Attack: The Horowitz 101 speak out“What is really dangerous in this country?”

February 24, 2006

SOCIALIST WORKER talked to some of the professors on David Horowitz’s witch-hunt list about their reaction--and how the left should respond.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Stanley AronowitzCity University of New York
I’M HONORED. Imagine how badly I would feel if I hadn’t been named, after all the trouble that I’ve tried to make throughout my life.
I think David Horowitz is despicable in his attempt to name names and become some kind of new McCarthy. But this isn’t 1950. We’ve gone through that already, and in my view, it’s not going to be as effective as it was then.
This might have an effect on somebody who was in Arkansas or Florida. There have been some very, very bad cases. But he’s naming people who have had a fairly open and a very extensive record. For example, he’s named my colleague Eve Sedgwick, who’s a very distinguished literary and feminist theorist. It’s not as if he’s outing anybody. People are going to say, “What’s the point of attacking these people?”
And to use the word dangerous is amazing. I wish I was all that dangerous. Dangerous to what? To conservatism and right-wing lunaticism? I think, yes, most of us who he’s named are dangerous to the lunatics. We’re dangerous to people who want to abrogate civil liberties.
I think there is a chance for people on the left to react with something other than fright. I think we have to point out to people who don’t know what this is all about, and who this guy was. In the 1960s, together with his friend Peter Collier, he was a political activist himself. That he is now going out against people who he once at least putatively associated with is interesting.
I think people have to point out what this is all about. And then, I think we have to have a conversation about what academic freedom really is, and what freedom in general really is.
He’s raised the issue: What is dangerous to democracy in this country and in this world? Who are the dangerous people? I think that will be a very interesting conversation. To run away from it would be a terrible mistake.
Peter KirsteinSt. Xavier University
David Horowitz’s book The Professors is an example of war's impact on our democratic freedoms.
War may be rhetorically intended to spread democracy abroad, but it usually eviscerates it at home during the conflict. We saw the effort to suppress dissent during World War I, with the violent suppression of the Industrial Workers of the World and the deportation of Emma Goldman.
During the 1950s witch-hunts of the McCarthy era, over 100 professors were fired for not cooperating with congressional committees and for alleged past association with the Communist Party. Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer lost his security clearance, even though he developed the genocidal atomic bomb. The reason was his rather casual prior interest in the party, and his opposition to the hydrogen bomb.
Mr. Horowitz is trying to vilify and marginalize academicians who do not subscribe to his worldview. I think his war against the academy is ideologically inspired and motivated by a deep animus toward progressive faculty that he thinks are too independent and free in articulating their positions.
While he has recently stated that he did not support my suspension and reprimand for an antiwar email to an Air Force Academy cadet, which became a major academic freedom case, I believe the strength of his convictions and his commitment to a conservative, militantly expansionist America sometimes manifests itself in overly personal and excessively provocative calls for cleansing and purifying the academy.
Dissent is good for America, and without it, the nation would have even fewer restraints on its imperial overstretch that it does now.
Matthew EvangelistaCornell University
I only heard about Horowitz’s list and his book through the academic grapevine, from colleagues who received word about it from list-serves and the like--usually ones linked to progressive causes. My main concern is that the targets of Horowitz’s campaign and their sympathizers are creating a lot of free publicity for his book, whereas the more sensible response might be simply to ignore him.
The book reflects his usual blend of innuendo and distortion, and I would hope that most readers would recognize that. In my case, a quick comparison of his summaries of my views and my actual writings or talks would suffice to reveal his techniques (he also totally invented one citation).
I noticed that a reviewer on Amazon.com remarked that there was no need to buy his book because much of the same material was available for free on Horowitz’s Web site, discoverthenetwork.org. Within days, I noticed that the entries for me and many of the other 101 had been removed from the Web site, suggesting that Horowitz’s motives are, after all, more pecuniary than political. What a surprise.
Dana CloudUniversity of Texas
My first reaction to being on the list was amusement, and a bit of pride at being associated with prominent antiwar and activist scholars like Howard Zinn. My friends, students and colleagues have been sending me notes of congratulations about making the list.
However, it is sobering to remember that what Horowitz is up to amounts to nothing less than the new McCarthyism, and that his calls for faculty to be fired or disciplined by their universities are pernicious and serious. On his appearances on Fox News’ Hannity and Colmes show, he throws around the charge of communism as if a scholar’s sympathy with socialism (or Islam or Arabs) is grounds enough for punishment or discharge.
