“Political Indoctrination and Harassment on Campus: Is there a problem?” was the title of the intense debate between Students for Academic Freedom (SAF) founder David Horowitz and American Association of University Professors President Cary Nelson at The Second Annual Academic Freedom Conference held this past weekend in Washington D.C.
Horowitz is an ex-Marxist and ex-New Left member turned conservative author, activist, founder of SAF and the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and a regular contributor to FrontPageMag.com, NewsMax and Fox News. Nelson is a Professor of Liberal Arts and Sciences and Professor of English at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is also an activist to reform higher education and redefine Marxism. Nelson has also written and edited over 25 books.
The definition of academic freedom was up for dispute by the duo. “Academic freedom is the opportunity to do as I please without the interference from the university, the state, or the public.” claims Nelson. “This gives the faculty in the classroom the right to say whatever they believe is pertinent to the subject.”
In disagreement, Horowitz said universities’ are for learning and not political platforms for professors. There should be a balance in the classroom and professors are obligated to incorporate a broad range of prospective, not just the perspectives that correspond to the beliefs of the professor.
Nelson accused Horowitz of only publicizing and criticizing a small sample of highly distinguished professors in his new book Indoctrination U. “What upsets me is that you (Horowitz) have not looked at the life work or full range of things these professors have done. You’re only basing your reviews on occasional remarks or editorials. Each of these professors has accomplished a lot and it’s downplayed by a few small things… you need to look at the bigger picture.”
Many of these professors claim to have those ideas as agendas in their classroom. The difference is that professors treat their classrooms as political platforms on a regular basis. It is a problem if only one student is indoctrinated, responded Horowitz. To illustrate his point he used the case of UGA student Bradley Alexander. A student who eventually had to change his major after a long dispute with the history department over a professor’s ranting and profane remarks about President Bush the first two weeks of class… a history class that was supposed to cover WWII.
During audience question time, Georgia Tech grad student Ruth Malhotra told Nelson that through the entire debate he talked only about rights of professors. “What about the students? At the end of the day, we’re the ones paying to get an education. I have not heard you give any solution for the problems addressed here today. What should students do when faced with these problems?” she asks.
Nelson told her that students should take it to the department heads where they should have a policy for redress. Malhotra responded saying that isn’t good enough when there is a monolithic structure, no one will do anything about it. “If you feel like the entire place is corrupt, like you say, then get alumni and parents involved.” Nelson retorted. The discussion ended with heavy applause for Malhotra.
Horowitz concluded the debate by saying he believes Nelson is “intelligent and passionate about higher education” and hopes that this debate will bring them closer together as they work to make things better in the future.
Wendy Cook is a staff writer for Accuracy in Academia.
