January 2009
SAN
FRANCISCO — It’s not standard practice at meetings of the Modern Language
Association to have visible security or a roped-off divide between the dais for
speakers and the audience. But it’s not every MLA meeting that features David
Horowitz, who has spent years attacking the group.
Amid rumors that the Radical Caucus of the MLA might try to disrupt the Horowitz
talk here Monday, the MLA had arranged for Horowitz and fellow panelists — if
disrupted — to appear at an undisclosed location and to be broadcast back into
the room where the audience gathered. While the Radical Caucus did distribute a
written attack on the decision to invite Horowitz, it did not disrupt the event,
and the audience saw Horowitz and his fellow panelists in person. Things got a
bit frosty when a few members of the audience didn’t wait for the moderator to
tell Horowitz his speaking time was up (time was carefully negotiated in
advance) and shouted at him to sit down.
Horowitz appeared on the panel with three literary scholars — one of whom backed
some of Horowitz’s views — to debate the state of academic freedom. Horowitz
didn’t break new ground in his critiques of academe — nor did Horowitz’s critics
in their analysis of him.
In
some ways what was most notable was that Horowitz praised the MLA for the
invitation, which officially came from the organizing committee of the
association’s Delegate Assembly.
More than five years have passed since Horowitz first proposed his Academic Bill
of Rights – which he says would protect students and which many professors say
would intrude on their rights. References to faculty members providing a range
of views have left many professors fearful that they would be unable to present
strong points of view or controversial work. Horowitz said that the MLA is the
first disciplinary group to invite him to speak in that time.
He
said that while many academic groups have condemned him and that many professors
have compared him to Joseph McCarthy (and worse), few have engaged him in
discussion. He said it was significant that the MLA has done so. (He almost
spoke at the annual meeting this year of the National Communication Association,
but that possibility fell apart, with some of that association’s members
questioning the wisdom of inviting him.)
Horowitz said that he believed most professors were not inappropriately trying
to indoctrinate students, but that significant portions were doing so,
especially in women’s studies. He repeatedly criticized the concept of the
social construction of gender, which he said should not be taught as reality but
as a feminist theory. Horowitz also linked the perception of professors to their
economic well being.
Noting the recent decline in the number of jobs for English professors, he said
that there may be a link between the disappearing jobs and the “perception that
English is a politicized field.” He said that English professors would be
respected if they stuck to their fields. “If you want to teach about global
warming or imperialism, become climatologists or political scientists,” he said.
While Horowitz made his points with characteristic rhetorical flourishes, others
who spoke here endorsed some of his views – or the legitimacy of considering
them – but did so with notably mellower tones. Mark Bauerlein, a professor of
English at Emory University, questioned some of the rhetoric that has been used
to attack Horowitz, and said that some of the rhetoric used to describe the good
work of professors goes too far. He noted that Horowitz’s goals have been
compared to those of totalitarian governments and questioned the fairness of
framing the debate in that way.
Bauerlein said that academic ideals are sometimes “sacrificed to department
politics, personalities in the room, cronyism, identity politics” and other
inappropriate factors. This is especially the case, he said, when departments
are “insulated” from much of American society and become “more self-involved.”
Ultimately, Bauerlein said, academe should acknowledge that infringements on
academic freedom are coming from professors, not from David Horowitz.
Gerald Graff, a professor of English at the University of Illinois at Chicago
and president of the MLA, said that he agreed with Horowitz and Bauerlein that
“we should show more curiosity” about the critique of academe as being hostile
to certain views and ideas. “There is a question of fact — what is actually
going on in classrooms?” he said.
While Graff argued for a discussion of the substance of Horowitz’s criticisms,
others questioned why Horowitz was even invited.
The
Radical Caucus released a letter to those arriving at the session that said
Horowitz should not have been invited. “The reason why we in the Radical Caucus
oppose Horowitz’s invited presence at the MLA, however, is not simply that he
espouses views many people find troublesome, even repugnant. It is that he
consistently misrepresents the views of academics whom he wishes to discredit.
He is not a scholar but a liar of the Goebbels school.” The caucus cited
Horowitz’s descriptions of scholars in his 2006 book, The Professors: The 101
Most Dangerous Academics in America, as unfair and inaccurate.
During the question period, many of the questions were directed as much toward
the program organizers as to Horowitz.
“Did you do your homework before you invited him?” Barbara Foley, a professor of
English at Rutgers University at Newark, asked to applause. She asked if MLA
officials were aware of the “racist trash” on Horowitz’s Web sites or his “hit
list” of professors. Horowitz then commented about not being able to answer all
of the “Bolsheviks” in the audience.
Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors and
an English professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, disputed
Horowitz on numerous points — although they united, prior to the start of the
program, by mutually agreeing that they would not evacuate if a protest started,
and would face any disruptions from the room together.
Nelson told Horowitz that he was wrong about the social construction of gender
and about what goes on in classrooms generally. Nelson said that politics aren’t
much discussed in most courses, and that only the smallest fraction of
professors — liberals and conservatives alike — abuse their positions to
pressure students to take some political stance. Horowitz noted, however, that
numerous studies have found that college students aren’t swayed by their
professors’ politics or particularly offended that faculty members have views
that may differ from their own. In his classes, Nelson said (to Horowitz’s
approval), he gives extra credit to students who disagree with him, since the
disagreement enlivens discussion.
There is no evidence, Nelson said, to justify the Academic Bill of Rights, which
would be “a new political enforcement mechanism.”
Another panelist — Norma E. Cantú, a professor of English at the University of
Texas at San Antonio — took a different approach. While she stressed that she
respected the views of students and their right to think as they wish, she said
there was nothing wrong with a professor hoping to shape a student.
“Are we radicalizing students? I hope so. Why would you read a book except to be
informed and to grow,” she said. “I hope all of us are about change.”
The original story and user comments can be viewed online at http://insidehighered.com/news/2008/12/30/horowitz
Help us maintain freedom in teaching, research and scholarship by joining SAFS or making a donation.
