History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
Hiram Hover saw it coming. The Pennsylvania legislative committee investigating student academic freedom toned down recommendations in its preliminary draft, which I thought were themselves unobjectionable, and the final draft has been reported out of the Republican-controlled committee unanimously. This"great victory" for David Horowitz's"academic freedom campaign" has turned to dust in his hands. It may be especially embarrassing to him because he's relied on Pennsylvania-based foundations for his funding. You can tell that David is yelling when he uses bold face and ups the font size (scroll down). He blames the newspapers, the Democrats, the unions, the Republicans .... Horowitz does the"academic freedom campaign" shuffle in redface. See also: cps,"Pennsylvania Purges Horowitz Taint from Report," Free Exchange on Campus, 21 November; and Scott Jaschik,"From Bad to Worse for David Horowitz," Inside Higher Ed, 22 November.
For some reason, Horowitz plays a big role in your life. I typically ignore him as a kind of Right wing Berube . . .but I clicked on the link and I'll be damned if I can see where he's "yelling" in type? The bold highlights his main point, and the font is bigger only on the headings. Pretty standard.
Stephan Xavier Reich -
11/25/2006
"I see that someone had deleted the boldface on David's blog entry"
that pesky, meddling "someone," always one step ahead of us!
Stephan Xavier Reich -
11/25/2006
And you guys are academics? Or, in one case, former academics? Ad hominem is not when you describe someone's politics with reference to someone else. Ad hominem is when you deflect from an argument by attacking an individual. So, if I saw "what boldface" and you say "you were wrong about KC Johnson," you're coming close.
Stephan Xavier Reich -
11/25/2006
if he thinks his outspoken support of Israel was, or was not, a fundamental reason why there was an attempt to deny him tenure? He's your friend, right?
I can save you trouble by noting he has gone on record that it was. I almost made "on record" bold, but I know how that upsets you . . .
Stephan Xavier Reich -
11/25/2006
Whenever I ask you for a link, or some evidence for one of your fabricated bits of inductive history, you scoff that "you're not here to do my research for me." So deal with reality, Luker! Besides, why not ask KC--he's your "friend." Right?
Stephan Xavier Reich -
11/25/2006
So, to be clear, you are contending that it is not true that KC Johnson feels his pro-Israel activism and/or sentiments played a role in the campaignagainst his tenure?
So now I have to come and read it to you? I'd highlight the relevant passages, but how to do that without using unusual fonts?
Stephan Xavier Reich -
11/25/2006
"The importance of my case lies in the fact that in determining my "collegiality," the chairman--for reasons he has never explained--polled only those senior faculty members who had disagreed with me on a variety of departmental and political issues over the previous 12 months. At the heart of academic life lies the free exchange of ideas, and the policies for which some senior colleagues criticized me--opposing college sponsorship of a "teach-in" on the Middle East that contained no known supporters of either U.S. or Israeli policy in the region and favoring rigorous standards in all departmental hires--involved issues on which all professors, not simply those with tenure, can and should engage themselves."
Stephan Xavier Reich -
11/25/2006
Oh, I see.
Stephan Xavier Reich -
11/25/2006
I'm not surprised that you have (again) changed the subject and fled from your claims.
Let's review.
I said Johnson's pro_Israel positions were an ellement in his tenure case. You said no.
I said there's evidence he himself has submitted, you called me a liar.
I presented it. You said it's not there.
I read it to you. You took the weasel suit out of the closet and began weaseling away from your statements.
Now, it turns out, you only meant to imply . . what? That what you were really arguing was something that you hadn't said, and that all your insults at odds with what you said. Obviously you had forgetten, or never knew, the content of Johnson's complaint, and when confronted by it were faced with the disagreeable option of admitting I was correct, or dragging me into the mud to wrestle with you. I chose to stick with the facts, and all you could do was change the subject and hope I didn't notice.
Give people's arguments the respect they desreve! Let them make their points and stop refusing to hear the other side.
My statements were clear--anti-Israel sentiments played a role in his tenure case. He said so himself--in print. You denied it--and now you look like a fool.
Congrats.
Stephan Xavier Reich -
11/25/2006
I should have stuck with ad hominem because there's no Latin for that. I have treated you with respect, and you've been a jerk about this.
Your colleagues? Last I checked you have none.
Stephan Xavier Reich -
11/25/2006
But I don't respect you one bit. I used ad hominem in response--I did not initiate it. If you are my protector here at HNN, by all means waste no effort in my defense. Bar away.
Stephan Xavier Reich -
11/25/2006
believed that you were a champion of free speech. Your one hunger-strike on record was of strictly selfish motivation. And that, too, failed.
