Blogs > Cliopatria > Joshua A. Matz: Review of David Horowitz's The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America

Mar 15, 2006 11:21 pm

Joshua A. Matz: Review of David Horowitz's The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America

Mr. Matz is an HNN intern.

David Horowitz’s campaign against ‘the insularity of a predominantly left-wing academic environment’ achieves its most specific manifestation yet in his latest book, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America. Individually targeting 101 faculty, whom Horowitz characterizes as representative of the American academic-intellectual establishment, the book devotes 364 pages to an alphabetical progression through those radicals who “spew violent Anti-Americanism, preach Anti-Semitism, and cheer on the killing of American soldiers and civilians – all the while collecting tax dollars and tuition fees to indoctrinate our children,” as a blurb for the book states.

These “alleged ex-terrorists, racists, murderers, sexual deviants, anti-Semites, and al-Qaeda supporters” have managed to earn tenure and win the respect of their academic colleagues through a deeply flawed and prejudiced system of higher education. Horowitz devotes most of his book to criticizing individual professors, reserving 55 of 377 pages to explain his motivation and methodology. Relying upon a series of case-studies – of Ward Churchill and Lawrence Summers, among others - Horowitz refers to his critique as “a chilling indictment of an entire system.”

Claiming use of a method similar to prosopography, Horowitz reveals four troublesome patterns in modern institutions of higher education: (1) faculty are promoted far beyond their level of academic achievement on the basis of politically correct scholarship; (2) professors engage in political propaganda while teaching subjects outside their areas of professional or experiential qualification; (3) professors are permitted to make racist and ethnically insulting remarks publicly without any substantial response from administrators, so long as those remarks target unprotected groups (“i.e. Armenians, whites, Christians, and Jews”; (4) Academic discipline and agenda-neutral scholarly inquiry are now subordinated to indoctrinational efforts by professors with overtly political agendas.

His analysis notes that “the radical left has colonized a significant part of the university system and transformed it to serve its political ends.” This takeover of the university was accomplished in the 1970s, he says, when a wave of political activists achieved faculty-level positions at universities across the nation and enlisted the academic institution itself as a weapon in their advocacy for sociopolitical positions. As group-polarization reinforced this left-wing “echo-chamber of approbation,” the university system emerged as a safe-haven for extremists on the radical sociopolitical left. Horowitz notes that liberal and democratic majorities have increased dramatically in recent years relative to the academic advancement of conservatives or republicans, and explicitly argues that these disparities are the result of institutionally-rooted political and ideological discrimination.

Interdisciplinary fields devoted to the study of women, African-Americans, gender and sexuality, social justice, peace, and whiteness occupy a significant role in this historical analysis. These departments were shaped by “narrow, one-sided political agendas” and “attacked American foreign policy and the American military, others America’s self-image and national identity. Taken together, these new realms of academic inquiry provided open forums for political indoctrination, the “recruitment of students to radical causes,” and exploration of radical theories. Unsurprisingly, Horowitz devotes the majority of his individual critiques to faculty well-known in these or related fields.

According to Horowitz, the number of faculty that regularly violate guidelines of academic integrity and freedom is approximately 25,00-30,000. This analysis, which assumes that five percent of all college and university faculty (of whom there are 617,000 in the United States) are “radical,” suggests that literally millions of students face the indoctrination each year of dangerous and anti-intellectual ideas. These professors have abandoned a ‘liberal philosophy of education, where the professional responsibility of educators is to elevate students’ ability to think, not hand them the correct opinions.”

The roots of this problem run deep, but one of the primary causes identified by Horowitz is the so-called “Revolution by Search Committee.” Noting that department chairs and other tenured faculty play a dominant role in the university hiring process, and observing a fortiori that these individuals are rarely answerable to any higher administrative authority, Horowitz decries the subversion of this review process for partisan ends. Quoting a number of conservative faculty who claim to have witnessed discrimination on the basis of sociopolitical beliefs in the course of such tenure-review or hiring processes, Horowitz asserts more broadly that the entire institutional structure is flawed. In further support of this claim, Horowitz observes that more than 90% of the faculty targeted in his book hold tenure-level professorships at colleges and universities around the country.

