The ODE is all in a tizzy over David Horowitz’s latest book, leading them to write the following in today’s editorial:

Some University professors do hold views that some would term radical, but as long as these professors allow students to disagree, we believe these so-called radicals contribute to a needed diversity of intellectual opinions on campus.

Yeah, there’s clearly a need for more far-left professors on this campus and in the Sociology department. Good call, ODE. I wonder if reporter Ryan Knutson asked Sociology department head Robert O’Brien how many socially conservative Republicans the department employs. Do they throw an office party on Reagan’s birthday? And how many “radical” right-wing professors are employed at the UO? I’d like to see that blacklist.

Anyways, here’s what Horowitz himself has to say about the book’s subtitle and message:

It was the publisher who actually gave The Professors its subtitle: “The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America.” And this worried me. In writing the book, it had not been my intention to justify such a title. In fact, the adjective “dangerous” does not appear among the 112,000 words of its text. When my publisher proposed the subtitle, the book was already finished – the hundred odd professors already selected. The fact that there were obscure professors in the book like Marc Becker of Truman State, and moderate leftists like Michael Berube and Todd Gitlin, concerned me. I was sure they and other more culpable subjects would pounce on the phrase and claim, however absurdly, that it was a red flag signaling a “witch-hunt.” In other words, it would provide its enemies with an opportunity to make it look ridiculous and sinister at the same time (the contradiction would not bother them in the least).

[…]

A principal theme of my book (unmentioned by its critics) is that faculty radicals have transformed entire departments and fields into political parties whose agendas have little or no relation to any activity that could be called scholarly. Thus Women’s Studies are not about an academic inquiry into the nature, history and sociology of women. Instead, Women’s Studies is the Party of Feminism on campus.

While Horowitz’s insufferable self-obsession pisses me off to no end, he’s absolutely spot-on in the latter paragraph.

Personally I couldn’t care less if Prof. Foster is a Marxist or not– anyone who’s in the Sociology department knows its purpose is to act as an echo chamber, and Foster certainly plays his role well. But I must say that I’d prefer it if he were paid in wooden clogs, cheap vodka and dormitory housing rather than a bourgeoisie’s salary.

This entry was posted on Monday, March 6th, 2006 at 19:56 by Ian and is filed under Campus, Ol' Dirty Emerald, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.