His efforts to peddle the misnamed “academic bill of rights” in state legislatures has prompted university administrations (like mine) to adopt faculty codes of conduct that warrant surveillance and restriction on faculty speech.
Horowitz is trying to whip up fears of brainwashing and conspiracy, and his lists, however entertaining some may find them, are basically directories for Homeland Security to come calling, should the political climate allow such a crackdown.
It brings back images of Joseph McCarthy, standing with a list in his hand of alleged communists, poised to ruin lives and careers in his anticommunist crusade. In politics, the labor movement and the culture industry, a whole layer of radicals was silenced by his efforts.
Members of Students for Academic Freedom (Horowitz’s offshoot group) sit in on my classes and those of radical colleagues’ around the country, which can have a terrible chilling effect on academic speech and the teaching of critical thinking.
We should definitely respond politically to Horowitz's stepped-up efforts in a national and visible way. I disagree with those on the left who say that Horowitz should be ignored. Horowitz may be regarded by many as a right-wing nut or crackpot, but he is doing the groundwork for more serious forces. His book is part and parcel of the assault on civil liberties in the U.S. since 9/11, and we should respond to him in that context.
Though certainly not to the same extent as other, more vulnerable faculty around the country, I’ve been on the receiving end of threats and hate mail from Horowitz’s supporters for being an outspoken antiwar activist and for criticizing the war and the collapse of civil liberties in the U.S. in my academic research.
Like all of the scholars on Horowitz’s hit list, I am a careful, responsible and successful teacher. It seems clear that Horowitz is only concerned on the surface with the potential “indoctrination” of students. (He is not too concerned that our business students are inundated with pro-capitalist propaganda, or that our petroleum engineering faculty has not one environmentalist on it.)
What the professors on his list share in common is a sustained effort to build the left and movements against war and occupation on our campuses.
Joel BeininStanford University
Mark LeVine has already published a refutation and correction in his History News Network blog in response to the original article by Alyssa Lappen on which this material is based.
I wonder whether, in your review of The Professors, you will comment on the charges made on the book's dust jacket that the “101 academics...happen to be alleged ex-terrorists, racists, murderers, sexual deviants, anti-Semites, and al-Qaeda supporters.”
Of course, I am none of these. Perhaps you should ask Horowitz to explain whether these statements represent his views, and whether these are supposed to be facts or merely slurs he feels free to throw around.
Anatole AntonSan Francisco State University
I was surprised. As one blogger said of me: I am “about as dangerous as Ovaltine.” I didn’t feel worthy. The list lumped me together with such accomplished scholars and public intellectuals as Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Angela Davis, Cornel West and so on and on.
From Horowitz’s complaint against me, I honestly couldn’t see that I did or said anything that was not well within my rights. I am especially proud of having helped call attention to E.L. Doctorow’s critique of President Bush as a man who does not mourn and a man that should cause us to mourn for ourselves.
Horowitz’s book is at the intellectual level of a tabloid. He should be ashamed of himself. Even waiving the matter of the sloppiness and inaccuracy of his allegations, the list was highly selective. It did not include anyone from Harvard or Yale. It did not mention many prominent dissenters in the natural sciences, and it seemed to involve a desire by Horowitz to settle old scores as with his inclusion of Todd Gitlin.
I haven’t done any research on Horowitz or his group, but my fear is that this may be an opening salvo of a war against dissent on the campuses.
Since the far right is trying to overcome the Vietnam syndrome, and since so much criticism of the war in Vietnam came from the campuses, I can’t help but fear that this may become part of an effort to silence campus dissent against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Furthermore, it represents an attack on attempts at curriculum reform in the direction of interdisciplinarity and university/community partnerships.
David Horowitz obviously is trying to get attention, so I think to the extent that we can, we should not give him attention. He really doesn’t deserve any. He has little that is substantive to say.
But should this become a real battle, I think it will be important to remind the universities of their liberal commitments to academic freedom and their own vulnerability to attack. It is important that outspoken radicals get support from their liberal friends and colleagues in the university.
Secondly, if--but only if--this becomes a big thing, then I think we should organize teach-ins around the country featuring groups of people on the list speaking critically about the policies and actions of the Bush administration.
If the teach-ins drew large numbers of students and got publicity in the press, it would show that students really want to hear what people on the list have to say and that they affirm our right to say it. They will even take time out of their busy schedules to go listen to us talk about subjects that Horowitz believes are taboo.

