This short post from Timothy Burke contains multiple logical fallacies--and does more to damage his own credibility as a temperate commentator on academic politics than anything else.

Readers are invited to parse his post, and to entertain the broader question of how to discuss academic culture in a way that does not simply further polarize an already wildly polarized debate.

UPDATE 9/12: SCSU Scholars weighs in.

...and to entertain the broader question of how to discuss academic culture in a way that does not simply further polarize an already wildly polarized debate.

Whatever that way is, I'm sure it doesn't involve David Horowitz. Nonetheless, it's probably useful to divide critics of academia into are- and are-not-building-nuclear-weapons.

Not just logical fallacies, factual errors as well. Horowitz isn't trying to get secularists or liberals out of universities. He's just trying to even the playing field.
Besides all Horowitz has is the power to persuade.

Burke's post makes you wonder just what it is they're teaching at Swarthmore these days. Oh wait. I think I know.

Let's see: Ahmadinejad is "urging students to return to 1980s-style radicalism," while Horowitz is trying to diminish the influence of 60's-inspired radicalism on universities.

Could you be more humorless?

The one serious connection, I suppose, is the extent to which academia (or other cultural institutions) are used by ideologues in very different national and political contexts as an all-purpose alibi to explain the failures of their own cherished political projects. Professors are convenient scapegoats.

Dr. Burke:

Would you care to specify which failed political projects cherished by any two of the following individuals have induced them to use professors, academia, or 'other cultural institutions' as scapegoats or 'all purpose alibis'?

1. Thomas Reeves
2. Clayton Cramer
3. Robert 'KC' Johnson
4. Barry Shain
5. Candace de Russy
6. Patrick Reilly
7. Allan Kors
8. Our Moderatrix
9. Me

Mr. Burke raises an interesting issue:

Are university professors born victims? Or, do they have victimhood thrust upon them, as Mr. Burke asserts (without evidence)?

Or do they achieve victimhood the old fashioned way . . . through good hard work?

(My apologies to Joseph Heller, and my deep appreciation to Mr. Burke for amusing us by playing the victimhood card.)

Clawmute

But wait! There's more! Mr. Burke's post was all just a big joke!

In fact, he is himself the victim of Ms. O'Connor's lack of humor! It's all her fault!

I knew there was a simple explanation, though I confess I missed the humor myself -- as apparently did his commenter "Endie."

Nor did Mr. Burke care to explain that his post was intended as a big, funny spoof to "Endie" when he replied to him/her. Instead, Mr. Burke continued the same nasty tone in that reply that his original post introduced.

Mr. Burke: for yokels like "Endie", Ms O'Connor and myself -- and perhaps other dim bulbs of lesser perception and a less sophisticated sense of humor than you yourself are blessed with -- could you please provide us the criteria that will enable us to detect when you're just a-joshin' and a-spoofin' around and when you're being pointedly serious?

Frankly, Mr. Burke, you should be ashamed of yourself thrice over: first for the spiteful, nasty, and false post that demonizes those who disagree with you; secondly for seeking refuge behind the absolutely unconvincing "it was all a joke" ploy; and thirdly, for attempting to morph yourself into a victim, rather than fessing up and taking the heat for being the perp.

Clawmute

I'll acknowledge that Timothy doesn't have a stable of joke writers working for him, unlike Jay Leno, who had the better comment this week: "The president of Iran said today that all the liberals should be kicked out of all universities. I think we found the guy for Ann Coulter." I hope Timothy will admit that Leno's line is much better than his material, or even Bérubé's, hands down.

Nonetheless, though Timothy and I both need to learn Greg Dean's joke-writing method (the NEH doesn't fund those types of summer workshops), there's a substantial difference between a joke whose point is that Horowitz is not a serious intellectual, on the one hand, and slamming the discussion about the intellectual climates of universities, on the other. I just don't see where ridiculing Horowitz is tantamount to throwing sand in the eyes of KC Johnson.

Sherman,
My concern is more with the thoughtless lumping together of Horowitz and ACTA than with what Tim may or may not think is a funny thing to say about Horowitz (though the "joke," retroactively defined, is unconvincing as such). The two are quite different, and should be differentiated in any careful commentary on critics of academe.

