Looking for bias in business?

David Horowitz is shocked, just shocked, by courses that allegedly promote particular ideologies without presenting "the other side." Does he propose that every person in the McCombs School of Business devote at least half of her energy and time to critiques of capitalism? I'm interested.

Virginia Raymond
English doctoral candidate
February 19, 2007


Why Horowitz is full of it

David Horowitz complains of a "joint academic" "degree-granting curriculum" pioneered by Women and Gender Studies, Communication Studies and Rhetoric and Writing, but no such interdisciplinary degree exists ("The two Universities of Texas," Feb. 19). He furiously proclaims that courses in rhetoric don't address their proclaimed subject, neglecting to notice that these same courses cover staples of classical rhetorical theory, such as Hermagoras's theory of argumentative stasis and Aristotle's treatment of argumentative proofs.

His research doesn't venture past a cursory review of a few online syllabi, even though anyone who has taken a college class knows that a syllabus represents the barest possibility for what may happen during a semester. Horowitz didn't bother to talk to students, faculty, to attend any lectures or to read any papers. In short, he doesn't carefully investigate the classes or the people that he maligns. And he would never believe arguments similar to his own if they were leveled against him, yet he expects us to accept such ludicrosities. If we were to point out, for instance, that, lacking a degree in education, Horowitz has no authority to evaluate UT, he would scoff, yet he wants us to discredit professors who teach courses outside of the narrow topics on which they wrote their dissertations.

This is how Horowitz makes his money - he sells books and recruits donors by posting inflammatory notes in popular venues. At the bottom of his full report online on UT's curriculum the reader is confronted with a suggestion that like-minded souls open their wallets. It seems that he cares less about UT than he does about his own bank account.

Though there are responsible conservative critics of higher education, David Horowitz is not among them. If he were to submit this argument in one of my courses, I'd give him an F. You should too.

Mark Garrett Longaker
Assistant professor of rhetoric and writing
February 19, 2007


YCT reviving 'Watch List'

David Horowitz is absolutely correct in his assertion that "there are two universities operating under the name of the University of Texas." Too many professors on this campus use the classroom as a tool of indoctrination. Students pay tuition to be educated, not indoctrinated. They have the right to demand impartial classroom environments, where they may openly engage in debates that deliberate all viewpoints of controversial issues. Students should feel free to respectfully challenge professors and other students without fear of chastisement. All professors should strive for intellectual honesty in their classrooms by presenting objective, unprejudiced information and allowing students to choose a position on their own terms. Education should always be the main goal of instructors. University classrooms are not the place for activists to convert and recruit people for an ideological cause.

Professor bias is a problem that must be confronted directly and vigorously if it is to be eliminated on the UT campus. For this reason, the Young Conservatives of Texas are reviving the Professor Watch List. Professors who use their authority to indoctrinate rather than to educate will be added. However, YCT also wants to recognize professors who create unbiased learning atmospheres by placing them on the Professor Watch List Honor Roll. This nonpartisan list is meant to be a resource for students of all ideological backgrounds that wish to acquire information about specific professors before enrolling in a particular course.

YCT is currently accepting submission forms from students who want a professor considered for addition to either the Watch List or the Honor Roll. Submission forms can be found at www.yct-ut.org, and all students are encouraged to join the Facebook group "UT Professor Watch List" for further information, links and updates.

Elizabeth Young
Government sophomore
YCT Director of Academic Freedom
February 19, 2007


SG should look within

Every year people have criticized Student Government, and every year the only people that advocate the status quo are people that already hold, or are running for, SG positions. I find their adamant defense of SG in the face of overwhelming criticism to be disappointing and shortsighted, but when a ticket's election investments are more than $6,000, their self-aggrandizement isn't surprising.

So I wasn't surprised to see that Zach Hall, the "SG co-director of legislative relations," took offense to Adam Avramescu's scathing, but accurate, criticisms (Firing Line, Feb. 19). I was also not surprised to see Hall avoid discussing Avramescu's criticisms by changing the subject to SG's work on tax-free textbooks (the student hardship placebo) and by uttering the token position of dissatisfied students "doing something to fix it by participating."

