Horowitz, David

---

SEE TWO FREEDOM CTR

see front page

NO MERRI

tag horwtz 12/17

==

Called UCSC the most dangerous school in US  rabid pro-israel?

at the root of academic suppression

a number of neo-cons did 180 marxist, new left?

---

UC-Santa Cruz, Critical Race and Ethnic Studies Department: Striking for Hamas | Frontpage Mag

UC-Santa Cruz, Critical Race and Ethnic Studies Department: Striking for Hamas

“This is a call for civil disobedience.”

May 9, 2024 by Sara Dogan 3 Comments

Order David Horowitz’s new book,*America Betrayed,***[**HERE.]

Editor’s note: *Since the barbaric Hamas attacks against Israel on October 7^th, American universities have become an undeniable locus of Jew hatred within our nation. Much attention has deservedly been paid to the radical campus groups like Students for Justice in Palestine who call for the genocide of the Jews and cheer the terrorists of Hamas. What has received less attention—but should in fact rank as the universities’ worst offense—is the Jew hatred promoted by official departments and institutes of the universities themselves. In the case of our campuses, Jew hatred is “the call coming from inside the house.”

*The Freedom Centeris exposing these academic institutes and programs as “The Top Ten Jew-Hating Academic Departments” in a new report. We will be publishing one school per day as a series on Frontpage.The Critical Race and Ethnic Studies Department at UC-Santa Cruz is #2 on our list.

The Critical Race and Ethnic Studies Department at UC-Santa Cruz has utterly abdicated its responsibility towards political neutrality and academic freedom, instead choosing to side with Hamas terrorists and their Jew-hating allies on the left in blatant disobedience of university policy.

On October 11, 2023, just four days after Hamas’s massacre left over a thousand innocent Israeli civilians dead and hideously mutilated for the sole crime of being Jewish, the Critical Race and Ethnic Studies department issued a statement titled “CRES Statement of Support for the Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism.” This inflammatory piece, according to the Amcha Initiative, a group that tracks campus anti-Semitism, “condoned the massacre and maiming of thousands of Israeli civilians by completely negating any mention of the civilian death, torture, rape and kidnapping of Jews by Hamas and instead blaming Israel.” The statement also “denigrated a former Jewish faculty member, and in doing so, jeopardized her safety, [and] denigrated Jewish organizations.”

Instead of expressing outrage over the murder of innocent Jews, the Critical Race and Ethnic Studies Department urged the public to understand that “What we are witnessing needs to be understood in the context of 75 years of settler colonial displacement, military occupation, and enclosure” and expressed that “The study of Zionism in the context of power is more imperative than ever.”

On October 20, 2023, the Critical Race and Ethnic Studies department again made their clear position on the Israel/Hamas war known, siding with Hamas. On its official university webpage, CRES posted that “As a department, we are observing the Palestinian-led Global General Strike and will not conduct university business as usual on 10/20/23. We are in full support of the strike to stand against Israel’s genocidal attack on Gaza, itself an extension of the ongoing Nakba Palestinians have experienced for over 75 years.” Instead of condemning the literalgenocide that Hamas attempted to perpetrate on the Jewish people (a genocide called for explicitly in the Hamas charter), CRES chose to accuse Israel of genocide for daring to respond in self-defense to the worst terrorist attack in its short history.

As part of this “Global General Strike” CRES blatantly defied the authority of UC-Santa Cruz by refusing to hold classes or conduct university business. Moreover, they urged students and other faculty at the university to do the same, and to express support and solidarity with Palestine, and therefore, with the party elected to run Gaza, Hamas.

“This is a call for civil disobedience” declared the notice posted by CRES.

“To all workers and students: We ask that you take Friday off to participate in the general strike. To all businesses: Do not open on Friday, October 20. To all citizens: Wear a symbol of international solidarity on this day. This day is a day of solidarity with Palestinians in Palestine and around the world. This day is a day of protest against repressive state terror against Palestinians worldwide. Solidarity with Palestine!”

Not content to just issue statements condoning Hamas’s barbarism, the Department followed up on this statement on October 24^th by co-hosting an event with the notorious Hamas-funded campus hate group, Students for Justice in Palestine. Titled, “The Genocide in Gaza in our Classrooms: A Teaching Palestine Workshop,” the event description makes its biases clear, promising to “contextualize the unfolding genocide on Gaza and offer resources for facilitating these discussions in your classrooms.” The Amcha Initiative, a pro-Jewish watchdog group, described the workshop as “an egregiously one-sided event at which CRES faculty presented Hamas talking-points and offered graduate instructors resources for facilitating classroom discussions around the ‘unfolding genocide on Gaza.’”

On the same day that this event took place, flyers were discovered on campus that falsely accused Israel of bombing a hospital in Gaza, thus invoking ancient blood libel tropes against the Jews, an age-old form of anti-Semitism. In fact, as was quickly established and confirmed by numerous mainstream media outlets, it was a rocket launched by another Palestinian terror group, Islamic Jihad, that was responsible for damaging the hospital parking lot. Despite the clear facts of the situation, the poster made hyperbolic claims against Israel, declaring: “ON OCTOBER 17 THE STATE OF ISRAEL BOMBARDED A HOSPITAL IN GAZA KILLING OVER 500 PEOPLE,” “OVER 3000 PALESTINIANS MASSACRED THIS MONTH MOSTLY BY US FUNDED AIR STRIKES,” “THIS IS GENOCIDE.”

Just a few weeks later, on November 7^th, CRES again posted on its official university webpage that “The department will be observing the November 9 all-day sit-in at the base of campus. Skip school and work. Do not look away from the genocide. No business as usual! Education, food, art, vigil and ofrenda, and more.” The link for the event directs users to the UC-Santa Cruz Students for Justice in Palestine Instragram page, yet another instance of CRES openly affiliating with the Hamas-funded SJP hate group.

Nor is CRES’s pro-Hamas activism anything new. As the Amcha Initiative revealed in a newreport, “the evidence we document dates back to May 2021, when CRES pledged departmental allegiance to ‘the struggle for Palestinian liberation’ and the academic boycott of Israel,” although “incidents involving CRES’s anti-Zionist political advocacy and activism have increased in frequency and intensity since the October 7, 2023 terrorist attack on Israel.”

In a letter signed by over 400 University of California faculty members addressed to the UC Board of Regents, and printed in the Jewish Journal, CRES at Santa Cruz is singled out for particular opprobrium for its use of the University of California’s resources and reputation to promote anti-Semitism.

“CRES’s commitment to anti-Zionist political advocacy and activism, as a department and as part of its core mission, harms the University in many ways: it corrupts the most basic standards of scholarship and tarnishes UC’s reputation as a world-class research institution; it coerces the consciences of students and fellow faculty by chilling dissent and marginalizing anyone who disagrees with CRES’s political orthodoxy; it deprives students of accurate and crucial knowledge about a complex topic of global importance and violates their fundamental right to be educated and not indoctrinated; and, as Chair Leib has already noted, it incites animus and harm toward Jewish members of the campus community,” declared the letter.

The faculty missive to the UC Board of Regents also noted CRES’s flagrant refusal to follow university policy and excise pro-Hamas rhetoric from official university spaces: “Tellingly, less than a week after receiving a clear warning from the UCSC Provost highlighting UC policies prohibiting faculty from engaging in political advocacy in educational spaces, an invitation to join Faculty for Justice in Palestine (FJP), a group wholly devoted to anti-Zionist advocacy and activism in collaboration with SJP, was posted to the CRES homepage and linked to the FJP’s founding manifesto, which was signed by more than 60% of CRES’s principal faculty.”

For its abhorrent support of Hamas and its repeated use of university resources to share pro-terrorist and Jew-hating progaganda, the Critical Race and Ethnic Studies Department at UC-Santa Cruz deserves to be named one of the worst Jew-hating academic departments in America.

Previous articles in series:

[1] ‘Jew-Hating’ Asian American Studies Program Exposed at Northwestern University.

[2]UIUC’s Department of Latino Studies Endorses ‘Jew Hatred’.

[3] U. Maryland Department of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies: A Case Study in ‘Jew Hatred’.

[4] University of Colorado-Boulder Ethnic Studies Department: Shilling for Hamas.

[5] UNC Center for Middle East and Islamic Studies: Celebrating October 7th.

[6] U. Minnesota Dept. of Gender, Women, and Sexuality Studies: A Vile Font of Jew Hatred.

[7] University of Pennsylvania Middle East Center: Platforming Jew Haters.

[8] Columbia U Center for Palestine Studies: Cheerleaders for Hamas.

Sara Dogan

Sara Dogan is the National Campus Director for the David Horowitz Freedom Center. She has written extensively on issues including academic freedom and anti-Semitism on campus.