Oh, is that what this is about? I certainly think ACTA could work harder to distinguish themselves from Horowitz, at least in their more recent work. But I should think it's clear from my blog that I take ACTA considerably more seriously. You certainly are familiar enough with entries I've made in the past (some of them complimentary to some of ACTA's work) to know enough to put this latest post into context. Reading in context is supposed to be one of the basic arts of literary criticism, after all.

I do not care whether or not Mr. Burke has a good joke writer or a stable of them, or lacks them altogether; or what he might or might not have written about ACTA or Horowitz in the past, though I'd wager that any such "jokes" were not as benign as he'd like us rubes to believe his present misbegotten effort is.

What I do care about is that the post in question was nasty and petty in the extreme, and was categorically without humor. And Mr. Burke's claim to the contrary -- that he meant his post to be humorous, and it is Ms O'Connor's deficiency that she failed to recognize it as such -- is disingenuity on steroids.

What contempt Mr. Burke has for the readership of this thread that he would put forth such a flaccid explanation, and expect to be believed.

Both Mr. Burke and Mr. Dorn evaded the central question: How are we bumpkins -- those of us who lack the razor sharp intellect and acutely developed sense of humor of our superiors, Messrs Burke and Dorn -- to discern when Mr. Burke is joking and when he is not? What hints were there in Mr. Burke's post that superior minds saw, but that my inferior mind missed?

The fact that neither Mr. Burke nor Mr. Dorn can point to the humor of Mr. Burke's post, but instead change the topic to other subjects they're more comfortable with, is strong evidence that there is no humor to be found. (Changing the subject is a poor substitute for an explanation.)

Finally -- I'm overawed at how Mr. Burke so effortlessly manages to define himself as a victim: it isn't his fault that he can't see the difference between ACTA and Horowitz! It's ACTA's!

Mr. Burke has raised the process by which one achieves victimhood to the level of a timeless, priceless artistic performance.

Clawmute

as if this blog were the locus of temperate commnetators--give me a break.
most temperate commentators "discussing" academia are just as mean spirited as you who show such righteous indignation at Burke's post. we're all ward churchills, right? Burke doesn't toe the party line, so all the dogs have jump on the pile.

"Professors are convenient scapegoats"...but, Timothy, *everybody* is someone's convenient scapegoat.

When Peter Drucker came to the US from Austria, he was impressed by the way in which every single professional group--businesspeople, academics, labor unions--thought that they were uniquely persecuted and scapegoated. He thought this situation was great, because it meant that no group had dominant power.

There are two things that irk me -- no, make me quite frustrated -- about Burke's post.

(1) It's not the first time this week I have read a post from an academic type basically equating Horowitz and the president of Iran -- which is then claimed to be an attempt at humor or irony the moment anybody actually informed about the Academic Bill of Rights points out the huge differences between Horowitz's agenda and Iran's. Apparently the modus operandi is to (a) state that Horowitz = Ahmadinejad with the succinctness of a statement of fact, and then (b) when somebody objects to this comparison on practical grounds, try to laugh it off as an attempt at humor that the person objecting is too clueless to get. In other words the posts are to be taken as facts unless you disagree, in which case they are jokes that are WAY too nuanced for anybody who disagrees. Look: If you want to state it as a fact or an opinion, fine, but counterargue if somebody disagrees, don't make your opinion into a joke. And if it's a joke, make it so that we stupid people can get it.

(2) Meanwhile, the energy that academic bloggers like Burke *could* be expending on making a loud and clear show of support for colleagues in Iran, and against the repression of academic freedom everywhere it may occur, -- Horowitz-inspired or otherwise -- is being spent on snarky pseudo-joke posts like this. The silence from the higher ed community in the USA on this issue has been positively deafening and it's frankly pretty embarassing.

I dunno, I thought Burke's post was funny. It's fun to watch Horowitz's supporters take the high road in this case, while Horowitz himself draws, in all seriousness, the same sort of tenuous links between Amerrican liberals and Islamic fundamentalists in one case, or between liberals and Stalinists in another case. Pot black kettle.

And Robert, let's not get on the subject of "wasted energy." With people starving in the world -- Christ, with people starving within a mile of probably every reader of Critical Mass -- any time spent criticizing a relative non-issue like "liberal bias in the academy" is time poorly spent.

