professor.

At the time the research for Professor Meranto's profile was completed, in 2005, she was listed as an associate professor, a position she no more deserved than that of full professor.

Mr. Horowitz claims that Professor Meranto "has served as faculty advisor to Students for Social and Economic Justice." Mr. Horowitz cites no evidence to back up this claim. Professor Meranto responds, "I do not recall ever being a faculty advisor for Students for Social and Economic Justice."

The implicit notion in this charge that every trivial detail in a book demands a footnote with supporting evidence is absurd. But since Professor Meranto's memory fails her, a 1997 article in The Metropolitan ("Columbian visit enriched Metro Fulbright professor," by Judy Bandstra), which is the student newspaper of the Metropolitan State College, states: "Meranto teaches Native American politics, Latin American Politics and American politics. She is also the faculty advisor for two Metro clubs, the Metro American Indian Student Empowerment and Students for Social and Economic Justice." [53] Perhaps this will jog Professor Meranto's memory, and perhaps this error - along with the many others pointed out in this response - will be corrected on the Free Exchange website.

Mr. Horowitz claims that Professor Meranto "currently advises the Metropolitan American Indian Students for Empowerment (originally called 'Native American Students for Un-American Values')." No such group is listed in the Metropolitan State Student Organizations Directory. Professor Meranto responds, "I have never advised a group called the Native American Students for Un-American Values. In my fourteen years at [Metro State College] there has never been such a student group with that name."

The facts do not comport with Professor Meranto's response. As a leading opponent of the Academic Bill of Rights in Colorado, Professor Meranto and her colleagues in the Political Science department put up a flyer in 2004 announcing a meeting to protest its passage. According to the flyer, the meeting was "[s]ponsored by the Native American Students for Unamerican Activities and the Native community." [54]

Mr. Horowitz claims that "A perusal of the Department of Political Science website for Metro State College reveals the vast difference between [Professor] Meranto's negligible scholarly accomplishments and those of the other members of her department." As Professor Meranto responds, Mr. Horowitz's claim is a "total fabrication. Anyone can open up the faculty website and see that I have more publications than the six full-time faculty combined, with the exception of Dr. Provizer."

A publication is not the same as a scholarly publication. The statement about Professor Meranto's scholarly accomplishments - or lack thereof -- cannot be a "total fabrication" because, as The Professors points out, it rests on observable evidence: "To judge from her own website, Professor Meranto has almost no scholarly work to her credit--perhaps one peer-reviewed article in 2001. She also has three or four polemics in obscure left-wing venues. It is an open question as to how someone with these poor credentials ever became an associate professor with tenure, when the normal requirement for that status, which confers a lifetime appointment, is at least a book and perhaps several peer-reviewed articles. The only book Meranto ever published was in 1986, and that was her husband's book, which she completed after his death, long before she earned a PhD." [55] Neither Professor Meranto nor the Free Exchange authors offer any rebuttal to this detailed indictment.

Mr. Horowitz claims that a book written by Professor Meranto's late husband Phil Meranto (who died in 1985 before Professor Meranto was in graduate school) "embodies the Merantos' belief that 'progressive' professors are entitled to use the classroom to foment social rebellion against capitalist, Anglo-Saxon America." (284-85) Professor Meranto responds, "the book my husband wrote and I published after his death has nothing to do with what I do in the classroom, nor does it embody what Mr. Horowitz states."

The summary of the Merantos' book is accurate. To cite just one representative instance, chapter three of Guarding the Ivory Tower contains the following call for a political rebellion to remake universities into bastions of radicalism: "So the demand for radical analysis and radical critiques of domestic and foreign policies, social problems, social structure, history, race relations and whatever, is far in excess of the supply that is allowed to reach the campuses by the monopoly manipulators of the establishment ideology. Still, it is difficult to hold back history, and just when the hand of orthodoxy seems to have gained a death grip on the minds and hearts of our people, the quietude and ideational stagnation of the academy is again shattered by urgent cries for justice and truth; the ideational monopolists are shaken by competing views; the campus bureaucrats are discomforted by protesters; the plutocracy is challenged by democracy--and life once more struggles to renew itself." [56]

This is a political tract, not a scholarly publication, yet it is the basis for Meranto's tenured position.

Mr. Horowitz does not mention that three student grievances were, in fact, filed against Professor Meranto, charging her with political bias in the classroom.

