Update: The Wildcat has an article out about it this morning, which among many points does contain one good one concerning how graduate courses typically do focus upon a single perspective. In that situation, it seems to me that the problem arises when there are no classes focusing on opposing ones.

Update II:And speaking of bias, was it really necessary to note that David Horowitz happens to be a Fox News analyst? It sounds to me that the author and editor have some sort of beef against Fox News (surprise!) even though Horowitz isn’t actually speaking for them. One can notice on the front page of the printed edition and within the online article that Horowitz has a quote-box dedicated to him with the title “Fox News analyst.” They could have mentioned he’s the founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center (formerly known as the Center for the Study of Popular Culture) and FrontPageMag.com, but the journalists apparently see some reason to go at one perceived-to-be-questionable association rather than Horowitz’s primary activities. Expect a letter to the editor from yours truly.

Update III: Letter to the editor is in. Expect to see it Monday.

David Horowitz has come on the attack against the University of Arizona, and some are fighting back. I received the news of all this tonight when I got this email.

———- Forwarded message ———-

From: Jeff Larson <jlarson[at]u.arizona.edu>

Date: Feb 1, 2007 2:51 PM

Subject: David Horowitz’s attack on UA students and professors

To: Erin Hertzog <asuapres[at]email.arizona.edu>, David Reece < asuaevp[at]email.arizona.edu>, Jami Reinsch
<asuaavp[at]email.arizona.edu>

Cc: “Lauren E. Conway” <leconway[at]email.arizona.edu >, “Jessica A. Anderson”
<Jande687[at]email.arizona.edu>, “Melodie J. Schwartz” <melodies[at]email.arizona.edu >, “Astrid K. Henao”
<astridh[at]email.arizona.edu>, “Shawn T. Ingram” <sti[at]email.arizona.edu>, Jen Dang <
jendang[at]email.arizona.edu>, Samantha Kerr <sjkerr[at]email.arizona.edu>, Brad Burns <
bburns[at]email.arizona.edu>, Bryan Hill <bhill[at]email.arizona.edu>, Steven Gerner
<sgerner[at]email.arizona.edu>, Matt Boepple < mboepple[at]email.arizona.edu>, Becca Rodl
<beccar08[at]email.arizona.edu>, Chris Nagata < cnagata[at]email.arizona.edu>, Mattie Price
<mattiep[at]email.arizona.edu>, Mary Venezia <mary.venezia[at]nau.edu>

Members of the ASUA and ASA,

I want to draw your attention to a recent attack on me and a Sociology course that I teach and ask that the ASUA and ASA take action to support me and other UA instructors who are threatened by this. You may have already heard about this as it has piqued much discussion among professors and instructors on campus and has been reported in last week’s Tucson Weekly (article here). Last night the Graduate Student and Professional Council (GPSC) passed a resolution condemning the attack (see attached) and I am hoping that you will do the same.

David Horowitz is a high profile idealogue and his organization, the David Horowitz Freedom Center, have been waging a McCarthy-like witch hunt to root out leftwing academics. You might be familiar with his popular book listing the 101 “most dangerous” professors in the U.S.; now he has a new book in the works called Indoctrination U. The seven or so UA instructors that Horowitz has named (see his article here ) will, I’m told, be spotlighted in this book. Moreover, the DHFC has been aggressively promoting an “Academic Bill of Rights” that it hopes to turn into legislation that will place politicians in the role of watchdogs and censors and students in the role of informers. One such attempt in the AZ legislature has already been introduced and, thankfully, failed. Clearly, this does not promote a healthy teaching environment and is already affecting teachers in the classroom who may feel intimidated. The Horowistas’ claims, although they point fingers at individuals and our courses, are attacks on academic institutions. “Unfortunately they reflect a problem that is not isolated but systemic,” they write. As such, everyone in academia is potentially threatened by this. DHFC and its affiliate, Students for Academic Freedom, have mounted a controversial, visible, and well financed campaign against academic integrity that I think warrants a strong and unified denunciation.