Clawmute writes,

How are we bumpkins—those of us who lack the razor sharp intellect and acutely developed sense of humor of our superiors, Messrs Burke and Dorn—to discern when Mr. Burke is joking and when he is not? What hints were there in Mr. Burke's post that superior minds saw, but that my inferior mind missed?

This definitely flawed mind thought that the title gave away the comic intention.

Erin, in terms of your point about the potential conflation between Horowitz and ACTA, I'll leave most of that and the question of artistic license to Burke's conscience, but I'll note that your entry is a bit cryptic, referring to unspecified fallacies. That doesn't mean you have to agree with me that Burke's entry is funny—humor is definitely idiosyncratic—but we're reading Burke's comments differently because we're reading the intentions differently. I've never known satire to be particularly nuanced with regard to complex debates, so I don't expect it.

"Christ, with people starving within a mile of probably every reader of Critical Mass..."

A bit of overblown hyperbole there, surely. What's the name of the logical fallacy that "you can't care about X because Y is more important"?

Laura -- I agree, that's a logical fallacy at some level (although it's not if we can prove that Cause X consumes all the time of Rhetor Y, leaving no time for Cause 1 or 2 or 3). Of course, a person is allowed to care about whatever cause they wish to care about. But only a filthy commie relativist would say that we cannot evaluate and hierarchalize the problems facing mankind, and only a follower of some odd form of mathematics would disagree that time spent doing one thing is time spent *not* doing other things. Human time as finite and all. (It's like the argument that comes up in Great Books discussions: "I only have so much time on Earth and I want to spend it reading the best books possible.") So no, there's no necessary reason why concern for one cause undercuts concern for another. But we can question why someone spends time on a problem disproportionate to the seriousness of the problem. If a person's house is burning down, and he spends his time digging his comic book collection out of the attic rather than saving his partner or children, we'd be rightly appalled. Or if there's a war that you support, and the Army needs more soldiers, and you're a perfectly healthy person, and you spend your time blogging about why professors should join the Army rather than joining the Army yourself, well, we'd also be rightly appalled.

If you read closely, you'll see that my comment was directed at Robert's comment directly before. And I quote from Robert: "Meanwhile, the energy that academic bloggers like Burke *could* be expending on making a loud and clear show of support for colleagues in Iran, and against the repression of academic freedom everywhere it may occur, -- Horowitz-inspired or otherwise -- is being spent on snarky pseudo-joke posts like this."

My hyperbole was meant to say: well, if we're gonna get into the idea of wasted energy, then all this discussion of academic bias is worthless insofar as it's not a very pressing problem. If you're worried about time well spent, you're best off taking care of the most serious problems first. I'm just using Robert's own own mislogic on his claim about Burke.

The point is, of course, that Tim Burke may very well support the oppressed in other countries AND find time to toss off a quick snarky post comparing Horowitz to anti-liberal cultural reformers in Iran. Just as I'm sure that all the FIRE and ACTA and Front-Page types balance the time they spend going after liberal academics with time spent volunteering at soup kitchens, women's shelters, Red Cross centers, Habitat for Humanity, the Peace Corps, and so on.

Karn, I think I was a bit humor-deficient yesterday. I get it now.

Im curious to know why you don't think academic bias is not a pressing problem. I see it as one of the most serious problems we face.
I think our country could be in serious trouble down the road. If the majority of college graduates leave school thinking that the first amendment applies only to certain groups of people and not others,a further erosian of our rights will soon follow.

Mike, Surely you jest. Academic bias rates where in comparison with? the threat of terrorism, the civil war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the maldistribution of wealth and poverty (at home and abroad), AIDS (at home and abroad), strife in the Congo and Somolia, ... I could go on, but it gets too depressing.
Academic bias is a problem in contemporary American academic life, but it isn't a generic one. It is one that occasionally manifests itself in particular times and particular places. On those occasions, Tim Burke and Sherman Dorn have been as quick to oppose it as KC Johnson and Erin O'Connor have been.
And where on earth did you get the idea that a majority of college graduates leave believing that the first amendment applies to some groups but not to others? If that's the case, I'd like to see you show that it is because they've been taught that by their professors.