These grievances were investigated and dismissed following due process. As the Chronicle of Higher Education reported, Metropolitan State College President Raymond Kieft's decision on the grievances stated: "You [Professor Meranto] are entirely within your legal rights to hold and express views contrary to your students' on Latin American politics, current public issues like the 'student bill of rights,' and the proper responsibilities of student organizations you advise and its members…The College cannot and will not presume that your treatment of students reflects ideological bias or prejudice merely because you express your point of view."

President Kieft wrote that students have the same rights to freedom of expression and association that Professor Meranto does, and that the college requires that she grade students on their academic performance and not their point of view. "This investigation gave me substantial reason to believe that you acted at all times consistently with this standard," he said. President Kieft concluded that "'watchdogs' for 'political bias' who seek to remove professors holding a point of view will inhibit the rich dialogue that must take place in the classroom and destroy the expressive freedom that is essential to the search for truth."

This entire claim is irrelevant to the actual argument in The Professors, which merely notes in passing that, "In 2003, she became the self-described 'poster child for liberal leaning professors' after she was accused of throwing the College Republicans out of the Political Science Association, a student club she supervised, because she suspected them of plotting to get her fired." [57] Not a word of Meranto's response contradicts the specific points made in The Professors. Nor does she provide a complete or accurate picture of her feud with her students (which, in any case, lies outside the scope of the book).

Omitted by the Free Exchange authors is Professor Meranto's paranoid claim that the College Republicans were scheming to have her fired. The report also fails to mention that the school took disciplinary action against Professor Meranto. President Kieft placed a six-page disciplinary notice in Meranto's file stating that she had violated the privacy act in commenting in telling the Denver Post in December 2003 - in an act of blatant intimidation -- that one of her conservative students had dropped her class "because he hadn't done enough of the work and knew he couldn't pass." In fact, the student had a B average before withdrawing from Professor Meranto's class due to her political attacks on him.

Finally, Professor Meranto points out that in his entire profile on her, "not once did [Mr. Horowitz] state or demonstrate what I do in the classroom, which is what I thought was his concern."

The claim The Professors makes against Oneida Meranto is that she is an academic fraud, an accusation that is irrelevant to her in-class room behavior. Here is the summary sentence from the profile: "This raises the question as to how a political fanatic like Meranto was hired in the first place, and on what possible basis did she get her promotion to a tenured position, where she will sit in judgment over all new hires and promotions to tenured rank." [58]

These are all the charges made by "Facts Count" and Oneida Meranto against the profile of Professor Meranto in The Professors.

Priya Parmar

Mr. Horowitz claims that Professor Parmar "[r]equired students to view Michael Moore's "Farenheit 9/11" on the eve of the presidential election." Professor Parmar points out that to the contrary, "the viewing was not required," and moreover, "this particular film was chosen by a majority vote of the students for a lesson on critical media literacy…The film was chosen for analysis, as it was a well-known current example of the use of electronic media for political purposes."

According to students who took Parmar's class, attendance for the screening of Fahrenheit 9/11 was indeed required. In light of Parmar's repeated insertion of politics into her classroom, a tendency documented in the book through a number of examples, the students' would seem the more credible party.

Professor Parmar's claim that the film was chosen for its alleged insights into electronic media strains credulity. If that were indeed the case, why did Professor Parmar choose to screen Moore's film, a demagogic attack on the Bush administration, just prior to the 2004 presidential election? The answer given in the book comes from one of Professor Parmar's former students, who noted that she "insinuated that people who disagree with her views on issues such as Ebonics and Fahrenheit 9/11 should not become teachers." [59]

Finally, while it seems to have escaped the notice of the Free Exchange authors, Professor Parmar does not teach a course on the convergence of electronic media and politics. She is an assistant professor of education, and teaches graduate and undergraduate courses on childhood education. Professor Parmar's decision to show Moore's film merely illustrates her well-documented enthusiasm for merging politics and pedagogy, and constitutes one more violation of academic standards documented in The Professors.

Mr. Horowitz claims that Professor Parmar "teaches…that proper English is the language of white 'oppressors.'" This claim is also based on the allegations of the student in the New York Sun article. The student is quoted as saying that Parmar "repeatedly referred to English as a language of oppressors and in particular denounced white people as the oppressors." Not only were the claims of that student never verified, "that student and another one were subsequently accused by the dean of the education school of plagiarism and were given lower grades as a result," as the New York Sun article notes.