Horowitz singles out fourteen history professors for criticism (this number is somewhat subjective, as many of these faculty hold interdisciplinary positions). See below for a list of these individuals and their home institutions. A number of these faculty refused to comment on the book; they indicated they did not want to give his claims legitimacy by responding to them. As noted by Edward Peters, a professor of medieval history at the University of Pennsylvania, “The historical profession … has its own professional standards which include peer review. I don't think the profession has much noted the concerns of David Horowitz.” Along a similar vein, Regina Austin -- a Penn Law professor criticized by Horowitz – responded by affirming that “I have better things to do than worry about this … You can't let your enemies set your agenda."

It seems increasingly unlikely, however, that the critiques leveled by Horowitz will simply go away. The book is endorsed by Rep. Jerry Lewis (chairman of the House Appropriations Committee), Stephen and Abigail Thernstrom (Professors at Harvard University), Laura Ingraham (host of the Laura Ingraham Show), and a slew of state senators and representatives. With such politically and intellectually powerful backers, and a public increasingly aware of issues relating to academic freedom (a number of court cases and legislative acts have recently captured media attention), it appears possible that academia may soon be forced to take David Horowitz as seriously as he would like.

Three Responses to Horowitz from Targeted History Faculty

Emma Pérez: Associate Professor, University of Colorado, Boulder (p. 300 of The Professors)

Accusation by Horowitz : Expressing “full and unconditional support of Ward Churchill and his first amendment rights,” and of ideological bias in regard to her scholarship of feminist and Chicana history.

Response: “I’m honored to be on a list with scholars whom I respect for their scholarship as well as their commitment to making the academy a place where divergent opinions can be expressed and debated. Clearly, I’m on the list because I supported my colleague’s first amendment rights; however, my subject position, as a Chicana historian, a feminist and a lesbian, makes me an easy target for those who prefer to silence those whose histories are finally being uncovered. The post-1960s presented a dramatic change in historical research when social history offered a method to “do history from the bottom-up.” The working classes, women and men of wide-ranging races, ethnicities and sexualities could be excavated from documents. Concurrently, college campuses were also changing as diverse racial groups of students and faculty were finally admitted in higher numbers and while those numbers plummet on my own campus, the change is already here. Women’s history, along with other burgeoning fields of study, will continue to mature on college campuses despite the current drive to censure those whom Mr. Horowitz and his supporters find unworthy of constitutional rights.”

Joel Beinin: Professor of Middle Eastern History, Stanford University (p. 52 of The Professors)

Accusation by Horowitz: Supported Saddam Hussein’s aggression against Kuwait, refers to suicide bombers as “martyrs,” and appeared on Al-Jazeera to denounce American “imperialism”

Response : "Mark LeVine has already published a refutation and correction in his History News Network blog in response to the original article by Alyssa Lappen on which this material is based. . I wonder whether, in your review of The Professors, you will comment on the charges made on the book's dust jacket that the "101 academics ... happen to be alleged ex-terrorists, racists, murderers, sexual deviants, anti-Semites, and al-Qaeda supporters."  Of course, I am none of these. Perhaps you should ask Horowitz to explain whether these statements represent his views and whether these are supposed to be facts or merely slurs he feels free to throw around."  

Juan Cole: Professor of History, University of Michigan (p. 100 of The Professors)

Accusation by Horowitz: “Believes that a “pro-Likud” cabal controls the American government from a small number of key positions within the executive branch (p.100)”

Response: “David who?”

