Truth for Dummies · 22 March 2005

Blog post from David Horowitz, 03/21/05

Some days ago, a clown named Billmon posted a satire on the academic freedom campaign revealing (inadvertently) how the left lives inside its own myths, an alternate reality from which it can never escape. The academic freedom campaign seeks to give students rights to which university administrations already pay lip service but are afraid to enforce because they no longer have control over their own institutions. As at Harvard whose president is fighting for his job for the crime of uttering a politically incorrect truth, tenured ideologues on university faculties hold the actual reins of power. This power depends on their ability to intimidate their scholarly opposition which still outnumbers them into silence. The weapons the academic commissars deploy are career-damaging (or ending) epithets like "racist" or "sexist" or "homophobic" or "red-baiter" or "witch-hunter" (which in their minds is really the same thing).

How could the totalitarian left combat a campaign for intellectual fairness and diversity and inclusion, which was waged in behalf of the campus underdogs, namely students? That was the problem with which our campaign for an Academic Bill of Rights confronted our faculty opponents. After all, the left once regarded students as a new revolutionary class. How could it defend the harassment and abuse of the campus underdog?

The answer was by retreating into its own dependable myths, by denying the realities staring it in the face and projecting its own cause -- stamping any opposition or dissent -- onto its opponents. Thus the campaign to tar and feather proponents of academic freedom as "witch-hunters." And Communists!

While Communism was alive and well, of course, the academic left was all for it. Even those leftists who were "critical" of Communism were critical in the way they were of Saddam Hussein -- better Saddam should be re-"elected" than George Bush. Having never joined the fight against Communism while it was a thriving political force (and indeed having declared themselves "anti-anti Communists" so they could focus on attacking the forces of freedom) they are now pretending to new generations (who don't remember that battle for freedom) that the proponents of the Academic Bill of Rights are Communists and that they are the anti-Communists!

It is hard to capture in words the magnitude of this deception, but rest assured that it will be effective. Several thousand posts in the blogosphere already show the power of this Big Lie over the true believers. In two previous articles here and here I dealt with this lie which is at the center of the anti-academic freedom campaign. In this one I will demonstrate how powerful the left's myth is over its own sense of reality.

I have attached below a section of the original satire posted at the blogspot Whisky Bar, which through select quotations purports to show that I am loose with the truth. What it really shows, however, is that those find it insightful and funny, can't read (or understand) plain English.

I am quoted in the set up as saying that I have not conducted a campaign against political bias in college classrooms. I explain very clearly that what I mean by this is that everyone has a point of view, and that professors have a right to express their point of view in the classroom. The Academic Bill of Rights defends this right in so many words. Simple enough.

My critic then posts a series of statements which have absolutely nothing to do with the expression of views by a professor in the classroom but do use the word bias. Like Pavlov's dog, the hounds of the left respond -- Ah Horowitz said he wasn't against bias but he is! Eureka!

Readers whose minds are not glued up by leftist mythology will see very clearly that what I am against is bias in the hiring process which is quite different; political indoctrination -- which means that only one view is allowed -- again quite different; bias in the selection of commencement speakers (e.g., 9 out of 10 representing one side of the political debate) which is quite different; bias in the allocation of student funds so that only students with one point of view get funds, which is quite different; politicization of the classroom where students are required to share the professor's biases, quite different; using academic classrooms for political purposes -- e.g., electioneering in a math class -- which is quite different; confusing teaching with political recruitment and so forth.

What leftists like my critic want is the ability to use American universities as their political fiefs, indoctrinating students, recruiting them for political agendas, funding their political operations. This is an abuse of the university, an abuse of the academic freedom of students, an abuse of the taxpayers and donors who fund universities, and abuse of the democracy we live in. Real communists of course would not understand this. Since they are building a tower to socialist heaven, in their ethical universes, anything goes.

From Whiskey Bar:

David Horowitz's (Losing) Battle
With the Truth

I have not conducted a "campaign against . . . political bias in college classrooms." In fact I have never used the term "political bias in college classrooms." I assume that everyone has a bias. I am not concerned about bias in the classroom.

David Horowitz
Some Of Our Facts Were Wrong; Our Point Was Right
March 15, 2005


It is time to remind ourselves that not so long ago the consensus of educators was that political indoctrination in the classroom by professors of whatever persuasion was an unacceptable abuse.

David Horowitz
The problem with America's colleges -- and the solution
Sept. 4, 2002

The Center for the Study of Popular Culture [calls] on university administrations to implement the following . . . demands:

Conduct an inquiry into political bias in the hiring process for faculty and administrators.

Conduct an inquiry into political bias in the selection of commencement speakers . . .

Conduct an inquiry into political bias in the allocation of student program funds.

Adopt a code of conduct for faculty that ensures that classrooms will welcome diverse viewpoints and not be used for political indoctrination

David Horowitz
The problem with America's colleges -- and the solution
Sept. 4, 2002

The blacklist really begins with the politicization of the undergraduate classroom (also a post-Sixties phenomenon). . . professorial expectations are defined as agreement with the ideology and political biases of the instructor.

David Horowitz
The Campus Blacklist
April 18, 2003

The clear intention of the Bill of Rights is to prevent professors from making political speeches in the classroom, or from making students feel there is a political partisan in the classroom with power over their grades . . . The purpose of the bill of rights is to take politics out of the classroom.

David Horowitz
Chronicle of Higher Education Online Chat
February 18, 2004

The Academic Bill of Rights . . . enumerate the rights of students to not be indoctrinated or otherwise assaulted by political propagandists in the classroom or any educational setting . . . The actual intent of the Academic Bill of Rights is to remove partisan politics from the classroom . . . [Colorado] State Rep. Shawn Mitchell has just introduced legislation requiring public institutions to create and publicize processes for protecting students against political bias.

David Horowitz
In Defense of Intellectual Diversity
February 13, 2004

Professors now very frequently -- and you heard Sara Dogan, who is the national coordinator of Students For Academic Freedom say this -- use the classroom as a political platform.

David Horowitz
CNN Interview
November 19, 2004

A large number of professors are abusing their positions as educators to turn their classrooms into political platforms and indoctrinate their students on matters in which they have no academic expertise.

David Horowitz
It's Time for Fairness and Inclusion in Our Universities
December 14, 2004