Whether the students were guilty of plagiarism is irrelevant to Professor Parmar's in-class attacks against whites. Since the Free Exchange report mentions it, however, it is worth noting that the New York Sun article reported the following about the plagiarism allegations: "Students who filed complaints [against Parmar] with the dean said they have received no response from the college administration. Instead, they said, the administration and Ms. Parmar have retaliated against them, accusing [former student] Mr. [Evan] Goldwyn and another student of plagiarism in January after the semester ended." [60] The article also noted quoted students supportive of Professor Parmar who nonetheless confirmed her routine attacks against whites, including one who said, "Although I do believe in some of the teaching methods she has introduced, this does not change the fact that it has come at a cost. She felt it was necessary to expose this 'white power' but at the cost of offending those who were listening." [61]

Moreover, the phrase "denounced white people as the oppressors" is taken from a piece by bell hooks, an award-winning, and highly respected scholar on educational issues, who was the author of one of many assigned readings for the course. It comes from hooks' response to a poem by Adrienne Rich, in which hooks writes: "One line of this poem that moved and disturbed something within me: 'This is the oppressor's language yet I need it to talk to you.'"

In other words, the report grants that the book accurately described Professor Parmar as teaching "that proper English is the language of white 'oppressors.'" Concerning bell hooks, as her profile in The Professors points out, she is a self-described "insurgent Black intellectual voice" who has mused about killing white males and has claimed to hear in the standard usage of English "the sound of slaughter and conquest." (hooks is a professor of English literature.) The fact that hooks is, despite her murderous antipathy to whites and her hostility to grammatical English, regarded as a "respected scholar on educational issues," is precisely the kind of academic folly chronicled in the book.

These are all the charges made by "Facts Count" and Priya Parmar against the profile of Professor Parmar in The Professors.

Sam Richards

Mr. Horowitz claims, Professor Richards' "lecture notes for the first class of each semester inform students that, 'It is not possible to keep our ideologies out of the classroom or any other place where ideas are shared. SO I'M OPEN ABOUT BRINGING MY IDEOLOGY INTO THIS CLASSROOM BECAUSE I SEE THAT ALL EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS ARE IDEOLOGICAL TO THE CORE.' [emphasis in original]" Mr. Horowitz goes on, "This is a pretty frank admission that his agenda is to indoctrinate students, not educate them."

First, the two sentences in the quote above are spliced together - the first sentence appears at the beginning of Professor Richards' lecture notes, and the second sentence (the one in all caps) appears at the end. Mr. Horowitz does not indicate to the reader that he has merged these quotes.

And the separation of these quotes changes their meaning how? BTW: Sam Richards is a "Senior Lecturer in Sociology" not a Professor.

Second, the message of Professor Richards' lecture is precisely the opposite of what Mr. Horowitz claims it to be. It is specifically designed to encourage Professor Richards' students to think critically and decide for themselves what they believe. Mr. Horowitz leaves out the parts of Professor Richards' notes demonstrating that Richards' true objective is to encourage "thinking that attempts to account for all sides of an argument and tries to go beyond simple answers to complex questions." Professor Richards' full lecture notes are below; readers can judge his message for themselves.

Dr. Richards's lectures are exactly what The Professors portrays them to be: an ideologically one-sided introduction into Dr. Richards's political worldviews. That this is in fact the case will be evident from any reading of the lecture notes that the Free Exchange authors deceptively imply support their claims. Beyond candidly admitting his importation of ideology into the classroom, itself a betrayal of the traditional function of teacher, Dr. Richards concedes that he freely inserts his opinions. "How is it possible to keep every one of my moral and ethical opinions out of my classroom? It's not," insists Dr. Richards, a statement that would doubtless come as a surprise to the countless professors who succeed in doing just that. In fact, Dr. Richards admits that every element of his course is based on his own--and, as the book illustrates, decidedly radical--ideology: "The clothing I wear, the films I select, the books I choose, the type of exams I give, my grading scale-are all rooted in how I think the world is or should be organized (i.e., my ideology)." In view of this profoundly slanted approach to teaching, Dr. Richards's assurance that he encourages "thinking that attempts to account for all sides of an argument and tries to go beyond simple answers to complex questions" is impossible to credit.

In addition, Professor Richards points out that the application for teaching assistants for his class states, "We welcome applications from students of all cultures, faiths, sexual and political orientations, and ability levels. The more diverse we are in ideologies, backgrounds, and experiences, the more we will have to teach one another."

