THIS BLOG HAS MOVED AND HAS A NEW HOME PAGE.

May 03, 2005

Why David Horowitz attacks academia - part 2

I have been puzzled by the vehemence of Horowitz's attacks on the academic life. After all, his accusations of faculty laziness are contradicted by actual studies. Jerry A. Jacobs (of the University of Pennsylvania) in his Presidential Address to the Eastern Sociological Society in February 2003 (and published in Sociological Forum, vol. 19, #1, February 2004), points out that college faculty work an average of nearly 55 hours per week. By contrast, professionals in other fields or managers worked nine hours per week less than college professors. His study also found that professors report that they feel constantly under stress of work-related pressures.

Of course each profession has its share of people like Wally (the character in the Dilbert comic strip) who do the minimum amount of work expected of them. I am sure academia has its representatives, though I am hard pressed to think of a single one of my colleagues in my whole academic career who comes anywhere close to the Beetle Bailey-like stereotype that Horowitz alleges is the norm.

I do not expect Horowitz to change his message simply because actual data contradicts him. As Graham Larkin (a professor of Fine Arts at Stanford University) points out in his article David Horowitz’s War on Rational Discourse that appeared in the April 25, 2005 issue of Inside Higher Ed, facts have never been an impediment to his diatribes. Horowitz's strategy is to simply repeat things over and over again, even if they have been refuted. Since he is extremely well paid by a host of wealthy right-wing foundations that support organizations that provide him with platforms to keep him in the public view, his charges gain publicity well out of proportion to their actual merit or even their truth content.

It is easy to dismiss Horowitz as a crackpot who uses inflammatory rhetoric to get publicity. But somehow that seems insufficient to me. There is a vehemence to his attacks on academics that seem to require explanation beyond simple ignorance or that he is so naïve that he does not actually understand what a university is all about and about the extent of faculty work outside the classroom.

It is Michael Berube who, I think, nails the best possible reason for Horowitz's bizarre attacks on college faculty. Berube teaches literature and cultural studies at Penn State and writes with a style and wit that I can only envy. Check out his blog to see what I mean.

In his essay Why Horowitz Hates Professors, Berube writes:

I think we’re finally getting to the real reason David hates professors so much. It has nothing to do with our salaries or our working hours: he hates our freedom. Horowitz knows perfectly well that I can criticize the Cockburns and Churchills to my left and the Beinarts and Elshtains to my right any old time I choose, and that at the end of the day I’ll still have a job – whereas he has to answer to all his many masters, fetching and rolling over whenever they blow that special wingnut whistle that only far-right lackeys can hear. It’s not a very dignified way to live, and surely it takes its toll on a person’s sense of self-respect.

Berube is right. Academics have the freedom, as long as they are not being outright offensive or advocating criminal activity or bringing dishonor to their institutions, to take positions on any subject, generally without fear of retribution from their universities. I can support evolution one day and, if I find some convincing reason to switch my views, I can oppose it the next. I can even switch my views without any reason at all, just for the fun of it, and the only loss I suffer is to my credibility. But people like Horowitz have no such freedom. They have to be very sensitive to what their paymasters want and take exactly that line or they get thrown out on their ear.

Actually, this thesis might explain a lot of the animosity that the Third-Tier Punditâ„¢ class have towards academics. All these commentators (and even reporters for the media) have a good sense of what their employers expect from them. It is the very predictability of their stances that gives them access to the media. If they start taking contrary position and become ideologically unpredictable, they risk losing their jobs. The Coulters, Malkins, and Goldbergs of the world cannot (for example) go beyond extremely mild criticisms of Bush or the Iraq war (even if they wanted to) because to do so would be career suicide.

It is true that there exists a doctrinaire left whose people also have similar constraints but those people do not have mainstream access, and most people have never heard of them. Most of the well-known people who are considered left wing by the mainstream media (such as Paul Krugman) are not as constrained in their views, because there is no equivalent to the scale of the right-wing foundations.

But academics (like Krugman) and more recently independent bloggers have no such constraints. It is because of this very lack of ideological oversight that universities can create new knowledge. It enables faculty and students to explore new ideas wherever it might take them. We are hired for our knowledge in physics or history or law, not for our ideological bent. But we also are expected to be public citizens and contribute to society, and this enables us to take stands on issues that may not be directly related to our academic research interests.

So is Horowitz's crusade driven by faculty envy, as Berube suggests? It makes sense to me. Because even as college professors complain about the amount of work they have to do, I know very few who would switch out of this life and do something else. This is because the faculty life is, in fact, a great life. Horowitz thinks that we enjoy it because we can goof off. But only a person who hates his or her own job will have such a view of what constitutes an ideal working life. An ideal job is when what we do as work is what we would do for pleasure. And that is what draws people to teaching.

Those of us in academia think it is a great life despite the workload because it is rewarding to grapple with ideas, it is stimulating to work with students who look at things in fresh ways, it is gratifying to solve a research problem, it is exhilarating to publish articles and papers and books and feel that one is contributing to the store of the world's knowledge.

We love our work and cannot imagine doing anything else. And, best of all, we can say what we honestly think about the important issues of the day. This must drive people like Horowitz crazy, and the result is not pretty.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL for this entry is: http://blog.case.edu/singham/mt-tb.cgi/1211 David Horowitz and the art of the cheap shot
Excerpt: Oddly enough, just after posting two consecutive days on David Horowitz's cheap shots against academics, yesterday I received the latest...
Weblog: Mano Singham's Web Journal
Tracked: May 5, 2005 07:42 AM Has the ID movement jumped the shark?
Excerpt: Some time ago, I wrote that I was not worried in the long term about the so-called intelligent design (ID)...
Weblog: Mano Singham's Web Journal
Tracked: August 15, 2005 08:18 AM Harry Belafonte
Excerpt: For those of you fortunate enough to be in the Cleveland area, Harry Belafonte has been invited by the University...
Weblog: Mano Singham's Web Journal
Tracked: February 6, 2006 09:01 AM

Comments

There seems to be two logical points that you are making in this essay that I don't think necessarily follow. Point 1, that academics have more intellectual freedom that pundits, is well defended and hard to dispute. Point 2, that this is the reason that Horowitz hates academics, does not necessiarily follow, and is hardly defended except from a 'makes sense to me' standpoint. The paragraph that begins 'So is Horowitz's crusade driven by faculty envy?' provides evidence that supports point one, but the evidence does not address point 2.
While it is attractive to believe that Horowitz's enmity comes from an accurate and envious view of academic freedom, the view dehumanizes Horowitz as a person who hates us for one of our virtues, 'he hates us because we're so good' so to speak. I'd like to believe that, but I have heard the "they hate our freedom" argument applied so many times in a false manner (the latest being used as the motivation for terrorists), that the burden to prove that it is the freedom that drives the hate is firmly upon the accuser must be supported by evidence before I'm willing to believe it.

Posted by Gregory Sutton on May 5, 2005 06:49 PM

Actually, I should have made it clearer that I was agreeing with Michael Berube's arguments on this point and did not want to reproduce them. The link to Berube's somewhat lengthy piece is in the posting.

As far as I can tell (I don't know any of these people personally), Berube's relationship with Horowitz seems to go back a long time and they have lengthy back-and-forth correspondences, so I felt that he probably had a better handle on Horowitz's motivations that I. But Berube's suggestion did resonate with me, I must admit. You know how sometimes something puzzles you andd someone says something and you say to yourself "That's it!"? Reading Berube provided one of those moments

Posted by Mano Singham on May 6, 2005 11:29 AM

How can anyone take Berube seriously? He has actually written that Dinesh D'Souza's success disproves single-handedly that conservatives are victims of PC persecution. Apparently Berube thinks present success disproves past persecution. But of course I am expecting an academic in today's world to use logic, and that is just foolish of me.

Posted by on December 29, 2007 09:40 PM