Anyone who has ever been to an SG meeting discovers, within seconds that seem like hours, that it is a narcissistic association, which actually believes its own hype. As for elections, those are even worse.

If the same criticisms of SG are brought up every year, maybe SG should take an introspective position for a while, rather than networking, glad-handing and padding resumes. But I do not see that happening, since the people that genuinely care are the people that are too disgusted by SG's superficial meetings to participate and refuse to appoint people to positions simply because of their social or fraternal connections. Let's not forget the $7,000 dollar ticket buy in.

Kyle Larson
Government and economics senior
February 19, 2007


Putin raises real problems

Grant Manning's column was as ill-informed as it was misguided ("Putin's mistaken jabs at the U.S.," Feb. 19). Putin's contested quote was that the "United States has overstepped its borders in all spheres - economic, political and humanitarian, and has imposed itself on other states." Manning uses a low-blow, World War II reference to say that nations must overstep their boundaries. Clearly, this is not what Putin was referring to. He was referring to the fact that America, via the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, has rammed an ineffective, free-market economic solution down the throats of developing countries much to the detriment of the citizens there. He was referring to the fact that America has spent the last 50 years trying to spread democracy with the barrel of a gun.

Putin said rightly that the U.S. has gone "from one conflict to another without achieving a fully-fledged solution to any of them." To say, as Manning did, that the U.S. military bases stationed arrogantly in areas that happen to have coveted natural resources is not only ignorant but gullible too; he's buying into the government's antiquated hawkish rhetoric. Manning also says that "American foreign policy is centered on supporting a global order that includes the West." To put it lightly. American foreign policy since the 1950s has been to force a global order that not just includes, but centers around, the West. Putin's warning is a legitimate one, and it is in our best interest to take it seriously.

David Kallison
Sociology senior
February 19, 2007


Horowitz an attack dog for right

I am writing in response to the opinion column by David Horowitz in Monday's Daily Texan arguing that there are "two universities" here at Texas, one of which is allegedly engaged in left-wing indoctrination of our students. I am one of the faculty members targeted in the latest of Horowitz's attacks, a "new" book (full of rehashed information from his discoverthenetwork.org and prior book "The Professors") called "Interrogation U."

Let's get one thing straight: Horowitz is a cynical opportunist who whips up fears among legislators, parents and students about radical faculty allegedly engaged in some sort of mind control. His purpose is to shut down one of the few spaces we have in our society for critical thinking and the expression of diverse points of view from conservatism to the left. While some departments house one or maybe even two faculty of liberal or progressive bent, the University as a whole is not overrun with leftists. (In the whole country, he could only find 101 left-wing enough for him to consider "dangerous.") And I don't see Horowitz calling on the McCombs School of Business to hire a labor leader or the economics department to hire enough Marxist economists to balance out the curriculum. I don't see him calling for critics of the petroleum industry to be welcomed in the geology department.

So, you see, his attempts to police freedom of thought are aimed at only one small part of the ideological spectrum. He is an attack dog for the right; he would like nothing more than to see the few critical progressive faculty teaching at universities around the country lose their jobs - not because we advocate orthodoxy, but because we question his orthodoxy.

Curricula in communication, women's and gender studies, social movements and in fields across the humanities and social sciences are developed by experts. Horowitz knows little to nothing about the state of modern academic knowledge in these areas. For example, the idea that gender structures our society is not an ideological position (as he claims), but a fact recognized by many different disciplines, including anthropology, sociology, government, psychology and communication. Next he'll be denying that racism is a problem - wait, he already does that, claiming that Oprah Winfrey, "a fat Black woman" (his words, during a lecture I attended), has made it to the top of society proves that racism is no longer a barrier to success for most black Americans.