The book makes no judgment about the quality of Dr. Richards's teaching assistants, so this objection is irrelevant. It is telling, however, that Richards selects his assistants not primarily on the basis of their ability or mastery of the subject matter but on the extent to which they flatter his politically inspired preference for "diversity." The Professors also points out that Dr. Richards by his own admission has no academic training in the sociology of race (his expertise is liberation theology and Latin American studies), yet he teaches the Sociology of Race course at Penn State.

These are all the charges made by "Facts Count" and Sam Richards against the profile of Dr. Richards in The Professors.

Dean Saitta

Mr. Horowitz writes that Professor Dean Saitta "is the chair of the Anthropology Department at the University of Denver and Anthropology." Professor Saitta ended his museum directorship Anthropology Department since 2003.

This is true but are they any more substantive than the error of referring to Sam Richards as a "Professor" when in fact he is a Senior Lecturer?

Mr. Horowitz writes that Professor Dean Saitta is on the board of the journal Rethinking Marxism." Professor Saitta has not been on this board for years.

Two years to be precise (bearing in mind that the book was written in 2005). The point was that Professor was involved in a journal whose raison d'etre is rehabilitating a discredited doctrine.

Mr. Horowitz writes that Professor Dean Saitta "defended the beliefs and actions of

Ward Churchill." The evidence Mr. Horowitz cites to support his claim is this quote from Professor Saitta: " 'My main concern about the Churchill affair is what it portends for the future of informed, provocative speech in classrooms that are already being monitored by conservative thought police.'" As Professor Saitta responds, "I believe that what Churchill said on 9/12-like the many outrageous and inflammatory things that people across the political spectrum said on 9/12-is covered by every American's right to free speech. I've never defended the specific beliefs of Ward Churchill. … My 'Thoughts on Academic Free Speech' offers no support at all for Churchill's specific beliefs. … Readers of my statement on academic freedom will also note that I'm as critical of the Left as I am of the Right."56

As documented in The Professors, Professor Saitta's claim that Ward Churchill was attacked for something he said in the classroom is a diversion, and a false one. In fact, Churchill's in-class statements "were neither monitored nor reported. He was attacked for public statements, for fraudulent representations to the committee that hired him, for plagiarism and for shoddy scholarship."[62] For Professor Saitta to portray criticism of Churchill's academic incompetence as a free speech issue is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst. Moreover, if "provocative speech" and academic freedom were issues as dear to him as he claims, Professor Saitta might have spoken out against the refusal of the campus newspaper at the University of Denver to publish an article by Saitta's colleague (and former governor) Richard Lamm critical of politically correct attitudes about minorities. Instead, as The Professors notes, Professor Saitta declared that this act of political censorship was "no infringement" of academic freedom.

Professor Saitta's insistence that he "never defended the specific beliefs of Ward Churchill" likewise falls apart on examination. In his statement "Thoughts on Academic Free Speech," Saitta cites Churchill's infamous Internet apologetics for anti-American terrorism and his equation of American civilians with Nazi apparatchiks as an example of "informed" speech. It does not seem unreasonable to interpret this as a defense of Churchill's beliefs. Professor Saitta's claim that he is as "critical of the Left" as he is "of the Right" is equally hard to credit--unless one believes, as Professor Saitta seems to, that former Harvard president Lawrence Summer's scientifically supported statements about gender differences are substantively the same as Ward Churchill's unhinged polemical rantings.

These are all the charges made by "Facts Count" and Dean Saitta against the profile of Professor Saitta in The Professors.

George Wolfe

In his chapter on Professor George Wolfe, Mr. Horowitz describes Ambassador Phillip C. Wilcox as an "anti-Israel speaker." Ambassador Phillip C. Wilcox is a graduate of the National War College and has been awarded the State Department's Meritorious, Superior, and Presidential Honor Awards.

Ambassador Wilcox spent thirty-one years in the foreign service. His last overseas assignment was as Chief of Mission and U.S. Consul General in Jerusalem. In the State Department, Wilcox held a variety of assignments, including Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Middle Eastern Affairs. Ambassador Wilcox is not "anti-Israel," as Mr. Horowitz describes him. He supports the two-state solution that is widely advocated by Middle Eastern experts and policymakers and which is the official policy of the Bush administration.

The description of Ambassador Wilcox as "anti-Israel" is accurate. The ambassador has consistently blamed Palestinian terrorism on the Israeli "occupation" while decrying "extremists on both sides" and thus drawing a false moral equivalence between Palestinian terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians and Israeli military reprisals targeted at terrorist leaders. At the same time, he is on record as stating that Israeli settlement policies are as much to blame for the ongoing conflict as the Palestinian Arabs' rejection of Israel's fundamental right to exist as a nation. He also favors the ahistorical analogy that Israel's alleged "dispossession" of the Palestinians is the equivalent of the Nazi Holocaust, and makes the equally false claim that Israel today denies the Palestinian Arabs their "human rights." [63] And while Ambassador Wilcox's past statements alone would justify the description of his views as anti-Israel, he is also a board member of groups like the American Near East Refugee Aid, known for its anti-Israel agendas.

Mr. Horowitz claims that Professor Wolfe is a "fierce critic of Israel." Mr. Horowitz does not cite any evidence to support this characterization. As Professor Wolfe responds, "I have never been a critic of Israel, let alone a 'fierce critic.'"

The characterization of Professor Wolfe as a "fierce critic of Israel" is factual and The Professors bolsters the characterization with evidence. For instance, The Professors notes that "Professor Wolfe raised funds through the [Ball State University Peace and Conflict Studies] center to sponsor what he called 'a student research project in the Israeli occupied territory.'" [64] Quite apart from the impropriety of enlisting students into his political causes, Wolfe endorsed a one-sided view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that singled out for blame Israel's "occupation" -- itself a tendentious formulation, since under international law Israel has rights to the equities Wolfe assigns to the Palestinians -- but not the Arab aggression that was its cause. When coupled with the fact that Professor Wolfe has invited to campus anti-Israel speakers like Ambassador Wilcox, but not defenders of Israel, the charge that he is himself anti-Israel is reasonably grounded in fact.

Mr. Horowitz claims that the Ball State University student organization Peaceworkers "receives its funds from the Center for Peace and Conflict Studies," which Professor Wolfe directs. Professor Wolfe responds, "on the contrary, Peaceworkers is not funded in any way by the Peace Center. The students have always been responsible for their own fundraising efforts and have a separate student organization account."

According to Professor Wolfe's former student, Brett Mock, this is false. In an article for, Mock reported that "Professor Wolfe took a group recruited from our class [viz, the aforementioned Peaceworkers] to travel to Washington, D.C., to protest the war in Iraq. The Peace Studies center - a university program - provided the funds." Even if Mock's claim were untrue, Wolfe's complaint does not address the more serious charge set forth in the book that he actively recruited his students into a group formed for the express purpose of opposing U.S. military efforts in Iraq and distributed special campus awards on its behalf to students who organized anti-war protests.

Mr. Horowitz cites the allegations of one of Professor Wolfe's students, Brett Mock, who accused Professor Wolfe of giving credit to students who "traveled to Washington, D.C., to take part in anti-war demonstrations." Mr. Mock's allegations were investigated by the university and found to be groundless in 2004, well before The Professors was published. Yet Mr. Horowitz fails to mention this fact, and repeats Mr. Mock's allegations as if they still had merit.

The university's report is difficult credit, since BSU Provost Beverley Pitts, who carried out the investigation, declined to contact Brett Mock, whose complaint had made an investigation necessary in the first place and simply ignored critics when they pointed out this obvious flaw in the investigation. The notion that the resulting incomplete investigation somehow discredits Mock's criticisms is highly suspect.

In 2004, Ball State's Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, Beverley Pitts, wrote a letter of support for Professor Wolfe which explains: "Mr. Mock's assertion that students received extra credit for a university sponsored trip to Washington, D.C., for the purpose of protesting the war in Iraq is incorrect. Rather, three students in the course last spring chose to attend a lobbying workshop in Washington to learn the protocol for lobbying Congress. This opportunity, which was made available to all students, developed skills pertaining to lobbying that apply to all issues, independent of position. This experience fulfilled the field assignment, and travel support was provided to encourage attendance.

Provost Pitts also notes, "as part of fulfilling his field assignment, Mr. Mock received credit for attending a meeting in Indianapolis at which Vice President Dick Cheney spoke."57 Mr. Horowitz does not mention this fact in his book.