---

rebut/fact check:

101 dang prof ~

https://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/campusprogress/facts_count.pdf

This report examines David Horowitz’s book, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous

Academics in America (Regnery, 2006), which brings up 101 academics on charges of

indoctrinating their students with their political views. Since Mr. Horowitz’s charges

are aimed at the core of professors’ professional ethics, we believe that they are not to be

taken lightly. For Mr. Horowitz to accuse a single person of these charges—let alone 101—

a reasonable person might expect him to do three things: examine the facts objectively,

support his conclusions with sound evidence, and make recommendations that are in

students’ best interests. We believe that Mr. Horowitz fails on all of these counts.

After conducting interviews with the professors in Mr. Horowitz’s book and fact-checking

Mr. Horowitz’s evidence, the Free Exchange on Campus coalition has drawn the following

conclusions:

• Mr. Horowitz’s book condemns professors for actions that are entirely within

their rights and entirely appropriate in an atmosphere that promotes the free

exchange of ideas. Mr. Horowitz chiefly condemns professors for expressing

their personal political views outside of the classroom. He provides scant

evidence of professors’ in-class behavior and fails to substantiate his charge that

the professors in his book indoctrinate their students. What in-class evidence

he does provide largely demonstrates nothing other than that the professors

in his book emphasize critical, minority, or historically underrepresented

viewpoints in their teaching.

• Mr. Horowitz’s research is sloppy in the extreme and, we believe, manipulated

to fit his arguments. Mr. Horowitz’s book is characterized by inaccuracies,

distortions, and manipulations of fact—including false statements,

mischaracterizations of professors’ views, broad claims unsupported by facts,

and selective omissions of information that does not fit his argument.

• In our view, Mr. Horowitz’s conclusions are based on faulty premises. Mr.

Horowitz’s conclusions are based on the premises that America’s colleges and

universities are failing to ensure students’ academic freedom, and that students

lack the critical thinking skills they need to engage with controversial ideas and

decide what they believe for themselves. We believe both premises are false.

Executive Summary

ii | Facts Count

There are other troubling aspects of Mr. Horowitz’s book. For example, in our view, the

tone and format of The Professors strongly evokes a blacklist. While Mr. Horowitz does

not call for the professors in his book to be fired, he does list them by their full names and

places of business, he does condemn them for their political beliefs, he does (as this report

will show) distort evidence in the service of leveling unsubstantiated allegations, and

he does exclude any opposing points of view—all as part of a well-publicized and wellfunded

media campaign. In tactics we found to be eerily reminiscent of a bygone era, Mr.

Horowitz’s book also speaks approvingly of students who started a “Watch List,” condemns

professors for their associations with political organizations, and issues an apologia for

Senator Joseph McCarthy.

However, in this report, we limit our focus to disproving Mr. Horowitz’s allegations and

conclusions on the basis of facts that can be verified by objective observers. As we hope

readers will agree, The Professors provides more than enough fodder for concern on this

score alone...

Free Exchange on Campus coalition members: American Association of University Professors American Civil Liberties Union American Federation of Teachers Campus Progress / Center for American Progress Center for Campus Free Speech Free Press National Association of State PIRGs National Education Association / NEA Student Program People for the American Way Foundation / Young People For United States Student Association

==

A CRISIS OF COMPETENCE | 35

NAS

understanding and knowledge, wants to promote social activism for its own political aims by giving

students the “conceptual tools for social change.” On the Santa Cruz campus, the Community Studies

program had several courses that envisioned organizing for social, economic, or environmental justice.

More pervasive than explicit calls to political activism, however, is the imposition of a political ideology

through the course description that we have seen in Berkeley’s History 7AB. For example, instead of

being content to announce the scope of the course, Berkeley’s Political Science 111AC (“The Politics

of Displacement”)preemptively shapes a particular political interpretation: “the revolution against

traditional political authority embodied in Jefferson’s and Thomas Paine’s attack on the British crown,

the rise of slavery, and the conflict with Native America are seen as coherent parts of a cultural and

social development that emerges in the 18th- and 19th-century America.” The decision to focus

attention exclusively on these issues (rather than, say, the debate over the constitution and the crucial

first decades of the unfolding of the new

political system) means that a radical political

interpretation involving a hostile judgment

of the U.S. is frozen into the outline of the

course.3

...

These cases from printed catalogs demonstrate the degree of politicization that is evidently now

considered acceptable by multiple layers of campus review. However, an innocuous printed description

is no guarantee that a course will not be politicized. A fuller syllabus posted online or handed out to

classes often raises the same kind of problem. For example, UC Santa Cruz’s Politics 72 (“The Politics

of the War on Terrorism”) has a bland course description that simply spells out the scope of the course,

but the course syllabus soon gets into extreme ideological prejudgment with the question: “How did

A CRISIS OF COMPETENCE | 37

NAS

Bush and Cheney build the fiction that Al Qaeda was a participant in the 9/11 attacks?” Here the

instructor has dogmatically assumed a great deal that students will have to swallow to enter into the

world of the course and its instructor. He has forgotten that academic discussion ought to begin with

neutral formulations that do not beg all the important questions, for example, “what do we know of Al

Qaeda’s involvement in 9/11 and how do we know it?” Naturally, Al Qaeda’s claim of responsibility will

be one important fact to be taken into account, but only one. When an instructor makes an eccentric

conspiracy theory based in his own political

prejudices into a settled fact that serves

as a bedrock on which his course is to be

built, we recognize the effects of a one-party

atmosphere that lacks the ability to selfcorrect.

And we are reminded again of Mill’s

dictum, that only an opposition “keeps each

[party] within the limits of reason and sanity.

==

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=28053

The  Worst School in America

:{:{By: David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin}:

FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, September 13, 2007}:

==

---

cal poly spkr blurb:

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and the author of nine books on Islam and jihad, including the New York Times bestsellers The Truth About Muhammad and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). Spencer is a weekly columnist for Human Events and FrontPage Magazine, and has led seminars on Islam and jihad for the United States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, the U.S. Army's Asymmetric Warfare Group, the FBI, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and the U.S. intelligence community.

Spencer has also written eleven monographs and well over three hundred articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism. Along with the bestsellers The Truth About Muhammad (Regnery) and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (Regnery), he is the author of Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith (Encounter); Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West (Regnery); Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't (Regnery), a refutation of moral equivalence and call for all the beneficiaries and heirs of Judeo-Christian Western civilization, whatever their own religious or philosophical perspective may be, to defend it from the global jihad; and Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs (Regnery), an expose of how jihadist groups are advancing their agenda in the U.S. today by means other than terrorist attacks..

He is coauthor, with Daniel Ali, of Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics (Ascension), and editor of the essay collection The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims (Prometheus). His latest book is The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran (Regnery). Spencer's books have been translated into many languages, including Spanish, Italian, Finnish, and Bahasa Indonesia.

Along with his weekly columns, Spencer has completed a weekly Qur'an commentary at Jihad Watch, Blogging the Qur'an, which has been translated into Czech, Danish, German and Italian. He is an Associate Fellow of the American Freedom Allianceand a contributing writer to Steven Emerson's Investigative Project on Terrorism. His articles on Islam and other topics have appeared in the New York Post, the Washington Times, the Dallas Morning News, Canada's National Post, Middle East Quarterly, WorldNet Daily, First Things, Insight in the News, National Review Online, and many other journals.

In addition to the seminars on Islam and jihad that Spencer has led for the United States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, a Department of Homeland Security task force, the FBI, branches of the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and the U.S. intelligence community, he has discussed jihad, Islam, and terrorism at a workshop sponsored by the U.S. State Department and the German Foreign Ministry. He has also appeared on the BBC, CNN, FoxNews, PBS, MSNBC, CNBC, C-Span, France24 and Croatia National Televison (HTV), as well as on numerous radio programs including Bill O'Reilly's Radio Factor, The Laura Ingraham Show, Bill Bennett's Morning in America, Michael Savage's Savage Nation, The Sean Hannity Show, The Alan Colmes Show, The G. Gordon Liddy Show, The Neal Boortz Show, The Michael Medved Show, The Michael Reagan Show, The Rusty Humphries Show, The Larry Elder Show, The Barbara Simpson Show, Vatican Radio, and many others.

---

horo promoted to primary on 2 steves

miller?

---

FACING A NATION gripped by fear and bigotry and unwilling to welcome large numbers of Jewish refugees fleeing violence in Europe, the late William Rosenwald, heir to the founder of Sears, Roebuck & Company department store fortune, poured his money and energy into welcoming them, founding the National Refugee Service in 1939.

Today his daughter Nina is a driving force behind another campaign: keeping Muslims fleeing violence in the Middle East from entering the Western world.

Rosenwald is the founder, president, and primary benefactor of the Gatestone Institute, one of the loudest groups agitating against Muslim migration. Her foundation has also generously funded far-right voices that have opposed accepting refugees, including Robert Spencer of the blog Jihad Watch; Frank Gaffney, an anti-Muslim activist known for spreading anti-Muslim conspiracies so far-fetched he was banned from CPAC, the popular conservative convention; and Zuhdi Jasser, a controversial Muslim pundit who argued that President Donald Trump has not done enough in vetting Muslim migrants.