Mike, Surely you jest. Academic bias rates where in comparison with? the threat of terrorism, the civil war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the maldistribution of wealth and poverty (at home and abroad), AIDS (at home and abroad), strife in the Congo and Somolia, ... I could go on, but it gets too depressing.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are acute problems which will likely see some sort of resolution, for good or ill, in six or seven years. A loss there may have ill-implications for daily life here, or it might not. The problems of the academy are ongoing, and of moment to the rearing of the next generation.

The notion that income and asset distribution are a problem is crucially dependent upon one's understanding of the salience of equality as a good, which is not consensual. There are social features we might generally see as ill of which income distribution is an indicator. In Latin America, much of the population subsists by making a haphazard living in odd jobs and petty trade in lieu of regular employment, and these countries have measured income distributions that reflect that. That is not our problem in this country, and it is difficult to imagine a portfolio of public policies that might, at the behest of our overseas development apparat, ameliorate it abroad.

We're all gonna die; life expectancy is affected only modestly by investment in medicine and surgery; the number who succumb to AIDS in this country is modest compare to those cut down by atherosclerosis, cancer, kidney disease, or diabetes; the number who succumb in Africa is modest compared to those who succumb to dehydration from diarrhea; and AIDS is easily avoided by prudent and clean living.

All that aside, the degree of attention one ought to devote to a problem is derivative of the degree of one's responsibility for it as influenced by status and circumstance, and the marginal improvement one may garner for a given unit of effort. The misbehaviors of one's children may be petty problems, but they are your's to address to the exclusion of nearly all others. As to marginal improvements, the measurable effects of the efforts of our troops in Baghdad are sadly relevant here.

Academic bias is a problem in contemporary American academic life, but it isn't a generic one. It is one that occasionally manifests itself in particular times and particular places.

The Survey research by Stanley Rothman and others has provided ample evidence that certain sorts of milieu - among them liberal arts faculties and newsrooms - have in recent generations been rendered collecting pools for a certain sort of cultural minority. Therefore, social research and cultural history proceeds with rather sectarian conceptions of what does and does not constitute a research problem worth studying and the disciplinary apparat proceeds with an understanding of behaviors to be encouraged or penalized which might be quite surprising to the state legislators and foundational trustees of these institutions. These sir, are omnipresent, and diminish the value of liberal education accordingly.

Perversely, both markets and public policy have operated in such a way that our young are compelled to consume ever larger quantities of this debased product and go into hock up to their eyeballs for the privilege.

That our high culture is dominated by professors-in-their-sandboxes is something we might be able to live with. Then again, a state of the world in which our professors are stripped of much of their professional autonomy (or compelled to support themselves with ordinary wage employment) is something we might be able to live with as well.

On those occasions, Tim Burke and Sherman Dorn have been as quick to oppose it as KC Johnson and Erin O'Connor have been.

Among Dr. Burke's dispositions is that manifested above: to dismiss criticism of academic institutions as motivated by the failure of people's non-academic projects (which he does not specify).

And where on earth did you get the idea that a majority of college graduates leave believing that the first amendment applies to some groups but not to others? If that's the case, I'd like to see you show that it is because they've been taught that by their professors.

M.S. Adams and the folks at F.I.R.E. have not had to troll very vigorously to locate professors and student affairs apparatchiks at state campuses who do have sectarian conceptions of what constitutes freedom of speech and the right of people peaceably to assemble. Not a valid sampling procedure, but an indication of a problem, nevertheless.

Dear Art, advocate of clean living, thanks for adding to the list of problems that are more pressing than academic bias. You've just done seriously what Tim Burke did in half jest: Mike Adams/FIRE=David Horowitz/ACTA.

How have I added to the list of problems that are more pressing than 'academic bias'?

I have no comment on Dr. Adams or FIRE or Mr. Horowitz or ACTA, in jest or no. I merely note that the first two have little trouble finding examples of misconduct by administrators on state campuses.

A problem is 'pressing' if efforts at amelioration can bear fruit. If not, it is a condition with which you have to live. There are half-a-dozen different things the New York legislature might do to force the liberal arts Blob into the meat freezer (some of which might have unintended consequences, but that's social policy). They would be hard pressed to do much to engineer Finnish income distribution in Brazil or Finnish crime rates in Baghdad.

You forgot your list? including "atherosclerosis, cancer, kidney disease, or diabetes; the number who succumb in Africa is modest compared to those who succumb to dehydration from diarrhea ..." I don't recall asking the NY legislature to act on income distribution in Brazil. I merely indicated that maldistribution of wealth at home, where it is growing, and abroad, where it is growing, seem to me to be higher on the scale of important issues than bias in the academy. Where such exists, it's best attacked on a case-by-case basis. That requires close attention rather than broadscale assaults and is likely to create alliances rather than calls to throw up the barricades. Of course, if you prefer Horowitzian smears, I wouldn't want to argue with your bad tastes.

". . . maldistribution of wealth at home, where it is growing, and abroad, where it is growing, seem to me to be higher on the scale of important issues than bias in the academy"

I never understood why unequal distribution of wealth be a problem? If Bill Gates's assets go up by 10% per year and someone else's go up 8%, why is that a bad thing? On the other hand if his assets go down by 50% and someone else's go down by 2%, why is that a good thing?
(Maybe there's something to this academic bias thing after all.)

Allan, I said nothing about "unequal distribution of wealth." My point was about the maldistribution of wealth and, as Bill Gates has recognized, but you haven't, maldistribution of health has all sorts of bad consequences for society, from health care and malnutrition to housing and education. That's apparently never occurred to your well-fed self.

Dr. Luker,

Atherosclerosis, cancer, and kidney disease claim more lives in a given year than AIDS, which last is prominent in your thinking for reasons I will leave you to divine. It may render them more salient problems than AIDS, but we are all going to die someday and you just do not get much bang for the buck out of investment in the technologies of medicine and surgery. Countries with a fraction of our per capita income have similar life expectancies. As for AIDS, it can be avoided almost completely by prudent self-care. Public health measures can be helpful (thought constituency groups have been ambivalent about them), but inducing people to look after themselves is done one-by-one from the inside out, not by legislation.

You were the one who brought up disparities of wealth and income abroad.

The notion that the problem with the academy and its function in society is one of case-by-case violations is one I cannot be bothered with, in part for reasons stated above. Parking the young in schools for 18 years and having them emerge in the intellectual and vocational condition they often do (and in hock to the tune of five or six figures) is a state of the world that ought not to continue, whether or not there is an acadmic department so addled as to think Grover Furr merits salaried employment for life, and whether or not sociology has developed a staff ideology so intense as to vitiate its claim to be a social science.

If I see some indication that Mr. Horowitz is more given to gamesmanship than some of the participants on this board, I will let you know.

Nasty little piece of work in your opening innuendo, Art. Generally, even David Horowitz is above that sort of thing. Clearly, you prefer the broadscale and the particular smear. It offends my wife and children, but I've had even people in the academy engage in it, so I suppose you're no worse than they. When people like yourself stoop that low, however, I clearly have nothing more to say to you.

Professor Luker,

Well gosh , you really did speak about maldistrubuton of wealth at home and abroad, and silly me,. I went on and talked aboutinequality of wealth. Now II see you don't think it's a problem at all. Okay. So your well fed self and my well fed self agree?

BTW, since I spoike of income inequality, seems to me your point, which was actually about poverty, rather than inequality was out of line

My point was primarily about poverty, of course; but there are problems with excessive wealth concentrated in very few hands at the top of the economic ladder. Capitalism, at its best, rewards hard work with economic gain. I have no problem with that. When those who have vast wealth, by reason of their vast wealth, have no more incentive to hard work -- when they can live by the return on accumulated wealth -- then, it seems to me, capitalism no longer serves the interests of the whole community very well.

Ralph The maldistribution of wealth is not something that concerns me nor should it. We live in a free market capitlist economy. Both you and I make as much money as we are worth. If I feel i'm underpaid then I will quit my job and find another. I dont understand why you feel people that have done well in life are under some sort of obligation to support those who have failed to do as well.The best way for the world to improve there economy is to follow our lead Capitalism and free markets are the best way for a nation to grow. The more the Govt gets involved the less the ecomomy will grow.