The public response to these attacks, in my view, should come from the most prestigious and powerful among us - the presidents of universities, the celebrity academics, the Harvards and Stanfords - not just from the individual (and presumably most vulnerable) targets of the attacks. So far, President Shelton and the Board of Regents have offered no official response from this university - nothing, even as I and several distinguished faculty members, as well as the English and Women’s Studies departments, endure broadside political attacks.

How can the ASUA and ASA play a role? I think the associations can and should insist that President Shelton and the AZBoR emphatically and publicly denounce this outrageous attack. It should also take a strong public stance of its own and stand up for the students and graduate instructors that it represents. I’d be happy to talk more with you about this if you have questions, but I think the public record speaks for itself. We can’t let this guy continue to stir up controversy and threaten the integrity of the university while we remain silent. Please consider taking up this issue and pressing our university’s leaders to take a strong public stance against this witch hunt.

Sincerely,
Jeff Larson
Ph.D. Candidate
Department of Sociology

My first reaction is not a surprise that the University of Arizona hosts such courses as Horowitz lists. Rather, it’s that Horowitz would choose the name Indoctrination U when Evan Coyne Maloney has already reserved the title Indoctrinate U for his film about this kind of academic bias. I did inspect his latest book, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America, over the winter break, but the book contains no mention of the University of Arizona.

The email above also contined an attachment with a resolution GPSC just passed yesterday. Quoted in full:

GPSC Resolution Supporting the Free Exchange of Ideas

Whereas higher education should challenge students to think critically, debate and explore ideas they are not familiar with;

Whereas a free exchange of ideas between students and instructors is the key to learning on a college campus;

Whereas restrictions on what content is taught in the classroom, what subjects are open to debate and what ideas we as students can be exposed to would hamper the education students receive at the University of Arizona;

Whereas around the country there have been numerous politically motivated attempts to restrict the free exchange of ideas that is critical to education, often referred to as the so-called “academic bill of rights”;

Whereas proponents of these proposals have not been able to show that any problem exists;

Whereas students need elected officials and administrators to focus on issues such as improving the access to and the affordability of higher education in the State of Arizona;

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Graduate and Professional Student Council of the University of Arizona supports the free exchange of ideas and opposes any future attempt to institute the so-called “academic bill of rights” or any similar proposals;

Be it further resolved that the Graduate and Professional Student Council of the University of Arizona calls upon the Arizona State Legislature and the Arizona Board of Regents to maintain the University of Arizona as an open marketplace of ideas where free expression is exercised and where diverse views are expressed and debate of those ideas is encouraged.

Passed January 31, 2007
In favor: 17
Opposed: 1
Abstentions: 1

Before moving on, I should note that his investigation of English 101 concerns a course that occurred three years ago. All Horowitz mentions here is Sung Ohm’s English 101. Little did Horowitz apparently investigate that the syllabus to which he is linking comes from “Spring Semester 2004″ and only concerns two sections of the course: 121 and 135. This semester’s English 101 class consists of sections numbered from 1 to 23. Last semester it was 1 through 168! Horowitz seems to think this is what all English 101 classes are, but he is mistaken. My English 101 was partially themed around the advertising industry’s rhetoric. Truly, it was a fun and informative class.

Jeff Nelson, the individual who sent the above email, has also made a blog post about all the rage. The post is entirely incoherent, failing to understand the fundamental difference between using class professorship for political recruiting and doing so within a club.

The Academic Bill of Rights looks well-intentioned and well-principled, but I’m unsure as to how well it could be executed. Thankfully, what it looks not to advocate is action like the State legislature bill from last year that would have allowed students to opt out of “offensive” readings. Frankly, if you’ve been in college for four years and you’ve never been intellectually offended, go get your tuition money back; you’ve been wasting your time.

What the GPSC resolution seems to do is to mix up the rhetorical terms concerning the “marketplace of ideas.” Undoubtedly, the above mentioned State legislature bill doesn’t promote the marketplace, but I also fail to see what about Horowitz’s Academic Bill of Rights doesn’t promote it. Thus, I recommend an ASUA resolution condemning any attempt to suppress ideas as the State legislature tried it, and promoting the governmental passage of an Academic Bill of Rights similar to that which Horowitz has proposed.

Check that out…another question to ask the candidates!