Among the longtime grantees of Rosenwald’s foundations is David Horowitz, the conservative activist who mentored Stephen Miller, the White House aide behind President Donald Trump’s executive order that aimed to temporarily ban refugees and individuals from several majority-Muslim countries.

Rosenwald did not respond to a request for comment.

Gatestone Institute produces a regular drumbeat of articles and punditry. The institute claimed that the Obama administration refugee policy “exposes Americans to the jihad.” Muslim refugees in Western countries are depicted in Gatestone Institute posts as rapists and hosts of “highly infectious diseases” that threaten the health of the German people.

Rosenwald’s organization has gone so far as to call for a ban on all Muslim immigration. In a blog post published last year, Salim Mansur, a distinguished senior fellow with the Gatestone Institute, lashed out at Obama for “coddling Muslims” and praised Trump for promising on the campaign trail to ban Muslim immigrants. “Unless many Muslims can change demonstrably to accept and abide by the social and political norms of American democracy,” Mansur wrote, “they may be excluded from entering the United States as immigrants.” A more recent post from this year, from a writer named Nonie Darwish, argues that “citizens from Islamic nations” should be allowed into the U.S. “only when the war on Islamic terrorism is won and when Islamic governments prove to the world that they have fundamentally changed.”

Many Trump allies have tried to deflect accusations of racism by arguing that the executive order temporarily banning individuals from the seven majority-Muslim countries was a decision made solely because the previous administration targeted these countries for additional security vetting.

But Gatestone Institute has no illusions about the religious motivations behind the ban. “Muslims need to know that the world does indeed have a justifiable and legitimate concern about Islam and actions done in the name of Islam by Muslims,” wrote Nonie Darwish, explaining her support of the executive order, in a piece for the Gatestone Institute.

Journalist Max Blumenthal, writing in The Nation, has called Rosenwald the “Sugar Mama of Anti-Muslim Hate.”

Foundation disclosures show that Rosenwald, through a foundation called the Abstraction Fund, has donated more than $10.8 million from 2010 through 2015 to groups identified by the Council on American-Islamic Relations as “Islamophobic.” Through two other foundations controlled by Rosenwald and her family — including one named after her father — she has donated an additional $2.8 million to anti-Muslim activists since 2001.

---

ref 404 http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0106-30.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20060410075045/http://www.**commondreams**.org/views05/0106-30.htm

==

http://www.alternet.org/investigations/flush-cash-right-wing-extremists-train-future-zealots-pro-israel-campus-activism

==

fang machine: C ent complx: pol and poker; running reality tv of cands; right to laugh; jackpot justice (class action)tort; stakelbeck on terror ~ muslim 180-1.

ed snider ceo comcast ~ dems on gulf war 2

fox, ailes, rush; cato forum nra fam res cncl; ailes Am talking --> msnbc 1996; fox news boost when favored by b2 admin 186

movies: Mot Pict Inst (Fdn for indiv rights in educ  FIRE staffers 2005) rob Pfaltzgraff 187) the Cartel --> wait for superman, vonnegut bergson; eliz koch on mpi bd; pac res, CEI w/ MPI, also Horowitz/The Film Inst blames BC for 911 (aborts mission to get Osama, aired by ABC as docudrama 188-9, busted , so tfi lower profile; horo also matchmaker of rw to stars eg Braveheart producer Steve McEveety, 

// Movieguide Ted Baehr xian (templeton fdn funds awards) converted jewish produces 189

MGM remake Red Dawn ~chinese; kalifornistan jason apuzzo praised by malkin, boosted 24 creators surnow and manny coto 191 ; pal of rush into to ailes led to Daily show mirror 191; then The Kennedy's for History channel: doz sex scene but not cuban crisis (waves of sec serv msg to have sex in pool) 191

ex GS now media bank)Stephen Bannon Libertas films( free office sp to Breitbart) 191 w/ Phil A on Narnia; fire from heartland gop women bachmanm coulter and TP loesch

CU Bossie:hype: the Obama effect; bunch with newt: john paul II;

rightnetwork via Verizon cable

rupert pays 11$ per viewer on local cable, opposite of biz model

bannon/phil: The Hope and the change (~ bo) 2016 Obama's Am  194-5

==

redux

A new website is targeting pro-Palestinian college activists by seeking to deny them jobs after they graduate. Dubbed "Canary Mission,"the site profiles dozens of students and graduates involved in the Palestinian cause, in the hopes employers won’t hire them. In a promotional video, a narrator asks for help in ensuring that "today’s radicals are not tomorrow’s employees."

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/6/1/headlines

Canary Mission ad: "These individuals are applying for jobs within your company. There is no record of their membership of radical organizations. No one remembers their yelling profanities on campus or attending Jew-hating conference and anti-American rallies. All evidence has been eradicated, and soon they will be part of your team. Canary Mission’s simple interface allows you to easily explore profiles of radical individuals and organizations.BDS Newswill keep you up-to-date with the latest developments. And follow our blog for an in-depth analysis of radical campus activity. Join us to combat this wave of hatred, protect freedom and make campus life safe for everyone. It is your duty to ensure that today’s radicals are not tomorrow’s employees."

The targeted students include members of Students for Justice in Palestine, which is active on campuses nationwide. Although the students’ names, photographs and biographical information are extensively shown, the Canary Mission keeps its own backers and staffers completely secret.

==

==

Connecting the Dots

June 16, 2006

Alan Jones

By all objective measures, the dawning of the 21st century should be a golden era for American higher education. A recent issue of The Economist described America’s system of higher education as “the best in the world” and provided convincing documentation for its claim. A recent review article by Jonathan Cole, provost at Columbia University, meticulously documents the preeminence of U.S. higher education in the world today as an established fact.

Perhaps sensing the current domestic political climate, however, Cole uses his analysis as the basis for sounding a strong cautionary note. “The United States paid a heavy price when the leaders of its research universities in the 1950’s failed to defend the leader of the Manhattan Project J. Robert Oppenheimer; the double Nobel Prize chemist Linus Pauling; and the China expert Owen Lattimore. But a wave of repression in American universities today is apt to have even more dramatic consequences for the nation than the repression of the Cold War.”

This broad-based and even global acclaim for higher education in the United States is strangely at odds with the concentrated political attacks that Cole warns us about and that the academy is currently experiencing. It is particularly out of step with the dark and dysfunctional picture of the academy painted by David Horowitz and his Center for the Study of Popular Culture. If Horowitz were simply a disaffected political crank, as many have hitherto regarded him, then his views on the academy could be easily dismissed. Such dismissal would seem to be all the more in order following his disastrous testimony before the legislative subcommittee in Pennsylvania in which he was forced to recant as unsubstantiated several of the cases that he had been widely circulating as documentation of alleged malfeasance in the academy.

Oddly, however, his campaign goes on. Horowitz, with assistance from Karl Rove and the former House majority whip, Tom DeLay, has briefed Republican members of Congress on his Academic Bill of Rights campaign and DeLay has even distributed copies of Horowitz’s political primer The Art of Political Warfare: How Republicans Can Fight to Win to all Republican members of Congress. Rove refers to Horowitz’s pamphlet as “a perfect pocket guide to winning on the political battlefield."

In a more recent development, last fall, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings appointed a Commission on Higher Education. Spellings, described as a protégé of Rove, gained considerable attention as the principal architect of President Bush’s controversial “No Child Left Behind” initiative. Among the proposals being discussed by Spellings’s new commission is one that calls for scrapping the current system of accreditation, which is done by independent regional bodies, in favor of a National Accreditation Foundation that would be created by Congress and the president.

The current system of institutional review through independent accreditation boards is one of the hallmarks of American higher education and is one of the most important structural safeguards of the academy’s ability to ensure academic quality and intellectual excellence. The introduction of oversight by an inherently partisan political body in lieu of the currently independent accreditation process is a peculiar remedy if the perceived ailment in the academy is political bias. Carol Geary Schneider, president of the American Association of Colleges and Universities, has said that “the commission is sending out firebolts, one after another." To chair this extraordinary committee Secretary Spellings chose Charles Miller, a former chairman of the University of Texas Board of Regents and, historically, a large contributor to the President’s election campaigns.

The question of why the academy is under such focused and persistent attack by individuals like David Horowitz and his political supporters despite the fact that it appears to be an extraordinarily successful enterprise and an unrivaled resource for the nation is a question that many Americans are asking. In understanding the origins, scope and staying power of this attack it is crucial to understand not only the political relationships that Horowitz enjoys, but the sources of funding that created and sustain his Center for the Study of Popular Culture and its Academic Bill of Rights campaign. It is also critical to understand that the same funding sources that brought Horowitz’s organization into being, also created and sustain a large and integrated network of ideologically defined think tanks and centers both outside of and within the higher education establishment.