As to the aids problem Dont have unprotected sex or if you so desire become abstinate. If you use drugs dont use a needle. There you go problem solved.One country in Africa has recently seen there aids cases dropping dramatically. The program that has caused this was a program of abstinence The Govt with the help of religous groups stopped spending money on safe sex programs and condom issueing and started preaching the young to stay abstinate before marrige and then to stay true to ones partner. Sounds so simple minded and it doesnt cost much either but it has worked.
The wars in Iraq and Afganistan as someone earlier said should work themselves out in the next few years.
As to students being tought that free speech is only for some and not others. Your joking i'm sure. Do you have the slightest idea as to the censorship and outright suppression of views and thought that are contrary to liberal teachings at most universities.You want examples. I will give you one Larry Summers was forced to resign his presidency at Harvard for having the audacity to speculate that men and women may have some genetic differences that could possibly account for the large gap between men and women who work in the fields of math and engineering.He did not even say he supported this theory. He only brought it up as a topic for debate. Look what happened he lost his job. Why? Because in using his right to free speech he offended a very dangerous group of people. leftist femminist academics.
If ones ability to speak freely can cause the president of Harvard to lose his job and reputation than I know it can happen to you or me. Remember Summers was a democrat.
College campuses are where tomorrows judges,politicians ,lawyers and leaders will most likely come from. And todays college campuses resemble 1936 Germany or 1950 Russia much more than the USA when it comes to free speech and the free exchange of ideas. So yes Ralph this does concern me. If you dont like Horowitz or other conservatives,You can read Harvey Silverglates "The Shadow University" He is a liberal lawyer for the ACLU So you need not worry about his right wing bias.It is pretty scary stuff.

How sad. Not even Adam Smith had such touching confidence that the invisible hand delivered perfect economic justice to Bill Gates and the child dying of malnutrition in Africa, alike.

I think this is an appropriate time to revisit what Mr. Burke wrote in the post that sparked this lively debate.

It's title is: "David Horowitz Has a New Friend"

One of those commenting here, a defender of the tone deaf Mr. Burke, found this title to be humorous. I don't see the humor myself, but perhaps that individual would care to explain what he sees in the title that is humorous.

The text of Mr. Burke's post is as follows:

"Now guess who wants to get all those liberals with their political bias out of the universities?

"The President of Iran.

"You could change the names and this would sound like a press release from Horowitz or ACTA."

I fail to see the humor here, though Mr. Burke defends his post on the grounds that it was supposed to be funny ("Could you be more humorless? The one serious connection . . .").

I do see an ad hominem attack against Horowitz and ACTA. I suspect that those who do find humor in this might also find humor where most of us might not (I'm holding a punch here . . . I could use hyperbole and link unrelated, frankly disparate issues to take cheap, unfair shots at one of Mr. Burke's defenders on this very thread.)

But there's more to Mr. Burke's savage mis-characterization of faux-similarities between the president of Iran and Horowitz and ACTA.

In response to a comment by reader "Endie," who took Mr. Burke seriously, Mr. Burke replies:

"Naw, it just shows that when extremists need a convenient target, professors always come to mind. Not the least because it gives extremist political causes a place to stash some of their hired intellectual guns. Patronage keeps a movement alive, at least for a while."

What's present in Mr. Burke's reply is the ugly thematic device of lumping ACTA, Horowitz and the Iranian president into the same category of "extremist", thus damning ACTA and Horowitz by association.

What's missing is clarification from Mr. Burke that poor, serious "Endie" has missed Mr. Burke's rapier wit, and has taken him seriously!

One would think that Mr. Burke, having found that there are dolts who cannot grasp his humor, would endeavor to protect his own readership from misunderstanding him -- unless, of course, he can be assured that every one of his readers is smarter than those of us who took him seriously (including his own supporter, "Endie").

As of the time I'm posting this, Mr. Burke still hasn't protected his readers from misunderstanding him. He could easily do so by adding a comment to his own post indicating his view that the post was intended not to be serious, but to be "humorous."

Clawmute

Nasty little piece of work in your opening innuendo, Art. Generally, even David Horowitz is above that sort of thing. Clearly, you prefer the broadscale and the particular smear. It offends my wife and children, but I've had even people in the academy engage in it, so I suppose you're no worse than they. When people like yourself stoop that low, however, I clearly have nothing more to say to you.

An innuendo in your imagination only. Homosexual men are what Thos. Sowell has called a 'mascot group', and being such subject to a contrived solicitude by the intelligentsia and the press. I would assume that would be why AIDS would be uppermost in your mind, but I do not know, and said I do not know. I make no speculations about your mundane life, and do not concern myself with it.

I have, of course, smeared no one, broadside or in particular.