List of History Faculty in David Horowitz’s New Book, “The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America”

Marc Becker : Associate Professor of Latin American History, Truman State University

Joel Beinin : Middle Eastern History Professor, Stanford University

Mary Frances Berry : Professor of American Social Thought and History, University of Pennsylvania

Juan Cole : Professor of History, University of Michigan

Angela Davis : Professor of the History of Conscious, UC Santa Cruz

Eric Foner : Profess of History, Columbia University

Yvonne Haddad : Professor the History of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, Georgetown University

Caroline Higgins : Professor of Peace, Global Studies, and History, Earlham College

Peter Kirstein : Professor of History, Saint Xavier University

Vinay Lal : Associate Professor of History, UC Los Angeles

Mark Levine: Associate Professor of History, UC Irvine

Manning Marable : Professor of History and Political Science, Columbia University

Joseph Massad : Assistant Professor of Modern Arab Politics and Intellectual History, Columbia University

Emma Perez : Associate Professor of History, University of Colorado, Boulder

Related Links

  • David Horowitz Has a List

  • Juan Cole: Attacked by David Horowitz

  • Scott McLemee: David Horowitz's Book on"Dangerous" Professors

  • Barbara McKenna: Beware the new thought police

  • comments powered by Disqus

    More Comments:

    Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

    Step 1: examine the author's credentials
    and past track record.

    Or don't. Proceed with posting summaries of books by David Irving, David Duke and "Reverend" Moon without saying a peep about who they are or what they've done.

    Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

    While it seems at best tangentially related to the book being discussed here, I would be interested in further details in support of your suggestion that

    "90% of the funding for Middle East studies departments in the US comes from one source...the Saudi government."


    (1) What is the total amount the Saudi government has given to Mideast studies programs in the U.S., over which time period, and according to which specific and fully detailed source(s) ?

    (2) What is the total budget of Mideast studies programs in the U.S., over which time period, and according to which specific and fully detailed source(s) ?

    If that 90% figure can be authenticated (e.g. as the quotient of (1) divided by (2) above), it would indeed constitute a cause for concern about serious corruption and bias, although not necessarily a justification for the mudslinging volume reviewed here.

    Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

    I did not, and never have, asked you to "do research" for me. I did ask here whether you could back up your rather extraordinary claim about Saudi domination of American Mideast Studies departments. If your assertion is true, it is bigger news than I have heard on this website in quite some time. Only you can know for sure where that 90% figure came from. If you cannot show that you aren't just making it up, or parroting someone else who made it up, then there is no point in discussing the matter further, especially since it seems not terribly relevant to the latest antics of Mr. Horowitz and HNN's book-jacket blurb-like write-up which are the topic here.

    Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

    By way of clarification, though I do not find it far off the mark, “extremist nut” is not quite the phrase I would pick to describe Horowitz. “Professional troublemaker” would be more like it, in my assessment. As such, I do indeed find close parallels to both Duke and Irving, though less so to Moon. As a substitute, therefore, I would suggest Lyndon LaRouche.

    I can scarcely begin to unpack what the possible significance of Horowitz’s religious ancestry might be or why anyone would want to speculate on it here. Last time I checked, demagoguery, rudeness, and ego-inflation were equal opportunity traits.

    Finally, I would not want to seem overly critical of the author of this piece who for, all I know, may be underexperienced overworked or both. I do think it entirely appropriate to question the wisdom of editors assigning this particular “hot potato” to an intern, and the appropriateness of this book even being featured on a website supposedly devoted to history.

    Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

    I don't know to which "game" you refer. When I make a factual assertion of an obviously controversial nature I am not averse to citing my sources, but I think of this as intelligent discourse, not some "game". Something that is "common knowledge", by the way, does not require consultation in mysterious unknown and unnamed books. Something that is common knowledge would more likely be something I would have read about on HNN already. I tried searching the HNN archives for Saudi funding of American college departments but came up emptyhanded. I begin to suspect that maybe you did make it up or misrember it after all. For a moment there I did actually think I might learn something useful from you for a change.

    Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

    If I WERE THE ONE making claims about Saudi Arabia controlling the purse strings of university departments in the USA, then it would be MY “homework” to research whether there is solid evidence to back up such claims (before making them, so that I could readily cite such evidence if challenged on the claims).

    Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

    Hello Patrick,

    I think the problem here is one of grade school arithmetic and vocabulary having been forgotten.

    90% is not in fact a synonym for "more than I think is acceptable", but someone who thinks it is (due perhaps to temporary memory lapse), and who uses it that way, has trouble understanding why other people might want additional substantive detail.

    Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

    Phares' book sounds interesting. If I ever have an occasion to read it, I will be on the lookout for some passage on some page of the book that might discuss Saudi funding of college deparments in America, possibly including a mention of an overall percentage figure, possibly a high percentage figure, possibly 90%.

    Patrick M. Ebbitt - 9/25/2006

    Dear Mr. Friedman,

    To many of us uninitiated in the finer nuances of university department funding it was with great interest to read your statement that;

    "90% of the funding for Middle East studies departments in the US comes from one source (with matching grants so that the impact of funding is magnified). Specifically, that one main source of funding for Middle East studies departments is the Saudi government."

    After an extensive Boolean search on Google I was unable to verify your claim. The article you provided, as titled above, also did nothing to support your 90% (either direct or indirect) Saudi funding figure.

    Please take the time to substantiate your claim with reliable sources hopefully, more than one.

    J. Feuerbach - 3/13/2006

    You want to get off the list of the 101 most dangerous professors? Here's an idea.

    You teach Latin American history, right? Why don't you strongly condemn President Hugo Chavez' decision to remake the coat of arms of Venezuela's flag so that a horse will appear galloping left, not right? I'm sure that your action will melt Horowitz heart and you'll become his favorite professor.

    By the way, I'm impressed with the number of articles HNN publishes about Latin America. This definitely debunks the myth of America's ethnocentrism and puts to rest Mario Benedetti's concerns about the North's historical "forgetfulness" beautifully captured in his poem "El sur también existe."

    Maura Doherty - 3/11/2006

    Neither book review nor book report, more like free publicity for a highly problematic book. Shame on HNN for posting this fake review; this website is becoming an undergraduate, whiny blog and fast losing credibility.

    Darek Kozlowski - 3/11/2006

    Students are not stupid or gullible. Their wisdom shows in the way they cope with liberal, closed-minded, bigoted professors. They have to play the game by giving them what they want. It makes it that much more difficult to develop their own view of the world and its history, especially if they love this country and what it stands for.

    Darek Kozlowski - 3/11/2006

    Typical liberal response-name calling and no substance.

    Marc Becker - 3/11/2006

    I am one of the people featured in Horowitz's book. In an interview with our student newspaper, Horowitz said that he has not talked to any of my students, nor was that necessary. "I don't have to be in his class or interview somebody from his class to know that there's something wrong here," Horowitz said (;

    BTW, Matz states in this essay "A number of these faculty refused to comment on the book." Matz never even attempted to contact me for a comment.

    Both Horowitz and Matz are intellectually lazy and sloppy in their work. They do a disservice to the historical profession.

    Lisa Kazmier - 3/9/2006

    Why don't you indicate how your not some blind defender of Horowitz, because you certainly have made a few appearances here questioning the AHA or anyone else who says this campaign is ridiculous.

    Frankly, I question the right and the competence of any non-academic to tell me how to run my class. Some frontpagemag stooge wants to tell me if I do my job I have nothing to fear. Well, guess what? I neither asked for nor want their goodhousekeeping seal of approval. I resent the whole concept. I put my butt on the line to earn my degree and my right to teach these classes AS I SEE FIT. If my department chair would like to see something, I will try to accomodate his/her request. If the dean or someone else has legitimate goals I need to address, fine.

    But I am a historian, not some politician's extension to indoctrinate good citizenry or some one political goal. I call a spade a spade. If I see relevance to something students can latch onto in the present (as association or disassociation), I do so. For example, a Vietnamese official writes notes about why he should commit an honorable suicide in 1867. We don't have that concept here: neither Michael Brown nor anyone else in the present administration is going to commit suicide over Katrina. The view of duty and loyalty and service is different, no?

    Considering the tremendous hoops all academics have to go through (see a recent article on an anxious professor awaiting a faculty vote), I find it patently ridiculous that anyone not trained in a given discipline should pass judgement on me or any other instructor. That's my definition of a liberal education and what tenure means. Or, to give a more colorful example: that a tenured professor can call the university president an --- and have nothing to fear for doing so. (And I witnessed this event.)

    Lisa Kazmier - 3/9/2006

    I think you pose useful questions. I found Horowitz quite enthusiastic in endorsing Spark's book, so there is some knowledge of each other and some kind of mutual respect or endorsement or something. I am tracking this down to see how close this is, since I cannot pinpoint the relationship exactly as of yet.

    Heinrich Buchegger - 3/9/2006

    Spark is either "emotionally incompetent" (as she accuses most teachers)or feigning her outrage in calling for Kazmier to withdraw her statement.

    Spark set an inflammatory tone first with her unsubstantiated and blanket claims that teachers "spurn notions of objectivity" and "No open-minded and emotionally competent instructor has anything to fear from Horowitz's campaign for academic freedom." (Of course, as long she is is not mentioned in the book or criticized in any manner.)

    Spark can't even handle a one-liner criticism yet defends Horowitz' book-length personal attack on 101 people.

    Is she being ironic or just disingenuous when she writes, "And I resent the inflammatory tone of the commentator, which I believe has ignored the rules of HNN discussion boards." And what rules did Horowitz follow?

    Can't stand the heat? getting emotional? Her false claims to have cornered the market on "rationality" are layed bare by her irrational "resentment."

    I caution against your age-old tricks of labelling those you disagree with as "close-minded" and "emotional" and with getting in bed with Horowitz. If most of his supporters had their way, women like yourself wouldn't be in academia and are considered only there because of "radical liberals" loosening the requirements so that women can get into graduate programs and get hired or tenured.

    J. Feuerbach - 3/9/2006

    I'm not planning to buy the book and I also owe money to my local library, so I don't think I'll be able to read it in the near future. But I'm seriously intrigued. Here is what Mr. Horowitz says,

    These “alleged ex-terrorists, racists, murderers, sexual deviants, anti-Semites, and al-Qaeda supporters” have managed to earn tenure and win the respect of their academic colleagues through a deeply flawed and prejudiced system of higher education.

    I wonder if someone could tell me a bit more about professors in two of these categories. (I'm not minimizing the importance of the other categories on the list but for some reason these particular two have always captured my imagination.) So please let me know the names of those tenured professors who are prone to take other people's lives or whose sexual life has departed from normalcy. (Any juicy details are also welcome.)

    I have some extra questions.

    (1)Is Mr. Horowitz referring to ex-murderers and ex-sexual deviants or to professors who are still active in both fields? (The only "alleged
    ex-" is applied to terrorists, I think.)

    (2) Did the alleged murders and deviant sexual acts take place after of before the professors got tenure? Does tenure grant you special immunity? Are your classes more lively and less boring if you have this type of background?

    (3) Do students know about their professors' activities or have they been kept in the dark? This would be important information to know (both the murderer and sexual deviant stuff) especially if the student wants to contest a bad grade and the professor asks him/her to come to his/her house to discuss the matter.

    (4) Do colleges and universities know what a CORI is?

    N. Friedman - 3/9/2006


    Phares does mention that figure. However, my own investigation confirms that he is correct.

    N. Friedman - 3/8/2006


    I suggest you read Walid Phares' book Future Jihad. He provides considerable documentation. By the way, here is an example of the described phenomena (from Martin Kramer):

    And this is the tip of the proverbial iceberg. You can do further investigation yourself. I have done my own research but the above information comes from two reputable sources so you do not have to take my word for things.

    Tim Matthewson - 3/8/2006

    Please excuse the typo. The above should read that Horowitz "relies heavily on the statements [of students] for the alledged 'facts' in his books."

    Tim Matthewson - 3/8/2006

    On more than one occasion, Horowitz has indicated that he relies heavily on the statements for the alledged "facts" in his books. But he has also indicated that he does not have the time to fact check the facts presented in his books. Somebody should attempt to fact check Horowitz because I would be willing to bet that the substrate of factual "information" on which he books are alledgedly based are not reliable and indeed are politically motivated and agenda driven, as are Horozitz' books.

    Tim Matthewson - 3/8/2006

    Horowitz' hostility to liberals has been well established by Horowitz not only in his most recent book but in all of his earlier writings. Raised by two devoted members of the CP-USA and coming to maturity in the 50s and 60s, Horowitz' writing seem an effort to revive McCarthyism, that is, they seem strangely dated and old fashioned.

    Clare Lois Spark - 3/8/2006

    I do not understand Lisa Kazmier's comment. I am not an employee of David Horowitz, nor did I smear the 101 professors named by Horowitz. I simply suggested a standard by which we might measure true liberalism, and indeed criticized all of academia for its incomplete development of methods that would allow for the free flow of ideas without coercion and with rigorous standards of the truth. I study censorship, and though there are undoubtedly many great teachers out there (of diverse intellectual and political persuasions), there is no systematic training that I know of along the lines I suggested.
    And I resent the inflammatory tone of the commentator, which I believe has ignored the rules of HNN discussion boards. It is obvious that Ms. Kazmier has no rational rebuttal to my posting and should withdraw her statement.

    Lisa Kazmier - 3/8/2006

    What makes you so sure these 101 people aren't competent and open? A smell smear and think you and your boss are full of crap.

    Justin Roy Taylor - 3/8/2006

    If he is an historian, what is his specialty? Surely, not the Muslim regions.

    ...surely not political ideologies, either, since he can't discern between center-right and far-right.

    Justin Roy Taylor - 3/8/2006

    Mr. Taylor, You deny that Horowitz is an "extremist nut"?

    Yes, I do. Comparing him to Irving and Duke is utterly idiotic and just shows that the individual making the comparison is so far to the extreme left that he/she is unable to discern between center-right and far-right.

    Clare Lois Spark - 3/7/2006

    Douglas M. Charles might want to investigate the diverse classrooms across this country. Some students have never experienced a learning atmosphere where they feel free to engage in informed dialogue, let alone challenge their teachers, and here I allude both to the pressures of authoritarian religious families or to the dogmas of left-wing households that care only to reproduce their belief systems and punish deviations from the line.
    Moreover, teachers themselves, insofar as they spurn notions of objectivity, are passionately attached to one or another narrative of the past, and are likely to misrepresent the views of their opponents, relying on caricature or other distortions.
    Finally, what in the training of college or high school teachers would prepare them to create a learning environment so safe and open that constructive dialogue can take place, and in the light of new discoveries, possibly displace or modify received ideas; also taking into account that sensitive moment in the intellectual development of adolescence that compels them to reeevaluate their parents' beliefs, in many cases, moving toward separation from their previously unquestioned authority, and not without ambivalence and guilt?
    No open-minded and emotionally competent instructor has anything to fear from Horowitz's campaign for academic freedom; indeed, liberal academics should be supporting it as the first utterly crucial step in a long and thorough reconsideration of what history teaching can offer a democratic republic--unless of course a democratic polity is not what they have in mind.

    N. Friedman - 3/7/2006


    You must be joking. You make all sorts of nonsense assertions and then refuse to cite sources.

    I am done doing your homework. Try Googling funding for Middle East Studies. Or, you could try reading a book or two. You might try Walid Phares book as he discusses the matter at hand.

    N. Friedman - 3/7/2006

    Mr. Reiger,

    Why do you think that Peter is an historian? Has he written any books? I have no idea. If he is an historian, what is his specialty? Surely, not the Muslim regions.

    N. Friedman - 3/7/2006


    I am no longer playing your game. If you want the information I possess, I suggest you reciprocate.

    What I have written is, frankly, common knowledge. It appears in books about the Middle East. I suggest that you read one or two. That would increase your knowledge infinitely as you would go from 0 to 1 or 2 books under your belt.

    William L Ramsey - 3/7/2006

    I tend to agree with your characterization and even some of your terms for Horowitz. He is clearly playing a nasty and unholy game with the truth, but I also fear that Academia has become dangerously aloof from the pulse of mainstream life and welcome any intrusion that spurs dialogue and engagement. In that sense, I view it as a positive development.

    Kurt Reiger - 3/7/2006

    A number of historians, and historians who read this site, such as Peter Clarke & Ralph Luker, seem to regard Horowitz as a nut. My question is why? I realize Horowitz is bombastic, argumentative and opinionated, but he does not seem to be out of the mainstream of American thought. Most of the people he profiles, however, are way out of the mainstream of American thought. My question is, what opinions or views does Horowitz have that are not well within the mainstream of American thought?