Stephan Xavier Reich -
11/25/2006
More self-aggrandizement.
Stephan Xavier Reich -
11/25/2006
A simple "i'm sorry I called you a liar again" would suffice, Ralphy.
Ralph E. Luker -
11/24/2006
Mr. Reich, More ad hominem. I have fasted more than once over many decades, in protest over the Viet Nam War and in protest of the refusal of Antioch College's President to accept a petition from half of its residential student body. I've also been to jail, been fire-bombed, and shot at in the civil rights movement. If you believe that record of 40+ years is entirely selfish, you're welcome to your opinion. It is as malignant as other opinions you've expressed here. With that, I will refuse to reply to anything else you have to say.
Ralph E. Luker -
11/24/2006
I'm sure that Jon is delighted to know that you respect him. I am utterly indifferent about what you think of me. Your wish about your access to commenting, however, is my command.
Ralph E. Luker -
11/24/2006
Mr. Reich, Jon Dresner already pointed out that you used ad hominem to begin with in this discussion. I could (but I won't) give you the names of two other members of Cliopatria who have complained via e-mail to me about your comments on posts by them. If you persist, I will ask that you be barred from commenting at History News Network altogether. You've had fair warning.
Ralph E. Luker -
11/24/2006
Look: You -- not I -- changed the subject in the course of the conversation. Your point is irrelevent to the original discussion. I supported KC's bid for tenure and agree with his support of equity and merit. I oppose the organization of forces external to the academic community to lobby against candidates for positions or tenure on the grounds of their ethnicity or political attitudes. It would be helpful if you did not try to dominate conversation at Cliopatria in order to make claims that are irrelevent. Several of my colleagues have complained about your hostile -- to say nothing of -- irrelevent comments.
Ralph E. Luker -
11/24/2006
Look back at what I objected to originally: the organized outside opposition to the hiring or promotion of a candidate, based on their ethnicity or political attitudes. Your "evidence" is no evidence that forces outside of KC's department or institution opposed his being hired or promoted because of his attitude on issues having anything to do with the middle east. In opposition to my objection to organized outside pressure in hiring or promotion at Yale, Wayne State, and elsewhere, you cited the case of internal opposition to KC's tenure and promotion at Brooklyn College. It's irrelevent.
Ralph E. Luker -
11/23/2006
Don't act like there's evidence there that you are too bashful to quote.
Ralph E. Luker -
11/23/2006
If it didn't contradict your claim ...
Ralph E. Luker -
11/23/2006
... who makes unsubstantiated claims on someone else's terf. Oddly those truth claims always are a function of your peculiar rightwing, secular, and/or pro-Israeli position. It creates suspicion that your truth claims aren't true. You can't document this one because it isn't true.
Ralph E. Luker -
11/22/2006
Oh, and by the way, given your track record here, how about giving me a citation where KC makes that claim on the net? You know. Trust but verify. Right?
Ralph E. Luker -
11/22/2006
If KC believes that, he believes it after the fact. The issue didn't come up in public discussions at the time. Your "truth claims" are offensive enough, without the font-yelling.
Ralph E. Luker -
11/22/2006
"what boldface?" isn't an argument. It's a question aimed at fact. We have two witnesses who vouch for the fact that Horowitz's blog comments were initially in bold. That it had been changed was acknowledged. You had dodged the discussion in which you wrongly held that KC Johnson's colleagues had attempted to deny him tenure because of his pro-Israeli views and this was my first opportunity to be sure that you understood that you were purveying misinformation. Since you comment here so often, I thought it necessary to get at your track record for accuracy. There's no ad hominem there at all. Do you listen?
Jonathan Dresner -
11/22/2006
The bold was there earlier, and now it isn't: I saw it myself and it was ugly. In the absence of the technical knowledge (or real interest), we must conclude that the computer didn't do it independently, so "someone" did. For further clarification, ask FPM.
Jonathan Dresner -
11/22/2006
That's what an ad hominem looks like....
Ralph E. Luker -
11/22/2006
Mr. Reich, Since there was no ad hominem in what I said, why not just admit that you were wrong about the issues in KC Johnson's tenure case?
Ralph E. Luker -
11/22/2006
I see that someone had deleted the boldface on David's blog entry. The increased font size is still there, as of this moment -- so, yah, David's yelling -- just as Reich is in the header of his comment.
Ralph E. Luker -
11/22/2006
Mr. Reich, Your information is as incorrect this time as it was the last time you posted here. I look forward to hearing from you, never knowing how fully wrong you intend to be.