Mike, while I agree with much of what you said, Larry Summers being forced out is not a good example of what you're trying to illustrate. From what I've read the problem with Summers was that he rubbed too many people in high positions the wrong way on too many different things. (Not saying he did anything wrong, just saying there were reportedly certain disagreements that went well beyond the Nancy Hopkins incident.)

On the other hand, if you would have mentioned Larry Summers's groveling after he made the statement, well, then you would have been on firmer ground.

I'll let mein alter Freund, Professor Nietzsche introduce my reaction to "Karn Yaliot"'s nasally-pitched schoolmarm ("I'll take the high road!--where's yours?") prissy nag-out of "Laura" here: "We are so wretched! Someone must be to blame. Otherwise it would be intolerable!" And whoever is to blame is doubtless a "gun" or at least a seedy operative or grass of David Horowitz's, who in turn, we now know, is synonymous with everything that is bad for academia.

But, now again, it's showtime! . . . and so just herd the "starving poor" (the usual suspects snatched up for quick use when the opposition gets rough) from down the street, hustle 'em on to the stage, let the b-----rs tug their forelocks to all and begin their li'l political soft shoe. Retreat behind the curtain, then re-enter, stage left, juggling some Xs, Ys, Causes 1,2,3, terms like "rhetor" and "hierarchialize" (learned those in grad school--nicht wahr?) and--presto!--"academic discourse! All this proves academic malpractice is no sweat, no prob. And oohh!, the gracefully acrobatic elegance of your turns of phrase! Although I've caught your little trick out in your "[m]y hyperbole was meant to say: well, if we're gonna get into the idea of wasted energy . . ." for its cunning rhetorical gut-punch. Clever idea that--condescendingly dipping into the folks' patois leaves no doubt left as to who's got the PhD here. Since you already pushed your "Rhetor" onto the stage, I hope he knows his Plato's Ion and can do some impressions for us gaping rustics, like the rushing of the sea, the creaking of pulleys, and finishing with my neato favourite, the bellowing of bulls. Almost beats the excitement of the folks when somebody carts a huge fish or a wheel of cheese through a rustic village. Great show, KY!

Nevertheless, a mio parere umile, your mocks on Great Books study, "fallacy-speak" (like some Derridean palsy), appeals to "expertise", and "chickenhawk" taunts signal the need for new strings to pluck. You know at least the last doesn't apply to moi, who (as a war vet and fellow academic) claims exemption from your implication that a cote de vous we Horowitzians are all incorrigible drooling bigots spawned on red-state chicken ranches. For that matter, all of us should claim such exemption--that's diversity. (Ma scherzo, KY!) Thank you for sharing and have an appropriate day. Cheers

Clawmute: thanks for inviting me over; maybe I'll make myself at home here in future.

Hi Art Yes you are right Summers had other problems,but many were also related to his not towing the liberal line. One was his statements regarding an attempt to have Harvard divest from Isreal. This campaign was started by the schools liberal element. Summers was not in favor of this move. The left started to sharpen there knives. There were other such incidents. The bottom line is Summers never did anything that would even remotely lead one to call for his resignation,other than speak his mind and occaisionally ruffle the feathers of the almighty campus leftist dictatorship.
I wish he had the balls to stand up to them. On this account you are correct.

My meae culpae to all for the vaudevillian "slowly I turned . . ." bit vis a vis the argumentum mendiculum ("the beggarly argument"--parse that double entendre now, lit-crets!). But it's quite off the mark and the subject. Bet you wouldn'd hear it invoked much at the next general faculty meeting if some misguided friend of the poor proposed that all faculty increase their yearly teaching loads by one course and donate the extra pelf to feed the "starving poor". Why, in the words of the great drug-and-whisky-powered hoaxster himself, Hunter S. Thompson (now departed), all that'd be left of him soon after would be "quivering flesh and bone chips". Yet rest assured, non-academics, we've still many weighty matters to consider at faculty and departmental confabs and we do have a keen (though perhaps a tad precieuse?) sense of "social justice". Testimonial: Years ago a feminist colleague of mine actually squandered half our departmental meeting time in delivering a bitterly lachrymose plea in defence of our cleaning staff, who might have to spend an additional five minutes' labour (once a month, mind) in dusting off plaques that were to be awarded to our deserving students and displayed on our department's walls, even though, ab initio, I volunteered to perform that onerous office (for that's how I got myself through my first graduate programme after leaving the army, I 'fessed, as half my faineant colleagues covered their mouths and shrank back in horror). I at last carried the day (after our besnitted and besotted departmental Madame DuFarge had had her appropriate rant-time for "social justice"), and the charge was mine. While I was tidily performing my duty on the appointed first Tuesday of the month, our bemused veteran cleaning person watched me for a moment, then gently relieved me of my cleaning cloth and said (winking),"I'll manage, guv . . .". With Isabella, I know we all want "Justice! Justice! Justice! Justice!", but perhaps Villiers de L'Isle Adam's casual riposte to an apparent partisan of "technologico-Benthamite civilisation", as Leavis has it) is closer to the mark for our academics as for the jaded but colourful aristoi he worthily defended: "Life!? Why our servants take care of that for us . . .". We don't do plaques. . . .