Many people regard Horowitz as a trivial crackpot, but the truth is that his activities and circulation of his grossly misnamed "Academic Bill of Rights" has led to the disciplining and even firing of excellent faculty members at universities across this country. Horowitz represents a new McCarthyism, and he is witch-hunting scholars and programs crucial to the enterprise of higher education.

The irony for my own part in this latest round is that my teaching evaluations have never been higher, and I just won one of our college's teaching awards on the basis, in part, of my openness to controversy in the classroom. Yes, I am an activist (but not in the classroom). And yes, I teach political subjects because that is the subject matter of my discipline - communication, political discourse, social movements, critical theory and political rhetoric. No one forces students to take my classes, and I encourage students to bring readings and questions from many perspectives to discuss in class.

Horowitz thinks that students can't think for themselves. I hope students here will tell him where to get off. Critical thinking is not indoctrination; when the entire political landscape is dominated by one point of view, there are few spaces in society where students may be exposed to points of view not available in many mainstream outlets. Teaching critical thinking and alternative points of view is a good thing. I have found that my students can hold their own.

I've had a large number of conservative students. Most of them do well, and some of them are fans of mine.

I hope this clears up what Horowitz is about and what genuine, open education is about: they are opposites.

Dana L. Cloud
Associate professor of communication studies
February 19, 2007


Horowitz most dangerous academic in America

First of all, I'm trying very hard to compose myself and keep a civil tongue, but it's hard to do when it comes to talking about David Horowitz. According to Mr. H., certain faculties are simply activists trying to deceive, convert and recruit students to their ideological causes.

For one thing, he's insulting these students' intelligence and maturation. They are not little school children, but young adults who are developing their own minds. And why does he feel threatened by people who speak the truth? Not only does he speak ill of insightful and courageous UT faculty such as Robert Jensen and Dana Cloud, but he also condemns one of the most truthful and wise individuals in the world - Howard Zinn.

As a privileged white male, he has absolutely no right to criticize cultural and women's studies. And, not only has he made derogatory remarks about the cultures of "minorities," but has also insinuated that racism no longer exists.

I believe this despicable person is the most dangerous academic in America. He is a direct threat to our civil liberties and the positive progress this country desperately needs. He's also a very scary person. Even though he acts like God, it seems he's on the side of the devil.

Considering the inequalities and social problems this country has, it's obvious that the system is broken and that the status quo has got to go. People of good conscience simply want ordinary working folk to have the respect, dignity and justice they deserve. It is very good and admirable of liberal, progressive people to feel the need to criticize, dissent and take some action. As Molly Ivins used to tell us, "don't just sit there on your haunches!"

Anita Quintanilla
February 19, 2007


Isn't UT just being democratic?

I don't understand. Isn't David Horowitz just as guilty of whatever he is charging the "liberals" or "radicals" with?

If all Mr. Horowitz can do is produce two thin examples of this "other" university that supposedly exists like a cancer feeding on the legitimate body of the "real" university, then that hardly merits representing this shadowy alternate universe in the paranoid and threatening way he does. Let's see two courses out of how many course being taught each year at the University? Employing the scientific method, that comes to a statistically insignificant percentage out of all the university courses offered annually.

Um, and supposing, I mean just supposing, we actually do live in a "free and democratic" society and that maybe, just maybe, the University's role in that society is to promote dialogue and discussion of even unpopular points of view - well, it's a big leap, but I'm going to go way out on a limb here and say that actually the University, by hosting and supporting these classes, is doing what it should be doing.

And suppose you are that unfortunate trust-fund frat boy who enrolls in one of these sinister classes only to be rewarded for bravely expressing your free-market views with a big fat "F"? I suppose all of those myriad University policies and procedures which give you recourse to making and filing complaints against an instructor or professor or requesting a hearing to contest your unjust grade - I suppose all of those "rules" which are meant to protect your rights at a public institution are simply another radical plot to undermine the conservative agenda?

As some wag online has already pointed out, does this mean that students in the business school will be forced to take courses in Marxist economics to balance out their "education"?

Jon Pearson
UT alum
February 19, 2007

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools