Article: E-mail interview with Scott Jaschik, editor of InsideHigherEd.com
From: "Scott Jaschik"
To: dhorowitz
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 5:32 AM
Subject: questions for article on report coming out tomorrow
David:
I hope you are doing well.
I'm getting ready for an article on a report coming out tomorrow by Free Exchange on Campus. The report will question the facts in "The Professors" on a number of grounds, and I wanted to get your responses on some points, and generally to the issues being raised by Free Exchange on Campus.
Would you please answer the questions below? Thanks very much.
--Scott
1. How is The Professors selling? Any sense of how many copies sold and/or in print? (This isn't an issue addressed by the new report, but I'm curious as my sense is that you are doing well in sales.)
2. The report says you only have entries on 100 professors, not 101. Is that correct?
3. The report says that you are unable in the book to cite a single example of a student whose grade was lowered for political views. Is this correct? Is this significant?
4. The report says that your book shows your real agenda isn't what happens to students because so few of the profiles are based on students' views. (The report says that student views are absent from 87 of the profiles.) The report says this shows your real agenda is to go after professors whose views you disagree with. Is this true?
5. The report says that 52 of the profiles are based entirely on out-of-class statements or writings, again showing (the report says) that you aren't really motivated by student concerns about the classroom.
6. The report questions numerous statements of fact in the book, and most of these questions are similar to those posed by the Fact Checkers on the Free Exchange on Campus Web site at:
http://www.freeexchangeoncampus.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=7&Itemid=34 I don't want to go into each one of these in my article, but wanted to ask if these comments have generally prompted you to view any of the book as incorrect or to have issued any corrections? Is there a general comment you would make on their view that your book is full of mistakes designed to make professors look bad?
7. What do you make of the fact that they are getting ready to issue this report?
Thanks.
--Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Horowitz"
To: scott.jaschik
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: questions for article on report coming out tomorrow
I'm fine Scott, thanks. On my way to the University of Chicago.
I'll answer the first question last for reasons I'll explain.
2. Actually there are 102 professors profiled in the book. Ward Churchill and Cornel West are profiled in the introduction and third chapters, and you could make a case that Nancy Rabinowitz is also profiled. I didn't include them with the 100 others listed in alphabetical order with bullet point headings because that seemed redundant. This claim by Free Exchange is typical of their dishonesty and malice. Instead of arguing the case (the book is three months old and there is still not a single attempt by my opponents to actually respond to the 15,000 word analysis in the introduction and final two chapters), Free Exchange wants to "criminalize" our differences by attempting to present this as an issue of my accuracy in the hopes that they can persuade people not to read the book at all. They will fail in this. I have been writing books and articles for 40 years and the only time my accuracy has been raised as an issue in this way has been in regard to this book. This is so transparently a political ploy that only people ideologically disposed to disagree with me will be taken in by it.
3. "Unable" is a stretch. While I consider political grading both deplorable and widespread, it is no part of the case made in this book. The principal issues are unprofessional conduct in the classroom, unprofessional instruction (e.g., where the professor is not academically qualified to teach the subject), unprofessional courses (i.e., courses that are ideological and not academic) and bigotry. So the lack of cases of political grading is not only insignificant; it is irrelevant.
4. At this point I'm wondering if my critics have even read my book. The book is not about students' gripes and while in a handful of cases I refer to student complaints, none of these is the basis for the profile or inclusion in the book. I most emphatically do not say that leftwing views are illegitimate as faculty views. In fact I say just the opposite on p. xxvi: "This book is not intended as a text about leftwing bias in the university and does not propose that a leftwing perspective on academic faculties is a problem in itself. Every individual, whether conservative or liberal, has a perspective and therefore a bias. Professors have every right to interpret the subjects they teach according to their individual points of view. That is the essence of academic freedom."
5. This claim is also based on a misunderstanding of what the text is about and what it's claims are. Since I am not presented with the 52 cases that are being questioned it's hard for me to answer them individually. Here are some of the misunderstandings I am familiar with (and have already answered in other venues):
I have never attended a class given by Sam Richards (Penn State), but he says very clearly and forthrightly that he teaches his ideology in the classroom.
Eric Foner (Columbia) endorsed a conference (and made the claim himself) that political activism is integral to scholarship. I think we can take him (and many others in my book) at their word. However, as I've already indicated, the book is about unprofessional courses like Women's Studies which is generally conceived in ideological not scholarly terms, unprofessional instruction as when a professor whose expertise is the sociology of sports stadiums teaches a course in war, imperialism and terror as Rick Eckstein of Villanova does, and religious or racial or ethnic bigotry such as that displayed by Hamid Algar (Berkeley) and Hamid Dabashi (Columbia).
6. I have answered as many of these claims as I have seen in the Replies to Critics and other sections of www.dangerousprofessors.com. Where my book is in error I have acknowledged that. Without exception the claims that I have seen are all trivial and normal to a book of this size and do not affect in the slightest the argument I have made.
7. Free Exchange is an organization created by the teacher unions who are defending their dues paying members by any means necessary, in this case by means that are dishonest and designed to prevent a discussion of the issues.
1. The book is doing very well. It has been in 500-600 zone on Amazon all week, which is nearly three months after publication. I'm not going to give you a specific sales figure because that would be just another fact that my opponents will twist as a means of avoiding engagement with the issues.
Thanks for asking.
David
To: dhorowitz
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 5:32 AM
Subject: questions for article on report coming out tomorrow
David:
I hope you are doing well.
I'm getting ready for an article on a report coming out tomorrow by Free Exchange on Campus. The report will question the facts in "The Professors" on a number of grounds, and I wanted to get your responses on some points, and generally to the issues being raised by Free Exchange on Campus.
Would you please answer the questions below? Thanks very much.
--Scott
1. How is The Professors selling? Any sense of how many copies sold and/or in print? (This isn't an issue addressed by the new report, but I'm curious as my sense is that you are doing well in sales.)
2. The report says you only have entries on 100 professors, not 101. Is that correct?
3. The report says that you are unable in the book to cite a single example of a student whose grade was lowered for political views. Is this correct? Is this significant?
4. The report says that your book shows your real agenda isn't what happens to students because so few of the profiles are based on students' views. (The report says that student views are absent from 87 of the profiles.) The report says this shows your real agenda is to go after professors whose views you disagree with. Is this true?
5. The report says that 52 of the profiles are based entirely on out-of-class statements or writings, again showing (the report says) that you aren't really motivated by student concerns about the classroom.
6. The report questions numerous statements of fact in the book, and most of these questions are similar to those posed by the Fact Checkers on the Free Exchange on Campus Web site at:
http://www.freeexchangeoncampus.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=7&Itemid=34 I don't want to go into each one of these in my article, but wanted to ask if these comments have generally prompted you to view any of the book as incorrect or to have issued any corrections? Is there a general comment you would make on their view that your book is full of mistakes designed to make professors look bad?
7. What do you make of the fact that they are getting ready to issue this report?
Thanks.
--Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Horowitz"
To: scott.jaschik
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: questions for article on report coming out tomorrow
I'm fine Scott, thanks. On my way to the University of Chicago.
I'll answer the first question last for reasons I'll explain.
2. Actually there are 102 professors profiled in the book. Ward Churchill and Cornel West are profiled in the introduction and third chapters, and you could make a case that Nancy Rabinowitz is also profiled. I didn't include them with the 100 others listed in alphabetical order with bullet point headings because that seemed redundant. This claim by Free Exchange is typical of their dishonesty and malice. Instead of arguing the case (the book is three months old and there is still not a single attempt by my opponents to actually respond to the 15,000 word analysis in the introduction and final two chapters), Free Exchange wants to "criminalize" our differences by attempting to present this as an issue of my accuracy in the hopes that they can persuade people not to read the book at all. They will fail in this. I have been writing books and articles for 40 years and the only time my accuracy has been raised as an issue in this way has been in regard to this book. This is so transparently a political ploy that only people ideologically disposed to disagree with me will be taken in by it.
3. "Unable" is a stretch. While I consider political grading both deplorable and widespread, it is no part of the case made in this book. The principal issues are unprofessional conduct in the classroom, unprofessional instruction (e.g., where the professor is not academically qualified to teach the subject), unprofessional courses (i.e., courses that are ideological and not academic) and bigotry. So the lack of cases of political grading is not only insignificant; it is irrelevant.
4. At this point I'm wondering if my critics have even read my book. The book is not about students' gripes and while in a handful of cases I refer to student complaints, none of these is the basis for the profile or inclusion in the book. I most emphatically do not say that leftwing views are illegitimate as faculty views. In fact I say just the opposite on p. xxvi: "This book is not intended as a text about leftwing bias in the university and does not propose that a leftwing perspective on academic faculties is a problem in itself. Every individual, whether conservative or liberal, has a perspective and therefore a bias. Professors have every right to interpret the subjects they teach according to their individual points of view. That is the essence of academic freedom."
5. This claim is also based on a misunderstanding of what the text is about and what it's claims are. Since I am not presented with the 52 cases that are being questioned it's hard for me to answer them individually. Here are some of the misunderstandings I am familiar with (and have already answered in other venues):
I have never attended a class given by Sam Richards (Penn State), but he says very clearly and forthrightly that he teaches his ideology in the classroom.
Eric Foner (Columbia) endorsed a conference (and made the claim himself) that political activism is integral to scholarship. I think we can take him (and many others in my book) at their word. However, as I've already indicated, the book is about unprofessional courses like Women's Studies which is generally conceived in ideological not scholarly terms, unprofessional instruction as when a professor whose expertise is the sociology of sports stadiums teaches a course in war, imperialism and terror as Rick Eckstein of Villanova does, and religious or racial or ethnic bigotry such as that displayed by Hamid Algar (Berkeley) and Hamid Dabashi (Columbia).
6. I have answered as many of these claims as I have seen in the Replies to Critics and other sections of www.dangerousprofessors.com. Where my book is in error I have acknowledged that. Without exception the claims that I have seen are all trivial and normal to a book of this size and do not affect in the slightest the argument I have made.
7. Free Exchange is an organization created by the teacher unions who are defending their dues paying members by any means necessary, in this case by means that are dishonest and designed to prevent a discussion of the issues.
1. The book is doing very well. It has been in 500-600 zone on Amazon all week, which is nearly three months after publication. I'm not going to give you a specific sales figure because that would be just another fact that my opponents will twist as a means of avoiding engagement with the issues.
Thanks for asking.
David