Brett Mock ably rebutted these arguments in an article for (apparently unnoticed by Free Exchange) in which he observed that the "lobbying workshop" the students visited was held by an anti-war group called the Friends Committee on National Legislation. Wrote Mock:

The Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL), which organized the event, explains that "participants gathered in the William Penn House [a radical Quaker group] to learn from FCNL lobbyists and interns about Iraq, civil liberties in the United States, nuclear disarmament, and Native American rights." The speakers included David Culp, FCNL's nuclear disarmament lobbyist, and Adrien Niyongabo of the Alternatives to Violence Project in the African Great Lakes region. The festivities included a visit to the statue of Gandhi near the Penn House. Not only was the group that hosted the "lobbying workshop" an anti-military organization opposed to the war in Iraq, but the students who went on the trip were all members of the Peace Workers organization - a group directed by Professor Wolfe himself. By their own account, these students went to Washington for the purpose of protesting the war in Iraq--their main issue.

Moreover, Mock has acknowledged that he received credit for attending a speech by Vice President Cheney, but he also noted that the "two credits are hardly parallel. Students in Professor Wolfe's course are required to do a field assignment for which they receive credit (my attendance at the Cheney speech counted for one third of my required credits). Students are required to choose two out of three options for their field assignments. One option is to be an active member of the Peace Workers Organization directed by Professor Wolfe; another option is to pay for and attend three meditation training sessions conducted by Professor Wolfe; the final option is to attend a set of 'interfaith fellowship meetings' directed by Professor Wolfe. None of these activities, it should be noted, represents an academic approach to the questions of war and peace or conflict resolution - which was the basis of my complaint."

Equally, this was the basis of the criticisms of Professor Wolfe in the book, none of which the professor, his university enablers, or the Free Exchange authors who uncritically recite their claims have succeeded in disproving.

When representatives of Mr. Horowitz's organization Students for Academic Freedom responded to Provost Pitt's letter, Ball State University President Jo Ann M. Gora sent a letter to the Muncie Star Press headlined "Ball State's critics ignore facts, policies." Her letter states: [Professor Wolfe's] course not only encouraged the discussion of differing viewpoints but also allowed students to fulfill a field assignment course requirement by participating in activities outside the classroom in ways that best fit their own personal beliefs.

This description of Professor's Wolfe's course is already answered in The Professors: "According to Brett Mock, Professor Wolfe showed 'no tolerance whatsoever for any disagreement and said that he would never support the use of force as an instrument of peace,' an ideological disposition reflected in the required readings for the course [which, as the book points out, included the required text, Peace and Conflict Studies, a doctrinaire pacifist tract that nonetheless makes exceptions for "revolutionary violence"]. Mock also claimed that Professor Wolfe regularly gave lower grades to students who did not share his ideological disposition. On the other hand, students who echoed Professor Wolfe's own positions that the U.S.-led war in Iraq was a 'fiasco' that was 'leading us down the wrong path,' and traveled to Washington, D.C., to take part in anti-war demonstrations, were rewarded with extra credit. So that there should be no doubt about the political opinions students were expected to hold, Professor Wolfe required his class to attend a screening of the anti-war film Uncovered: The Whole Truth about the War in Iraq."[65] In other words, it is President Gora who ignores the facts.

It should also be noted that the course was evaluated by students that semester-as it has been each time it has been taught-and there were no negative evaluations. In fact, Mr. Mock has never made a direct complaint to the university-formal or informal-and he waited until months after the course had concluded before first making claims in an article published by Mr. Horowitz's online magazine. The only complaint the university received was a letter from Sara Dogan of the national Students for Academic Freedom organization. Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs Beverley Pitts responded promptly to Ms. Dogan after looking into Mr. Mock's claims as stated in her letter.

Whether or not Brett Mock ever filed a formal complaint has no bearing whatsoever on the substance of the criticisms in the book, and the Free Exchange authors' motivation in citing the above letter seems to be solely to impugn the motives of Brett Mock. For the record, however, Mock has explained in past articles for that he did not initially publicize his concerns because his course with Professor Wolfe was part of a minor that he hoped would supplement his major; when the course first began he was unaware that it would go on to take such a one-sided view of conflict resolution; and, finally, he feared that Professor Wolfe would retaliate against him by lowering his grade.

Ball State is merely one target in an unfair and outrageous smear campaign by Mr. Horowitz and his organization. Mr. Horowitz has stated that all "250 peace studies programs in America…teach students to identify with America's terrorist enemies and to identify America as a Great Satan oppressing the world's poor and causing them to go hungry." Clearly, his problem isn't with Ball State or even with our Peace Studies program.