When Michael S. Joycedied in February 24, his death received scant attention in the mainstream press. Although very few people in academic circles are familiar with his name, he was, nonetheless, one of the foundational pillars of the current ideological attacks on the academy. A tribute to him by Peter Collier was published in FrontPage, Horowitz’s Web site. Joyce and his intellectual muse -- thelate University of Chicago political philosopher Leo Strauss -- would have been pleased by the level of anonymity that he maintained during his lifetime. Joyce's ability to maintain such anonymity despite the enormous influence that he wielded in shaping and developing the infrastructure of the neoconservative movement in this country is quite remarkable.

Although The Atlantic Monthly, as early as 1986, was describing Joyce as "one of the three individuals most responsible for the triumph of the conservative political movement," he nevertheless adhered rigorously to the secretive and profoundly antidemocratic principles advocated by the enigmatic Strauss. As characterized by Jeet Heer inThe Boston Globe, Strauss held that "the best regime is one in which the leaders govern moderately and prudently, curbing the passions of the mob while allowing a small philosophical elite to pursue the contemplative life of the mind. Such a philosophical elite may discover truths that are not fit for public consumption.... For Strauss the art of concealment and secrecy was among the greatest legacies of antiquity."

In 1979, Michael Joyce entered the world of large-scale philanthropy with assistance from his mentor Irving Kristol, when he assumed the reins of the John M. Olin Foundation from the retiring president, William Simon. At Olin, one of Joyce’s first projects was to organize support for the launching of the**Federalist Society.** Joyce’s work in creating and fostering the development of the Federalist Society is instructive and foreshadows the role that he has played in current efforts by neoconservatives to restructure American higher education. The Federalist Society, with Joyce’s ongoing support, not only fostered the development of ultra-conservative legal scholars and politicians such as Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, Samuel Alito, John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales and Kenneth Starr (all of whom are members) but organized them into a powerful force for reshaping American jurisprudence in support of a larger neoconservative agenda.

Also significant in this regard is a report by Jerome Shestack,former president of the American Bar Association, that the Federalist Society is being increasingly being used as a platform from which to launch ideological attacks on the mainstream legal community. Through the device of the Federalist Society publication, ABA Watch, the society has launched a vicious attack on the ABA. In a special edition of the Watch, U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), co-chair of the society, announced that he would no longer invite the ABA to participate on a pro forma basis in the Senate judicial confirmation process. Employing rhetoric eerily parallel to that being used in the current attacks on the academy, Justice Clarence Thomas openly denounced the ABA, declaring “I am doubtful that the ABA can ever reform itself.”

In her testimony before Pennsylvania's Select Committee on Academic Freedom in Higher Education, which convened in Philadelphia, Anne Neal, president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni,expressed a similar sentiment as to the ability of the academy to reform itself. “Faced with growing legislative pressure on this issue, the higher education establishment issued the American Council on Education statement, figured it would pretend to have a quick conversion, endorse intellectual diversity, get those yahoo legislators off their backs and go back to business as usual. DO NOT LET THEM GET AWAY WITH THIS CHARADE.”

In 1985, Michael Joyce left the Olin Foundation to assume the presidency of the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation,in Milwaukee. During this time, he not only built the Bradley Foundation into the largest and most influential right-wing foundation in the country, he also forged a  formidable alliance among a small group of the nation’s largest, far right-wing foundations so that their resources could be more strategically deployed in support of the developing neoconservative agenda. Included in this alliance are the Koch Foundation (either directly or through its subsidiary the Claude Lambe Foundation), the Castle Rock Foundation (Coors) and the Sarah Scaife Foundations  (either directly or through its subsidiaries the Carthage Foundation and the Alleghany Foundation) which, together with Olin and Bradley, have collectively financed the rise of the neoconservative movement in this country and have done so with an impressive display tactical precision.

It is a telling marker of the ideological cohesiveness and extremism of this core group of philanthropies that three of the five founding members, Joseph Coors, David Koch and Harry Bradley, were members and financial supporters of the John Birch Society. The Scaife foundations, headed by Richard Mellon Scaife, are also involved, albeit in less direct ways.

In the past 20 years this core group of funders has, by many reports, built and strategically linked an impressive array of almost 500 think tanks, centers, institutes and "concerned citizens groups" both within and outside of the academy. It is particularly telling to observe the funding sources of these organizations during the first 10-15 years of their existence, when their ideological identities were being established. A small sampling of these entities include the Cato Institute,the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute,the Manhattan Institute, the Hoover Institution, the Claremont Institute, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni,Middle East Forum,Accuracy in Media, and the National Association of Scholars, as well as Horowitz's Center of the Study of Popular Culture.

The absence of formal organizational linkages between the entities within these networks creates an illusion of independent analytical voices reaching similar conclusions about strategic policy issues, a technique known in the public relations industry as “astroturfing.” This network has developed an enormous capacity to generate “data” consistent with the targeted political agenda and world views of its core group of funders to quickly and redundantly represent these issues in the mainstream press by what appear to be the voices of independent analysts and to translate these viewpoints into public policy that serves the focused ideological agenda of this core group of funders. The Bradley Foundation under Michael Joyce's leadership has even established a publishing house, Encounter Books, to ensure that grantees like Horowitz have a quasi-academic outlet for their viewpoints.

The degree of interconnectedness within this network of organizations is considerable but almost invisible to the casual observer. For example, when ACTA’s president, Anne Neal, introduced herself to the Select Committee on Academic Freedom in Higher Education in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, she presented ACTA as “a bipartisan network of college and university trustees and alumni across the country dedicated to academic freedom.”

Full disclosure should have required some mention of the fact that ACTA (see funding sources above), which changed its name from the National Alumni Forum in 1998, was established by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute in 1994. The Intercollegiate Studies Institute in turn evolved from William Bennett’s Madison Center for Educational Affairs and the Institute for Educational Affairs founded byIrving Kristol, Michael Joyce’s mentor, and William Simon, the first president of the John M. Olin Foundation. Bennett and Kristol also sit on ACTA’s Board of Directors. The remarkably consistent record of funding across all of the incarnations of this organization and the high degree of redundancy with Horowitz’s own, highly partisan Center for the Study of Popular Culture is not consistent with Neal’s definition of ACTA as an independent, non-partisan organization.

Another example illustrative of the quietly incestuous nature of this network is presented by an article by the Boston Globecolumnist Cathy Young. The article is entitled “Liberal bias in the ivory tower” and by all appearances is an independent opinion piece written by a regular Globe columnist. At the end of the article Young identifies herself as “a contributing editor at Reason Magazine.” What is undisclosed in the article is that Reason Magazine is the publication of the Reason Foundation, whose funding sources are virtually the same as those fundingHorowitz’s "Academic Bill of Rights" project and Neal’s ACTA.

Young’s premise for the article is stated in her opening sentence: “Yet another study has come out documenting what most conservatives consider to be blindingly obvious: the leftwing tilt of the American professoriate.” The study that she references was conducted by Stanley Rothman, now emeritus professor at Smith College;S. Robert Lichter, emeritus professor at George Mason University; and Neil Nevitte of the University of Toronto, and was published in the online journal Forum. This study was also cited by Neal in her testimony in Pennsylvania. Young does not inform her readers that Rothman is director of the Center for the Study of Social and Political Change, a center with funding sources that are remarkably redundant with Horowitz’s Center for the Study of Popular Culture. Lichter is also president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, which again has funding sources that are redundant with those referenced earlier.

In addition, a recent article in Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting is highly critical of Lichter’s research methodology. Another example of such conflicted interests is provided by Professor Thomas Reeves. When Reeves writes in strong support of Horowitz’s proposals on the History News Network,he fails to note that he is a spokesman for the California Association of Scholars, a branch of the National Association of Scholars (see funding sources above) and that he is director of the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, which was, again, brought into being by the Olin and Bradley Foundations.

This manufactured drumbeat against “academic bias” is amplified byStanley Kurtzof the Hoover Institution (see funding sources above), **Heather MacDonald,** a John M. Olin fellow at the Manhattan Institute (see funding sources above), and Brian C. Anderson, editor of the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal and a former research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (see funding sources above).

The relentlessness with which columnists and experts with direct funding relationships with Olin, Scaife, Bradley, Koch and Coors level charges of academic bias and assert the need for legislative reform of higher education is remarkable. The goal of this narrowly focused and ideologically driven public relations campaign can only be understood in terms of its fostering of a political climate in which federal regulatory “reform” of what is universally recognized as the finest system of higher education in the world, will be tolerated.

Indeed, as has been discussed, such regulatory oversight may already be in the offing. The academy stands today as one of the last spaces in America where the democratic ideas that shape the social, economic and political fabric of the nation can be openly and independently debated on the basis of their merits and without coercion or distortion from vested economic and political interests. It is certainly in the national interest that it remain such.

BIO

Alan Jones is dean of the faculty and professor of psychology and neuroscience at Pitzer College.

Tattered Poster Child

March 15, 2005

By

Scott Jaschik

Her name is still secret,

but University of Northern Colorado officials agree that a student there filed a complaint two years ago complaining of political bias by a criminal justice professor.

The complaint is the basis for many speeches by David Horowitz in his campaign against what he calls political bias in college classrooms. As Horowitz has told the story many times, the student was asked on a test to "explain why George Bush is a war criminal," and when she submitted an essay on why Saddam Hussein was a war criminal, she received an F.

Over the last week, a number of bloggers have questioned whether the student really exists. But just because that question has now been answered in the affirmative does not mean the controversy is going to fade.

Because while a Northern Colorado spokeswoman acknowledged Monday that a complaint had been filed, she also said that the test question was not the one described by Horowitz, the grade was not an F, and there were clearly non-political reasons for whatever grade was given. And the professor who has been held up as an example of out-of-control liberal academics? In an interview last night, he said that he's aregistered Republican.

In addition, the university was able to directly refute other statements made by Horowitz supporters. For instance, Students for Academic Freedom, a group that backs Horowitz, on Monday posted an article on its Web site (which was then widely posted by conservatives on other Web sites) with the headline "University of Northern Colorado Story Confirmed." The article, among other things, said that the professor in the course had been unable to produce any copies of the test questions. But the university has had the test the entire time -- and the question isn't the way it has been described by Horowitz.

Here is the question, as provided by Gloria Reynolds, a university spokeswoman:

The American government campaign to attack Iraq was in part based on the assumptions that the Iraqi government has "Weapons of Mass Destruction." This was never proven prior to the U.S. police action/war and even President Bush, after the capture of Baghdad, stated, "we may never find such weapons." Cohen's research on deviance discussed this process of how the media and various moral entrepreneurs and government enforcers can conspire to create a panic. How does Cohen define this process? Explain it in-depth. Where does the social meaning of deviance come from? Argue that the attack on Iraq was deviance based on negotiable statuses. Make the argument that the military action of the U.S. attacking Iraq was criminal?

Reynolds added that the student did not receive an F, and that although the instructions on the test said that answers were supposed to be at least three pages long, the student submitted only two pages on this question. In addition, Reynolds said that the student never had to answer this question. The test, she said, had four questions: two required questions and two others (including the disputed one) from which a student needed to select one.

Federal privacy laws barred Reynolds from releasing more information, she said. But she said that the information she did provide came from a file compiled by university officials after the student complained. And Reynolds said that everything in the file was inconsistent with the story Horowitz has told about this incident.

"The claim that Horowitz makes is incorrect," she said. "That didn't happen."

Additional context comes from Robert Dunkley, an assistant professor of criminal justice at Northern Colorado who was identified by Horowitz as the professor involved. In an interview, Dunkley said that politics had nothing to do with the student's grade, and that the context of his course has been distorted.

For instance, Dunkley said that the course focused on the relationship between deviance and being classified as a criminal. "We talked in class about how George Washington was considered a war criminal to the British," he said. "We were going into the idea that different people define criminal behavior differently."

And in case there's any confusion, Dunkley wants it known that he does not think the father of our country was a war criminal. "I'm an American citizen and I thank God for George Washington. Without George, we wouldn't be here."

Dunkley said that he's angry about the way Horowitz and his supporters have made him an example of alleged liberal bias in academe. Dunkley said that he comes from a Republican family, is a registered Republican and considers himself politically independent, taking pride in never having voted a straight party ticket.

He said that he would have explained himself or his course to Horowitz or his backers, but was never asked. "He's cooked this whole thing up," Dunkley said.

Horowitz provided Dunkley's name to Inside Higher EdMonday, based on a request that he provide more information about the Northern Colorado incident. At the same time, Horowitz offered up two supporters of his efforts in Colorado as people who could verify the complaining student's story.

Erin Bergstrom, one of the volunteers, was the person with Students for Academic Freedom who first interviewed the Northern Colorado student. Bergstrom said Monday that the student needed to remain anonymous because "she's been very intimidated by the whole process."

Bergstrom said that she believed that the student had copies of letters from university officials that backed her claims, but Bergstrom acknowledged that she had never seen the test that set off the complaint or other key documents. She said that because students "don't walk into a classroom expecting problems," they can't be expected to have proof when things go wrong.

"They don't tape every course. They don't keep every paper," Bergstrom said.

Ryan Call, regional coordinator in Colorado for Students for Academic Freedom, said he had spoken with the Northern Colorado student as recently as Monday, and that she stood by her story, on which he said she has been consistent ever since reporting her concerns to his group.

"She seems very credible. She's not a loon," Call said, adding that the student told him "that she loves the university" and made her situation known "out of a sincere desire to help future students not have to go through what she went through."

When told about what Northern Colorado officials had said about the test and the student, Call said it was "a little bit troubling."

"We can't independently verify everything that every student brings to us," he said. "We know that there are some students out there who might use a bit of hyperbole about their claims."

NB these have not been pulled form students for whatever, he claims victory

==

Retractions From David Horowitz

January 11, 2006

By

Scott Jaschik

Many faculty leaders have worried that this week's hearings by a Pennsylvania legislative committee would turn into just the kind of professorial inquisition that they have feared the "Academic Bill of Rights" might set off.

But as hearings ended in Philadelphia Tuesday, critics of the Academic Bill of Rights were saying that they had scored key points. David Horowitz, the conservative activist who has led the push for thehearings in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, admitted that he had no evidence to back up two of the stories he has told multiple times to back up his charges that political bias is rampant in higher education.

In an interview after the hearing, Horowitz said that his acknowledgements were inconsequential, and he complained about "nit picking" by his critics. But while Horowitz was declaring the hearings "a great victory" for his cause, he lost some powerful stories. For example, Horowitz has said several times that a biology professor at Pennsylvania State University used a class session just before the 2004 election to show the Michael Moore documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, but he acknowledged Tuesday that he didn't have any proof that this took place.

In a phone interview, Horowitz said that he had heard about the alleged incident from a legislative staffer and that there was no evidence to back up the claim. He added, however, that "everybody who is familiar with universities knows that there is a widespread practice of professors venting about foreign policy even when their classes aren't about foreign policy" and that thelack of evidence on Penn State doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

"These are nit picking, irrelevant attacks," he said.

Others think that it's quite relevant that Horowitz couldn't back up the example, especially since there have been previous incidents in which his claims about professors have been debunked.

"So much of what he has said previously has been exposed to be lies or distortions that it makes any of his examples questionable," said Jamie Horwitz, a spokesman for the American Federation of Teachers. The lack of evidence about the Penn State and other examples "should give this committee and any committee anywhere in the country pause about considering an Academic Bill of Rights," he added. "The bottom line is that there's not a lot of there there."

The Academic Bill of Rights is a short statement that calls for colleges to respect the rights of students and professors to have a variety of political views and not to have their academic work judged on the basis of those views. While few professors object to such a statement, other parts of the Academic Bill of Rights, which call on faculty members to share a range of views with students, have been much more controversial. Many professors believe that this language could lead to lawsuits, legislative oversight and pressure to teach viewpoints likecreationism or Holocaust denialthat they believe have no place in a classroom.

The stories like the one about the Penn State professor who allegedly made his class watch Fahrenheit 9/11 have been an important part of the debate over the Academic Bill of Rights. Horowitz and many other conservative critics of higher education point to numerous studies that show that college professors are, on average, more liberal than the general public and that conservative academics are a minority group at most colleges.

While many faculty groups have criticized these studies, they generally haven't disputed the idea that academics lean to the left. What they have disputed is that these leanings result in ideological discrimination against students or professors who think differently. As a result, an example that would suggest bias -- like, say, a professor screening an anti-Bush film in a biology class -- have considerable political currency.

The other example Horowitz was forced to back down on Tuesday is from the opposite end of the political spectrum. He has several times cited the example of a student in California who supports abortion rights and who said that he was punished with a low grade by a professor who opposed abortion. Asked about this example, Horowitz said that he hadno evidence to back up the student's claim.

In the interview, he said that he didn't have the resources to look into all the complaints that he publicizes. "I can't investigate every story," he said.

Horowitz noted that when he publicizes such stories, he does not print the names of the professors involved, and that he has stated many times that a professor involved in such an incident would be welcome to write a rebuttal that he would post on his Web site. "I have protected professors. I have not posted their names and pilloried them. My Web site is open to them," he said.

Even if these examples aren't correct, he said, they represent the reality of academic life. "Is there anybody out there who will say that professors don't attack Bush in biology classrooms?" he said. Horowitz characterized the debate over his retractions as a diversionary tactic by his critics. "First they say that there is no problem [with political bias]. Then they say I'm a McCarthyite. Then they say I'm spreading false rumors. Everyone who is in public life and makes commentaries makes mistakes."

3 books on race

But to help "broaden the GOP's appeal with voters," the Republican National Committee has turned to a rather motley crew to offer the party guidance. As we discussed yesterday, one of the invited guests at the spring meeting is former Vice President Dick Cheney, but he won't be alone.

In addition to Cheney, Priebus told national committee members that influential conservative opinion makers Hugh Hewitt, David Horowitz and Larry Solov will also address the RNC's spring meeting.

Oh, for crying out loud.

Look, I don't blame the RNC for wanting to "reach out to new voters, specifically Asian Americans, blacks, Hispanics and young people." I also don't blame the RNC for seeking guidance from others, since folks inside the Republican National Committee clearly don't know how to broaden the party's appeal on their own.

But even if we put Cheney and his record of spectacular failures aside, if the RNC expects to receive worthwhile guidance from David Horowitz and Hugh Hewitt, I have some bad news for Reince Priebus and Co.

Horowitz, for example, is one of the nation's most abrasive anti-Muslim activists, a notorious conspiracy theorist who's dabbled in some ugly racial politics, and someone who believes political correctness will lead to a "totalitarian future." He's also written books with titles like "Hating Whitey and Other Progressive Causes" and "The Race Card: White Guilt, Black Resentment, and the Assault on Truth and Justice."

And who better to help broaden the RNC's appeal than the guy who wrote "Hating Whitey"?

Hewitt, meanwhile, is a well-known far-right radio host and blogger who spent parts of 2012 telling Republican voters that there was a media conspiracy to skew polling results. A compilation of Hewitt's greatest hits is challenging, but note that 20 years ago, when he helped oversee the creation of the Nixon Library, he wanted to screen researchers who could make use of the facility, restricting those he deemed insufficiently conservative. trms

The author of "One-Party Classroom: How Radical Professors at America's Top Colleges Indoctrinate Students and Undermine Our Democracy" presents a somewhat scathing appraisal of the ideology of higher education, based on a multi-year investigation of what's being taught on college campuses. Mr. Horowitz says America's colleges are platforms for zealots and that students are no longer taught how to think but what to think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG2lZsfunGY&feature=autoplay&list=PL8A7185B5EF75752D&playnext=1

:{http://www.:(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}::{sourcewatch.:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}::{org/index.php?title=David_Horowitz_%28ex-Marxist%29:(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}:

front page mag editor

http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=24239

encounter books

helped with hatchet job on judi bari

ucsd video israel apartheid

breitbart linked to fox story

freedom ctr:

 SW

David Joel Horowitz (born January 10, 1939 in Forest Hills, N.Y.) runs the David Horowitz Freedom Center, formerly named the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, and the online magazine FrontPageMag.com.

Background

Horowitz is the son of two Jewish-American Communist Party members, causing him to start out radical, but he began to veer to the right later in life. He was educated at Columbia University and the University of California at Berkeley.^{[citation needed]}

Horowitz was an activist in the New Leftmovement in the 1960s and claims to have been "a lifelong civil rights activist". From 1969 to 1975 he was editor of an anti-Vietnam war magazine Ramparts. However, currently, Horowitz is known to side with corporate interests and conservative ideals, and is best described as a neo-con. He is now a "lapsed leftist" [1]. In the 1990s, Horowitz hosted several Second Thinkers conferences where ex-leftists who recanted or underwent epiphanies could network with fellow travelers. Several of these second thinkers are now neo-cons. Christopher Hitchens was a regular participant at these conferences, and today co-organizes events with Horowitz, e.g., tour of the UK where he features as a speaker [2].

David Horowitz was a speaker at the 2003 Conservative Political Action Conference, which reads as a who's-who of the conservative and neo-conservative movement.

Horowitz also created a now-defunct nonprofit campaign finance 527 advocacy organization known as PoliticalWar.com Inc. prior to the 2002 election cycle.

He is currently pushing to "expose" the The Leftist Campaign to Control America's Young Minds and is promoting a nationwide boycott of "old" Europe goods as a protest against French, German and Belgian opposition to the U.S. war in Iraq. Horowitz also publishes a regular column in Salon.com, and is a regular pundit on right-wing shows.

In his Marxist days, Horowitz authored several books including Free World Colossus, Corporations and the Cold War, Empire and Revolution, Marx and Modern Economics, Shakespeare: An Existential View and The Fate of Midas, which he has subsequently repudiated. He has subsequently collaborated with Peter Collier on several biographies of famous American families, including The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty, The Kennedys: An American Drama, and The Fords: An American Epic. His recent books include Radical Son (an autobiography), Hating Whitey and Other Progressive Causes, Why I'm Not a Liberal, The Feminist Assault on the Military, Noam Chomsky's Jihad Against America, Liberal Racism, and How the Left Undermined America's Security.

In a December 10, 2004 article forFrontPage magazine, Horowitz branded SourceWatch a 'smear site'. He included other sites such as Media Matters for America, NameBase, and Southern Poverty Law Centerin the accusation. [3]

 [vs discover the networks?]

Horowitz's latest project is :{Students for Academic Freedom:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}: which is trying to make college campuses more conservative. He speaks around the country about "leftist control" of hiring committees and promotes his own Academic Bill of Rights as part of the solution. He has also suggested starting departments of "Conservative Studies", thus allowing students to choose which point of view they'd like to get.

Criticism from the left

Fred Gardner, a contemporary of Horowitz's during his Ramparts days, described his political transition from the left to the right in 1991:

The phone rings and a guy in my office says, "It's David Horowitz." I haven't spoken to David Horowitz since the end of the '60s, when we both worked at Ramparts. Since then, with another former Ramparts editor, Peter Collier, this little creep has written a series of best-selling portraits of ruling class families--The Rockefellers, The Fords, The Kennedys--and boasted in print about voting for Ronald Reagan. Horowitz and Collier say they once believed fervently in left causes and institutions (from the Soviet Union to the Black Panther Party), and when they discovered these institutions to be corrupt and murderous they had to denounce them and come out for the other side.

There are many flaws in this "logic." For openers, there aren't just two sides in this world (the fake left and the cruel right). And sure it's demoralizing to learn that the party that supposedly stands for equality is run by opportunists and actually stands for privilege. But that wouldn't lead a real radical to endorse the all-out pursuit of privilege. It should lead you to call for a movement that's serious about establishing equality. Horowitz and Collier were never radicals for a minute. Their goal was and is personal success. It's no coincidence that they were "left" in the '60s and "right" in the '80s. ^[1]

See Robert Jensen, "Dangerous" Academics: Right-wing Distortions About Leftist Professors, CommonDreams.org, February 7, 2006; Free Exchange on Campus (in particular, see their report "Facts Count: An Analysis of David Horowitz's The Professors", May 2006).

Slavery "Debate"

David Horowitz’ book Uncivil Wars: The Controversy OverReparationsfor Slavery (EncounterBooks, 2002) caused a stir when it was first published. The contetns of this book were thoroughly rebutted in 2008 by Paul Anthony Dottin, in his article "The Hydra of Horowitzian History: The Mobilization of Scholarship against Black Reparations," Du Bois Review, 5:1 (2008) 161–198.

Horowitz Confessed to Treason

Horowitz has openly admitted he committed treason against the United States. He confessed in an article written by him and published in his own online zine, FrontPage, on October 3, 2000. In the article, titled "The Wen Ho Lee Cover-Up", Horowitz claimed that Wen Ho Lee was guilty of espionage, but the government decined to press charges because of the damage it would do to the inteligence services and William Clinton's presidential legacy. As anecdotal evidence to back-up this claim, he describes his own premeditated actions that violated the U.S. Espionage code in 1972, for which was never prosecuted.

Ramparts, a magazine he was editor of, had acquired classified intelligence information from a former NSA operative and had published it, even though one of their own staffers, who had formerly served in Army Intelligence, had judged the information to be truthful, and refused to work on the story, and Horowitz knew this prior to the publication of the Ramparts story. Horowitz also sought the advice of a prominent Constitutional scholar before publishing it, who had explained to him the best methods of avoiding prosecution for this act of treason.

Discover the Network

On February 15, 2005, Horowitz launched :{Discover The Network:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:, a website dedictated to tracking "leftists". It brings the Campus-Watch formula to the wider political arena. In the About Us section of the new website:

a "Guide to the Political Left." It identifies the individuals and organizations that make up the left and also the institutions that fund and sustain it; it maps the paths through which the left exerts its influence on the larger body politic; it defines the left's (often hidden) programmatic agendas and it provides an understanding of its history and ideas.[4]

Challenging academic freedom in the name of students' rights

Horowitz’s latest crusade is that for so-called "academic freedom." Seeing colleges and universities as the last bastion of "liberal indoctrination," he authored an Academic Bill of Rights that would act to restore "balance" to higher education by eradicating "political indoctrination in the classroom and the exclusion of conservatives from college faculties." The Academic Bill of Rights’ carefully "bipartisan" language is meant to maintain that it does not favor one side over another, but aims for the exploration of a plurality of ideas in the classroom. It directly promotes equal treatment of students and consideration of faculty for hiring and tenure "not on the basis of political or religious beliefs." However, mentions of course curriculums, reading lists, and private meetings in which hiring and tenure positions are discussed lead some to wonder how the bill will be enforced and how much state intervention it would entail.

**Students for Academic Freedom**, an organization founded by Horowitz (not students) in 2003, has become the platform for launching the Academic Freedom campaign as well as ABOR. SAF has set up over 150 chapters on campuses across the country to promote the "intellectual diversity" agenda. Members are encouraged to contact their state legislators petitioning them to advocate for and pass ABOR.

Horowitz says he saw the need for such a bill of rights after he had heard many complaints from students (most of whom were conservative) that they had received unfair treatment from (liberal) professors. 

The case of a University of Northern Colorado student who had received a failing grade on a paper that reportedly refused to address the question of "Why President Bush is a war criminal?" became the paradigmatic statement on liberal indoctrination in college classrooms. However, [Frontpagemag.com], Horowitz’s online magazine and his own reporting misconstrued the question and the university’s response to the complaint; when his doctoring of the facts came out, he justified the incident stating "some of our facts were wrong; our point was right."[5]

This endeavor has been criticized by Prof. :{Juan Cole:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:, who warned that college professors would not take kindly to such infringements on academic freedom:

Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, has introduced a Horowitz-inspired so-called Academic Freedom Bill of Rights in the Florida State legislature. In our Orwellian world, this is actually a bill to destroy academic freedom and take away rights of free speech on campus. Baxley is a funeral director, and apparently he wants to bury higher education in this country along with his other clients.

"The bill sets a statewide standard that students cannot be punished for professing beliefs with which their professors disagree. Professors would also be advised to teach alternative “serious academic theories” that may disagree with their personal views.

According to a legislative staff analysis of the bill, the law would give students who think their beliefs are not being respected legal standing to sue professors and universities.

Students who believe their professor is singling them out for “public ridicule” – for instance, when professors use the Socratic method to force students to explain their theories in class – would also be given the right to sue.

“Some professors say, ‘Evolution is a fact. I don’t want to hear about Intelligent Design (a creationist theory), and if you don’t like it, there’s the door,’” Baxley said, citing one example when he thought a student should sue."Let me explain some things to Representative Baxley, and to do so I suggest we look at how well he is doing his job... I wonder if Baxley has done anything lately for the 18 percent of his constituents who are doomed to live below the poverty line? Or, indeed, has he provided jobs and income to his hardworking constituents. If I were them, I'd find a state representative who would work hard to lift people out of their difficult circumstances, instead of one who seems to want to keep people mired in ignorance and poverty.

So if Baxley, who desperately needed to take Biology 101 at Florida State (which should consider revoking his BA), succeeded in his little ploy, what will likely ensue?

If I were Baxley I wouldn't stand anywhere near I-95 north of Gainesville, since he's likely to get run over by the rush of professors fleeing the state at 95 miles an hour. Post-secondary teachers already suffer from low salaries and poor working conditions compared to their peers who go into the professions. The only trade-off they get is that academics have more control over their lives and the time to research and teach things they are interested in. Given a choice between being made Baxley's slaves and braving hurricanes in Florida or living in a state that respects its thinkers, Florida's educators will pour out of the state faster than a 'gator chasing a fat, balding funeral director through the swamps.

Baxley may be happier without any of those intell-Ec-tu-al riffraff cluttering up his state. But maybe his constituents won't be. Knowledge workers, you see, are the geese that lay the golden eggs. Post-secondary teachers are the ones who train the people who found computer software, biotechnology and other companies key to the twenty-first century economy. They also train society's managers and middle managers. The more high-powered academics you have in your state, the wealthier your state will be...

You wonder if educators should let a thing like this be forgotten, or just lie down and let themselves be walked all over by paleontologically-challenged funeral directors. ^[2]

Exaggeration of assistance to FBI

Under the banner of his David Horowitz Freedom Center, Horowitz sent out an email in August 2007 claiming:

One strong measurement of the effect we're having (and the need for what we do) came in the form of request from the head the FBI-California Highway Patrol Joint Counter-terrorism Task Force who called this week to ask if their group could use our flash video "What Every American Needs to Know About Jihad" as a training film. ^[3]

Historian and author Rick Perlstein tracked down a statement by the task force that denied Horowtiz's claim:

I can assure you the California Highway Patrol's head of the FBI-California Highway Patrol, Joint Terrorism Task Force did not request a copy of the video. While an employee of this Department did request a copy, the video was not used nor will it be used for training purposes. ^[4]

Horowitz responds to progressive left critique

In an article self-published on his FrontPageMag website, January 25, 2008, David Horowitz responded to what he claimed were outrageous and specious personal criticisms from the "progressive left", asserting that this identified political group uses biased tactics for attack, while he claimed his own moral and rhetorical superiority when arguing against them. Horowitz wrote that the progressive left's modus operandi when attacking himself, and conservatives in general were: "misrepresentation of facts, distortion of motives and general acts of character assassination are the preferred modes of progressive discourse, as any conservative who has acquired a public persona can attest." He further stated that, " raw material for this verbal malice is stored on data sites", singling out the following websites as the primary repositories: SourceWatch, Media Matters for America and Media Transparency, and People for the American Way's, Right Wing Watch. ^[5]

Funding & fundraising

Grants

Media Transparency lists grants to the Center for the Study of Popular Culture.

Fundraising with the Donatelli Group

Horowitz is raising/has raised funds via donations and/or purchases made to the following accounts with the Donatelli Group's DonationReport.com:

• American Red Cross "donations" here (See related article.)
• Center for the Study of Popular Culture:

• Donations here
• DiscoverTheNetworks.org—"A Guide to the Political Left" here
• "The Boy Scouts Under Attack"/Boy Scout Defense Fund of the Individual Rights Foundation (project) here
• Shadow Party Project here

• FrontPageMag.com online store here and here
• Jihad Watch (sponsorship) here
• Also see the Upload: "The Middle East War Is Not About A Palestinian State Or Palestinian Land"

Affiliations

• David Horowitz Freedom Center (DHFC)
• Center for the Study of Popular Culture (original name of DHFC)
  • Heterodoxy (published by CSPC)

• FrontPageMag.com
• DiscoverTheNetwork
• Encounter Books
• Individual Rights Foundation
• Wednesday Morning Club
• Matt Drudge Defense Fund
• Students for Academic Freedom

Articles and resources

Related SourceWatch resources

Sources

1. ↑ Fred Gardner, "Hollywood Confidential: Part I", Viet Nam Generation Journal & Newsletter-V3, N3, November 1991. Published online by The Sixties Project.
2. ↑ Juan Cole, "Florida Funeral Director Buries Universities ," Informed Comment (Juan Cole's blog), March 29, 2005.
3. ↑ Rick Perlstein, "David Horowitz writes me a letter," Campaign for America's Future blog, August 15, 2007.
4. ↑ Rick Perlstein, "David Horowitz fibbing?" Campaign for America's Future blog, August 21, 2007.
5. ↑ David Horowitz, "The Surreal World of the Progressive Left", FrontPage Magazine, January 25, 2008

Profiles

• Misinformation and bigotry from David Horowitz (from Media Matters for America).
• "David Horowitz", Media Transparency website (regularly updated).
• Legislating Academic Freedom: The Larkin-Horowitz Debate (continually updated).
• Bibliography of the Writings of David Horowitz, 1951-2003 at FrontPageMag.com.

External articles

Articles by Horowitz

• David Horowitz and David Kolodney, "The Foundations (Charity Begins at Home)", Ramparts, April 1969.
• David Horowitz, "Billion Dollar Brains: How Wealth Puts Knowledge in its Pocket", Ramparts, May 1969.
• David Horowitz, "Sinews of Empire", Ramparts, October 1969.

General Articles

• Scott Sherman, "David Horowitz's Long March", The Nation, June 15, 2000.
• Steven Ruszczycky, "Make No Gnomes About This Neo-Conservative Dude," Daily Nexus Online, May 30, 2001.
• Alexander Cockburn, "A Whiner Called David Horowitz," CounterPunch, May 31, 2003.
• Bill Berkowitz, "Horowitz's Campus Jihads: With liberal professors in his crosshairs, David Horowitz is engaging in some good old-fashioned campus cleansing", DissidentVoice, October 9-10, 2004.
• Billmon, "Horowitz could only be flattered knowing that at least one person is paying attention to him! There are some other posters about Horow in this site," Whiskey Bar, March 21, 2005.
• Juan Cole, "Florida Funeral Director Buries Universities", Informed Comment, March 29, 2005.
• Juan Cole, "Dutchess Community College Stands up for Academic Freedom", Informed Comment, March 29, 2005.
• Paul de Rooij, "Undermining Civil Society: David Horowitz's Corrosive Projects", CounterPunch, April 11, 2005. Contains an analysis of the key Horowitz projects.
• Bill Berkowitz, "Immigration politics draws attention of David Horowitz , Media Transparency, August 19, 2005.
• June Kronholz, "Congress Wades Into Campus Politics: Republicans Push for Academic Bill of Rights To Ensure 'Dissenting Viewpoints' in Class," Wall Street Journal (sub. req'd.), October 4, 2005.
• Bill Berkowitz, :{"Foaming campus cleanser sputters at :(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}::{Temple::(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}::{ David Horowitz attacks liberal academics with so-called Academic Bill of Rights; also looking to rid college campuses of what he calls the anti-war academics who 'hate America',":(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}: Media Transparency, January 15, 2006.
• Nicholas Lemann, "On Balance", Columbia Journalism Review, January/February 2006.
• Robert W. McChesney, "David Horowitz and the Attack on Independent Thought," Common Dreams, February 28, 2006.
• Bill Berkowitz, "Center for the Study of Popular Culture becomes David Horowitz Freedom Center: Leading Bush non-profit political ally changes name, plans expansion and new hires," Media Transparency, July 10, 2006.
• Mindy Belz, "Conspiracy theories. Entertainment: They may explain political protest of ABC’s 9/11 film but rarely describe how networks work," World Magazine, September 23, 2006 (issue). re "The Path to 9/11" (2006 Docudrama)
• Asheesh Kapur Siddique, "Thought Police in the Lecture Hall", Washington Post, October 28, 2006; A15.
• Matt Corley, "Horowitz Inflates Number Of Schools Participating In His Divisive ‘Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week’," Think Progress, October 23, 2007.
• Michael Barker, "Capital-driven Civil Society", State of Nature, May 18, 2008.

Related Sourcewatch

• David Kolodney

students for something bs

THE CAMPUS TODAY

Studies on Faculty and Campus Diversity

Existing Academic Freedom Regulations

State of the Campus

ACTIONS NATIONWIDE

**Students for Academic Freedom Timeline**

Pennsylvania Academic Freedom Hearings

First National Academic Freedom Conference

Second National Academic Freedom Conference

Horowitz Testimonies To Legislative Bodies

NEW FACULTIES

Hope for Hamilton College

Reaching Out at Hamilton

:{Charter establishing The :(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}::{Alexander Hamilton Center:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:

REPLIES TO CRITICS

Exchange Between Horowitz and Larkin

Frequently Made Attacks on the Academic Bill of Rights

REPORTS

Pennsylvania’s Academic Freedom Reforms

Students for Academic Freedom: A New Campus Movement

The Case of the Colorado Exam

Two Disputed Colorado Cases

Victory in Colorado

Students for Academic Freedom Second Year Achievement Report

whois

Domain ID:D96781468-LROR
Domain Name:STUDENTSFORACADEMICFREEDOM.ORG
Created On:02-May-2003 14:37:37 UTC
Last Updated On:03-May-2013 12:19:58 UTC
Expiration Date:02-May-2014 14:37:37 UTC
Spo1oring Registrar:GoDaddy.com, LLC (R91-LROR)
Status:CLIENT DELETE PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT RENEW PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:CR97919382
Registrant Name:Center for the Study of Popular Culture
Registrant Organization:Center for the Study of Popular Culture
Registrant Street1:ATTN i1ert domain name here
Registrant Street2:care of Network Solutio1  LEGIT
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Drums also NS
Registrant State/Province:Pen1ylvania
Registrant Postal Code:18222
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.5707088780 = network sols?
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:tp6w656a4nb@networksolutio1privateregistration.com
Admin ID:CR97919386
Admin Name:David Horowitz Freedom Center

this is for what org?

Allegheny Foundation SCAIFE

$700,000

Barbara and Barre Seid Foundation

$10,000

Brady Education Foundation

$76,000

:{Carthage:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}: Foundation

KOCH $625,000

Castle Rock Foundation  COORS

$350,000

Gordon and Mary Cain Foundation

$10,000

Hickory Foundation

$85,000

Jaquelin :{Hume Foundation:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:

$150,000

John M.:{ Olin Foundation:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:

$2,085,000

Lynde and Harry:{ Bradley :(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:Foundation

$5,959,250

Randolph Foundation

$245,000

Sarah :{Scaife Foundation:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:

$5,000,000

Scaife Family Foundation

$1,150,000

Shelby Cullom Davis Foundation

$10,000

William H. Donner Foundation

$10,000

book rev

Another gem, The Professors, was literally laughed off by the academic community. Many of them saw their inclusion into the book as a badge of honor.  One of the supposed radical academics Horowitz "exposed" in his book was Marc Becker from Truman State University.

Becker was "organizer and media developer" for "Historians against the War" and made the uncontroversial statement that "Indigenous peoples of the Americas" have been devastated by the policies of some multilateral institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund.  Scary stuff, right?

Horowitz's book, One-Party Classroom,which not surprisingly beats that same dead horse,was recently included in the American Book Review's list of Top 40 Bad Books.  Not just in 2009, but ever. Santa Clara University academic Marc Bousquet's review of One-Party Classroom is delightfully accurate:

This book just goes after the syllabi, not the scholarship of the faculty, and the somnolence it produces is hard to describe.Evi­dently, they should have credited Google as the third author. The Horowitz staffers tasked with compiling this stinker simply trolled online campus catalogs to yield course descriptions using such democracy-undermining terms as "justice," "inequality," "race," and "feminism," then wrote lame descriptions characterizing the syllabi as part of a plot to deprive William Gates and Dick Cheney of their hard-earned profits.

---

Books Published by Encounter

It has published books by:

• Myron Magnet
• Michael Fumento, Bio-Evolution: How Biotechnology Is Changing Our World, Encounter Books, October 2003.
• Kate Coleman'sThe Secret Wars of Judi Bari: A Car Bomb, the Fight for the Redwoods, and the End of Earth First!, January 2005. ISBN 1893554740
• Jessica Gavora her book was funded by the John M. Olin Foundation[1]
• David Horowitz and Peter Collier, The Anti-Chomsky Reader;
• Ronald **Radosh** Commies: A Journey Through the Old Left, the New Left and the Leftover Left; and
• Debra Saunders The Hillary Trap and The World According to Gore;

Funding

According to Media Transparency :{Encounter:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}::{ for Culture Foundation:(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}: has received over $4.6 million from a total of 70 grants from foundations between 1991 and 2002. [2]

Foundations that have supported Encounter include conservative foundations such as:

• John M. Olin Foundation
• Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation
• Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
• JM Foundation
• Shelby Cullum Foundation
• Philip M. McKenna Foundation

---

Peter Collier was the founding publisher of Encounter Books in California. He held that position until he resigned in 2005, when Encounter Books offices were moved from San Francisco to New York City, and Collier was replaced as publisher by Roger Kimball. 

Collier is also an associate with David Horowitzon many projectsover many decades, e.g., co-editor of *:{Ramparts:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:*, the "anti-war" magazine; publishing articles in Horowitz's FrontPage magazine; 

co-author with Horowitz on several books (including The Anti-Chomsky Reader (2004)); and promoter of other Horowitz ventures like the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, which he co-founded with Horowitz. Collier was also a co-organizer of the Second Thoughts conferences for the ex-leftists who recanted or saw the (right-wing) light.

---

Manny Klausner

Current

• Member at U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, California State Advisory Committee[see also Heriot]
• General Counsel at Individual Rights Foundation
• Owner at Law Offices of Manuel S. Klausner, P.C.

• Co-founder and Trustee at Reason Foundation

see less...

1 more...

Past

• Director at Institute for Justice, 1991-1998
• Vice-Chair atCalifornians Against Discrimination and Preferences (CADAP)
• Partner at Kindel & Anderson LLP

• Director at Excellence through Choice in Education League (ExCEL)
• Co-founding Editor at Reason Magazine
• Instructor at University of Chicago Law School

see less...

3 more...

Education

• New York University School of Law
• University of California, Los Angeles

Recommendations 1 recommendationConnections 176connectionsIndustryLaw PracticeWebsites

• Individual Rights Foundation
• My law firm
• Reason Foundation

• * *

Manny Klausner’s Experience

• ### Member

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, California State Advisory Committee

    (Government Agency; Legal Services industry)

December 2006 — Present (4 years 1 month)

• ### General Counsel

Individual Rights Foundation

    (Legal Services industry)

January 2000 — Present (11 years )

The Individual Rights Foundation is the legal arm of the David Horowitz Freedom Center

• ### Owner

Law Offices of Manuel S. Klausner, P.C.

    (Law Practice industry)

November 1996 — Present (14 years 2 months)

• ### Co-founder and Trustee

:{Reason Foundation:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:

    (Non-Profit; Think Tanks industry)

1978 — Present (32 years )

• ### Director

Institute for Justice, 1991-1998

    (Law Practice industry)

1991 — 1998 (7 years )

• ### Vice-Chair

Californians Against Discrimination and Preferences (CADAP)

    (Political Organization industry)

1994 — 1996 (2 years )

California Civil Rights Initiative (Proposition 209) campaign

• ### Partner

Kindel & Anderson LLP

    (Law Practice industry)

1965 — 1996 (31 years )

• ### Director

Excellence through Choice in Education League (ExCEL)

    788(Political Organization industry)

1991 — 1994 (3 years )

Coordinated drafting and campaign for passage of Prop. 174, the Parental Choice in Education Initiative.

• ### Co-founding Editor

Reason Magazine

    (Publishing industry)

1971 — 1978 (7 years )

• ### Instructor

University of Chicago Law School

    (Higher Education industry)

1964 — 1965 (1 year )