    N. Friedman - 3/7/2006


    I do not do research for you as you do not reciprocate.

    My facts, however, are verified.

    N. Friedman - 3/7/2006


    While I have not read Horowitz's book, I am less concerned that professors allow their biases to stand out prominently than the issue of corruption among the professorial and intellectual class.

    It is always amazing that the benefactors of funding generally have very, very nice things to say about the funders. Call that a rule of nature.

    For example, when industry adversely affected by anti-global warmring efforts supports research into global warning, we learn, rather amazingly, that the problem is exagerated - something my sense tells me is an unlikely conclusion - and/or the causes need to be studied, perhaps forever.

    Following that pattern of corrupt benefaction, I note that 90% of the funding for Middle East studies departments in the US comes from one source (with matching grants so that the impact of funding is magnified). Specifically, that one main source of funding for Middle East studies departments is the Saudi government.

    Not surprisingly - and, again, following the theory of the corrupting benefactor -, most Middle East studies departments - and I am willing to bet that nearly, if not, all such departments which receive money from the Saudis - apologize for the Jihadists and paint an entirely unreleastic, basically ahistorical, view of the history of the Muslim regions and of Islam.

    Again, people say nice things about those footing the bill. And that, in the end, is a lot worse problem than some professors who allow their biased views, on the right, left or center or wherever, to abuse classroom time. After all, most students know when a teacher uses mere propaganda. Such students, however, do not generally know when information is being subtlely manipulated to paint an apologetic picture.

    William L Ramsey - 3/7/2006

    Anyone who has followed my public activism versus white supremacist revisionism re: southern slavery in Idaho will know that I am not a natural ally of Horowitz. But these posts suggest to me a narrow minded fixation on the messenger that obscures the larger problem that he discusses. Horowitz is right in many respects, especially where it concerns the pereptions of the public mind. If he were not close to the mark, then his critique would not be airing daily on the Fox News Network. If the truth as it is understood by academics conflicts with the truth as it is perceived by average Americans, then there needs to be a dialogue between the two. Thank God, I say, that David Horowitz has found a way to strike lightening between the two.

    Ralph E. Luker - 3/7/2006

    Mr. Taylor, You deny that Horowitz is an "extremist nut"?

    Justin Roy Taylor - 3/7/2006

    Peter's comment are extremely ignorant and downright insulting. Horowitz is, first of all, a Jew who does not associate with the individuals he mentions, such as David Duke and David Irving. He has published numerous articles attacking David Duke and David Irving for racism and treason, and he was recently on the news attacking Arthur Butz, a Holocaust denier who is a professor of electrical engineering at the Northwestern University.

    To compare Horowitz with these extremist nuts just shows how ignorant you are of the facts and how little you know of the political right.

    samuel D. Martin - 3/6/2006

    Mr. Matz:
    Why not just say that Horowitz type casts people rather than using such academic jargon such as prosopography?

    Sam Martin

    Douglas M. Charles - 3/6/2006

    An, or the, underlying assumption of Horowitz's argument seems to be that American college and university students are either naive, gullible, or so amazingly stupid that they will be brain washed into liberalism by left-wing professors.

    If I were still a college student I would feel insulted!

    Michael Green - 3/6/2006

    First, the author of this review might consider David Horowitz's acolytes "politically and intellectually powerful," but the ones he mentions are so well known for their right-wing proclivities that they do little more than preach to the choir.

    Second, someday, I hope that many of my fellow historians will be able to get over the grievous insult of not being included. As a mere speck in the historical firmament, I would not expect to be included, but more prominent historians will have to deal for the rest of their lives with their shame at not being the object of Horowitz's flapdoodle.

    Christopher James Scott - 3/6/2006

    Was this a book review or a book report? I don't see any evidence that Horowitz's book was looked at with any sort of critical eye by this reviewer. I certainly hope that if I should be so lucky as to publish a book, my reviewers are as uncritical of me as this one is of Mr. Horowitz.

    History News Network