Campus Report: Community unfazed by academic bias inquiry

Author of book calling 101 profs 'dangerous' also leads drive to keep politics out of class

By Inna Lifshin

February 23, 2006

While Penn professors accused of being among the most dangerous academics in America are brushing off that title, the man behind it is getting much more serious consideration from the Pennsylvania government.

David Horowitz, the author of The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America -- which names three Penn professors -- is also a driving force behind a movement to stamp out a perceived bias in academia.

Horowitz recently testified in front of a Pennsylvania House of Representatives committee investigating whether there is political bias at state-funded colleges and universities in Pennsylvania.

Horowitz has been leading a campaign against what he says is the increasing politicization of higher education for several years.

Horowitz is among the leaders of an effort to get an "academic bill of rights," guaranteeing that students will not be penalized for political beliefs, passed in state legislatures.

He is head of the Los Angeles-based Center for the Study of Popular Culture, a conservative lobbying group.

Horowitz is one of about 25 people who have testified to the state legislature so far, according to Democratic Rep. Lawrence Curry of Montgomery County, the minority chairman of the Subcommittee on Higher Education.

The committee has held two sets of public hearings since it was formed last July -- one at the University of Pittsburgh last November and one at Temple University last month -- and plans to hold two more in the spring.

The issue touched Penn last week when Horowitz' book accused Law professor Regina Austin, History professor Mary Frances Berry and Religious Studies professor Michael Eric Dyson of attempting to indoctrinate students with liberal ideology.

Though sales of his book at the Penn Bookstore are "pretty decent" -- four copies out of six sold in the past week, according to employee Stacey Smith -- experts say that the book will have little or no impact on the the hearings.

"I think [the book] will excite his followers. ... Other people will look at it with scorn," Curry said.

Political Science professor Rogers Smith agreed that the book will do nothing more than "reinforce the like-minded."

Bruce Rankin -- a legislative aid to State Sen. Gibson Armstrong (R-Lancaster), who proposed the resolution creating the select committee -- said that although the book and Horowitz' appearances on television news programs won't affect the Pennsylvania hearings directly, he is raising awareness of the issue nationwide.

Horowitz' detractors, however, maintain that his arguments are rife with inaccuracies.

Curry -- who was a history professor at the University of the Arts in Center City for 40 years -- called Horowitz "unstable" and said that he "sells the profession [of teaching] short."

Rogers Smith joked that since conservatives currently control all three branches of the federal government, "liberal professors are doing a lousy job" indoctrinating students.

Those testifying before the state committee have included university officials, professors, students and representatives from outside organizations according to Dustin Gingrich, the Republican research analyst for the House Education Committee.

Article: Historians Against The War

By Judy Atkins ZNet

Historians Against the War (HAW) held a conference called "Empire, Resistance, and the War in Iraq" this past weekend at the University of Texas, Austin. Living up to its subtitle, "A Conference for Historians and Activists," this conference brought together historians from many U.S. campuses and local activists, but it was also about historians as activists which was what I thought made it unique. I know it is dangerous to call anything unique among a group of historians, but if anyone wants to prove that this wrong, the correction would be welcomed.

In addition to the many fine papers summarized by their presenters in five panels, these scholars also gave their personal views on the present moment, and the organization proposed some practical steps that it could take in the future.

The attack on progressive scholars by David Horowitz was mentioned several times as some of the "101 Most Dangerous Academics" were in attendance. Most notable was Howard Zinn, who along with Andrea Smith, filled auditorium of 1500 in the LBJ auditorium for their keynotes. The audience was swelled by university and local peace activists and progressives as well as many local high school and middle school teachers.

In their talks, Smith and Zinn introduced themes that would continue throughout the conference. Smith's talk was comprehensive in its reframing of the issues of race, class and gender. She criticized the errors of certain parts of the feminist movement which applauded the attack on Afghanistan after 9/11 as if bombing could ever liberate women. She spoke about gender hierarchy and the culture of sexual violence as a strategy of the state. She spoke of new models of coalition building based not on common victimization but on three inter-related models of oppression, Slavery, Genocide and Orientalism. She talked about new forms of organizing and the Latin American and indigenous models of "making power" outside the system based on mutual respect and responsibility. She called into question the future of the nation state.

Howard Zinn's speech started with the challenge of how to go about "making history useful" to everyday people.

He asked "Why do people believe the media?" He attributed this naivete to a lack of historical perspective or "historical amnesia." For example, U.S. Presidents have historically lied about the reasons for going to war, so of course we should be skeptical about this President's rationalizations - unless we act as though we were born yesterday. The biggest lie that many people fall for is that there is a common national interest between the common people and the government. A study of history shows that there is no common national interest between them and us. But rather a "clash of classes." And it's our lack of historical knowledge that sets us up again and again to swallow the government's lies. Our job, he said, is to take our history and our country back, that the war in Iraq is not the only problem but the problem is war itself which poisons and corrupts and threatens our democratic rights.

Time constraints made it necessary for many of the panelists to shorten their presentations. And space constraints force me to give just a few highlights of a conference in which so many of the papers should be given much more attention. This is frustrating, however, Historians against the War promises to put many of the papers up on their website - http://www.historiansagainstwar.org/ - as soon as possible. And "portside" invited the presenters to submit their papers and remarks to us for possible distribution.

The panel, "The U.S. in the Middle East," was particularly varied and meaningful. Magnus Bernhardson from Williams College posed the question "What is Iraq?" He described the different views of Iraq - media Iraq; partisan Iraq; wishful Iraq; and the actual Iraq. What is overlooked most, he said, is the actual Iraq. The people are not just suffering from the current occupation, but rather they have undergone one long period of war - from the Iran/Iraq war through the first Persian Gulf War, through the sanctions and now with the current war on Iraq. He described a conference he attended in Jordan between U.S. and Iraq scholars in which the Iraqis told them that what is important to them is the restoration of normal daily life. There is no way to discuss new forms of democracy when the country is at war and normal life is impossible. The conditions of war must be ended before a new democratic government can be formed.

In this same panel, Rahul Mahajan from NYU, described the different views of U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East. There are three schools of thought in regard to democracy in the Middle East. First, the mainstream view of "promoting democracy" while at the same time questioning whether Arabs are "fit for democracy." Second, the Chomsky school which says the U.S. is indifferent to democracy and just wants a favorable investment climate similar to all its previous interventions. Third, the view of William Robinson who says the U.S. is promoting a polyarchy form of government in which there are a couple of rival elites competing with each other for power. He says that promoting polyarchy serves U.S. interests better in this age of globalization. Mahajan reported that all three views have flaws, and that it may actually be impossible to discern a rationality to the current administration's foreign policy.