The Professors profiles several "Peace Studies" professors and programs, including a Peace Studies textbook. They all share the same outlook and agendas. The fact that Peace Studies is an ideological field created by political activists with common agendas - or that David Horowitz thinks they do -- has no bearing on the validity on the accuracy of his description of the Peace Studies classes of Professor Wolfe. The above characterization of David Horowitz and Students for Academic Freedom is nothing more than an ad hominem attack, which makes no substantive claim about the issue at hand. With respect to the Ball State Peace Program, it should be clear that insofar as it represents the worst tendencies of university Peace Studies programs -- and with its patently one-sided political character it indisputably does -- it serves as a revealing case study for the more widespread problem in academia.

I wonder if Mr. Horowitz is aware that a third of the course Brett Mock took focuses on domestic violence and another third on mediation, while only one third deals with the history of peace movements and nonviolence.

The focus of the course is of secondary importance. What is at issue is the biased and unprofessional manner in which Professor Wolfe conducted class, as demonstrated by his exclusion of scholarly perspectives at variance with the professor's personal politics and his willingness to use the classroom as a recruitment center for his anti-war agendas.

Mr. Horowitz fails to mention either of these letters in his chapter on Professor Wolfe.

For reasons outlined above, this is not an oversight and the omission is well-justified.

Mr. Horowitz claims that Professor Wolfe "showed 'no tolerance whatsoever for any disagreement and said that he would never support the use of force as an instrument of peace,' an ideological disposition reflected in the required readings for the course."

Again, the only evidence Mr. Horowitz cites for these claims are the allegations of Brett Mock. In response, Professor Wolfe points out that the required readings for his course "include sections in the Barash and Webel text [Peace and Conflict Studies] covering the topics of peace through strength, criticisms of peace movements, apparent failures of nonviolence, and rebuttals to the Leninist/Marxist argument that capitalism promotes imperialism which in turn, leads to war."

The fact that Professor Wolfe assigned Peace and Conflict Studies as the required text for his course lends further support to Brett Mock's charge that the professor promoted only ideological positions consistent with his own at the exclusion of contrary scholarly perspectives. As David Horowitz points out in his analysis of the book in The Professors, Peace and Conflict Studies is an "ideologically one-sided" treatment of a complex subject:

In the preface to their book, Professors Barash and Webel write: "The field [of Peace Studies] differs from most other human sciences in that it is value-oriented, and unabashedly so. Accordingly we wish to be up front about our own values, which are frankly anti-war, anti-violence, anti-nuclear, anti-authoritarian, anti-establishment, pro-environment, pro-human rights, pro-social justice, pro-peace and politically progressive." [66]

Peace and Conflict Studies makes no pretence to being an academic exploration of the complex issues of war and peace. It does not explore the many possible views of world problems that might lead to conflict, or the various assessments that might be made of the history of peace movements. It is, in fact, a leftwing screed whose clear purpose is to indoctrinate students in the radical view shared by "progressives" like Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, and Michael Moore. No indication is provided to the uninformed student that these might be extreme views, nor is there any indication that there are other possible ways to view these issues.


Peace and Conflict Studies discusses the problems of poverty and hunger as causes of human conflict exclusively through the eyes of Marxist writers such as Andre Gunder Frank and Francis Moore Lappe. The text's view of these problems is socialist: "To a very large extent, the problem of world hunger is not so much a production problem, so much as it is a distribution problem." What the authors mean by this is that poverty is caused by the private property system and free market capitalism which results in economic inequality and that its cure is socialism which redistributes income.

In addition to these readings, Professor Wolfe states that his students are exposed to

multiple sides of pertinent issues in class discussions and on course examinations. Finally, Professor Wolfe points out, "[any] Ball State student who has a complaint can appeal their grade to a board comprised of both students and faculty as outlined in the BSU 'Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities.' In my 22 years of teaching at Ball State University, I have yet to have a student formally appeal a grade, including Brett Mock."

Contrary to what Professor Wolfe implies, he has provided no evidence that he assigned his students any texts exposing them to any views of war and peace other than the pacifist and "progressive" views forwarded by books like Peace and Conflict Studies. For this dereliction of professional duty he has yet to offer a credible explanation. As noted, the question of whether Brett Mock appealed his grade has no bearing on the criticism of Professor Wolfe's course in the book; but it should be noted that Mock, in contrast to Professor Wolfe, has offered an explanation for this. In an article for, Mock wrote:

Professor Wolfe's charge that I did not care about my final grade is equally without merit. I received a B+ in the course. While not an A, it was not something over which to undertake an arduous appeals process. But my complaint was never about my grade. It was about the tendentious, biased, and unprofessional nature of Wolfe's teaching methods and course. What went on in his classroom was not education but an indoctrination in his ill-informed political prejudices. That was not what I was paying tuition fees to Ball State University to receive. The bottom line is that Professor Wolfe abused his classroom, using it as a recruitment center for his extra-curricular political activities. As a Professor of the Saxophone, Professor Wolfe is in no way qualified to teach such a course in the first place. It is not surprising that he should teach it so incompetently. [67]

Neither Professor Wolfe nor the Free Exchange authors are apparently willing to confront the argument in The Professors that George Wolfe, whose main academic credential is that he is Professor of the Saxophone in the Music Department, is unqualified to teach a course in the social, economic and cultural causes of war and peace.

These are all the charges made by "Facts Count" and George Wolfe against the profile of Professor Wolfe in The Professors.

In sum "Facts Counts" identifies a handful of trivial errors in a 112,000 word text, supplies many similar errors of its own, adds blatant falsehoods, misrepresents differences of opinion as matters of fact, and indulges in numerous ad hominem assaults on its author including the claim that he is "sloppy in the extreme" and that his work is characterized by inaccuracies, distortions, and manipulations of fact-including false statements, mischaracterizations of professors' views, broad claims unsupported by facts and selective omissions of information that does not fit his argument." On examination, none of these charges is sustained. Simply stated, "Facts Count" is an intellectually sleazy and inept attempt to discredit a book whose opinions the authors dislike.


1. Horowitz, David. The Professors (Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing Inc., 2006), p. xxiii.

2. Horowitz, p. xxvi.

3. Horowitz, p. 306.

4. Horowitz, p. 5.

5. Horowitz, p. xi.

6. Horowitz, pp. 146-147

7. Berube, Michael. "The Abuses of the University," American Literary History, 1998.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid.

10. Horowitz, p. 276.

11. Horowitz, p. 11.


13. Aptheker, Bettina. Tapestries of Life. (University of Massachusetts Press, 1989), p. 6.

14. Horowitz, p. 15.

15. Horowitz, p. 16

16. Aptheker, Bettina. Woman's Legacy (University of Massachusetts Press, 1982), pp. 4-7.


18. Ibid.

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid.

21. Rappaport, Scott. "Alumni spearhead drive to film professor's course," UC Santa Cruz Currents, February 23, 2004.

22. Barash, David and Webel, Charles, Peace and Conflict Studies. (Sage Publications Inc., 2002), p. 571.

23. Horowitz, p. 42.

24. Horowitz, p. 45.

25. Horowitz, p. 51.



28. Horowitz, p. 80.

29. Ibid.

30. Horowitz, p. 91.

31. Horowitz, p. 90.

32. Ibid.


34. Horowitz, p. 90.

35. Horowitz, pp. 92-95.

36. Horowitz, p. 377.


38. Horowitz, p. 154.

39. Horowitz, p. 157.

40. Ibid.

41. Horowitz, p. 158.

42. Horowitz, pp. 156-157.

43. Kramer, Martin, "Professors of Palestine," The Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2002.

44. Horowitz, p. 173.

45. Horowitz, p. 178.

46. Horowitz, p. 195-196.

47. Ibid.

48. Ibid.

[49] Horowitz, pp. 277- 280.

[50] Ibid.

[51] Matsuda, Mari, Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment (Westview Press, 1993), p. 17.

[52] Horowitz, pp. 278-279.



[55] Horowitz, pp. 286-287.


[57] Horowitz, p. 284.

[58] Horowitz, p. 287.

[59] Horowitz, pp. 298-299.

[60] Gershman, Jacob, "'Disposition' Emerges as Issue at Brooklyn College," New York Sun, May 31, 2005.

[61] Ibid.

[62] Horowitz, p. 313.

[63] Wilcox, Philip, "Peace for Israel and Palestine: Seize the Opportunity," Remarks by Philip C. Wilcox, Jr., on Receipt of the Louis B. Sohn Human Rights Day Award from the United Nations Association, December 15, 2004.

[64] Horowitz, p. 355.

[65] Horowitz, p. 356.

[66] Horowitz, pp. 40 - 46.

[67] Mock, Brett, "Response to Slander,", April 7, 2006.