I have to mention one more speaker on this panel - Nada Shabout. Her talk was about the attack on cultural Iraq and destruction of the last 25 years of Iraqi art. The works in the Museum of Modern Art have been destroyed, and public monuments torn down and rebuilt in a "New Iraq" image. While conceding that much of it was monumental art that celebrated the regime of Saddam Hussein, some of it was actually good art. She questioned the effect that conscious destruction of 25 years of art would have on a country. She also pointed out the U.S. promotion of a "new" Iraqi artist named Pashi who many Iraqis believe is a fraud. He is being promoted by the U.S. government and his art is now being shown in New York and was featured in an AP story.

Another panel pointed out the threats to academic freedom and civil liberties that arise during wartime. Colleen Woods' presentation on a N.Y. City public school teacher who was put on trial for not being patriotic enough during World War I provided insight into the beginning of the accusations of disloyalty against teachers and the rise of the loyalty oath for school teachers.

Peter Kirstein, whose personal email answer to a spam invitation to celebrate military values, was misquoted and blasted all over the internet by the right wing, and which resulted in his suspension from Xavier University, gave a spirited description of the attacks on him and his successful defense against these attacks. Other examples of violations of academic freedom were discussed. Other speakers on this panel were Amee Chew from Harvard and Jeffrey Kerr-Ritchie from the University of North Carolina.

On Saturday night we heard from Irene Gendzier from B.U. and Rashid Khalidi from Columbia. Irene talked about the roots of U.S. policy toward Iraq and the long encouragement of Saddam Hussein by all sectors of the U.S. government. She said that academics should have been paying more attention - especially to the Henry Gonzalez hearings in 1991-2 when these connections were revealed.

Rasid Khalidi gave an excellent speech on the U.S. goals in Iraq and the almost certain outcome of failure. He warned of the U.S. addiction to power and to war, and quoted James Madison that war is the poisoner, corrupter and destroyer of democratic rights. The Bush administration is openly contemptuous of the rule of law both international and domestic. He noted that while U.S. public opinion opposes the war and believes it is a mistake but that this shift has not yet affected the media or the political structure. It is time to hold the both to account. We must oppose the war, and fight the domestic implications of an imperial presidency, a national security state and the curtailment of civil liberties.

The last panel on Sunday morning was "What Activists and Historians can learn from Each Other." Dan Berger talked about his book on the Weather Underground and his view that they were important for their anti-imperialism and their recognition of white supremacy and their emphasis on action. The legacy of the Weather Underground was questioned by another panelist, Carolyn Eisenberg, who disagreed and argued that the anti-Vietnam war movement needs more study if we are to learn from our mistakes and create a stronger anti-war movement today. The title of her presentation was "Nixon's and Kissinger's Tips for the Peace Movement." Many speakers spoke of the crucial importance to the anti-war movement of the returning vets who are speaking out and noted the courage of the military families and in particular Cindy Sheehan.

At the close of the conference, Historians against the War co-chair, Margaret Power, called for discussion on tactics and laid out some proposed plans for the future. Their specific ideas are to call for National Days of Teach-Ins on the war probably in the Fall; to begin to put pressure on Congress to bring the troops home and cut off funding; to gather oral histories of returning veterans and their families; to develop short pamphlets on different topics for distribution, and to work with High School and Middle School social science teachers.

As I left the conference it was hard to ignore the huge LBJ museum and library so I ducked into the museum not expecting much. I wandered past LBJ's presidential limosine and other memorabilia. My attention was drawn to a soundless videotape. It was a tape of the 1967 March on the Pentagon. I watched students and nuns and priests and veterans and Abraham Lincoln Brigaders and union members and ordinary people file silently by and by and by. It did my heart good to remember how broad the opposition to the Vietnam war was and to see some familiar faces looking again as young as the students of today.