Mea culpa also to mine own friendly enemy, KY, for we'd a bi' o' foon in our recent spaghetti-western shoot-out over in on-line ACTA (Aug. 30th on the culture wars). She's a worthy opponent, nevertheless, though her huffy (shameless jilt!) departure from the site did remind me of Malvoglio's sour self-exorcism in Measure for Measure. And, serio ludere jesting aside, I confess that since "le style, c'est l'homme meme" (Buffon--je pense que oui), we could all spend more time tending our rhetorical gardens. But to those serial changers-of-subject to the argumentum mendiculm or to some other matter of world-historical significance, we can but intone Schiller's reassuring obiter dictum: "Die Weltgeschichte ist das Weltgericht" ("The history of the world is the world's court of justice"). See, it all comes out even . . .Cheers

P.S.: I read that David French of ACTA fame has recently taken the king's shilling and joined the army--bravo, David, and thanks.

In my first post above, 3rd paragraph, read: "cowardly drooling bigots . . ." for that was obviously the crucial adverb in that sentence. Cheers always,

Thought experiment: Suppose an American professor is a convinced Marxist, but in his teaching does a fair job of presenting writers like Hayek, Burke, and Smith, as well as Marx? Would Horowitz think he should be fired?

Suppose an Iranian professor is a convinced atheist, but in his teaching does a fair job of presenting Muslim interpretations, as well as atheist ones. Would Ahmadinejad think he should be fired?

In Horowitz's case, ca se voit, pas du tout!
In the case of the Iranian taxi-cab tout cum cicerone, or newspaper hawker and part-time terrorist, well . . . Excellent point, DF!

Clawmute,

If you're going to engage in close textual analysis of jokes, both you and I need to brush up on our linguistics. (I understand that there is a small bit of literature on what makes for a joke, and the primary point is double meaning, whether the base pun or Jane Austen's writing.) But I'm willing to banter about this a bit, so...

Title: "David Horowitz Has a New... "

This is the first set-up. Okay, so Horowitz has something new. A new argument, a new book, a new enemy,...

"... Friend"

This last word has both a straight meaning for a setup (that he has a new ally) and a small, snarky joke, that his new ally has an approach as serious as belonging to kindergarten, implying the same of Horowitz.

"Now guess who wants to get all those liberals with their political bias out of the universities?"

This question is a continuation of the second setup. Horowitz has a political ally in his fight against liberal bias in academe. It must be someone important, some with weighty influence in the U.S.

"The President of Iran."

Here's the second, more important punchline. Oh, his new ally is the rabid president of Iran, not an American heavyweight.

"You could change the names and this would sound like a press release from Horowitz or ACTA."

This sentence is just a continuation of the punchline. As I wrote in earlier comments, humor is idiosyncratic. Personally, I think this last line fails to add anything. Better continuations:

• In related news, Horowitz issued a press release today about the appearance of former Iranian president Khatami at Harvard, arguing that Khatami "just adds to the liberal bias already rampant at Harvard."
• In related news, Horowitz announced the second in a set of debates about academic freedom involving key liberals he thinks are dangerous. Following up on his debate with Churchill, he will be traveling to Ames City, Iowa, next month, to debate Jonathan Arashon, a seventh-grader at Johnson Middle School who opposes the war in Iraq. "Arashon is precisely the type of unbalanced scholar we shouldn't let on campus," Horowitz said.

But I'm not a professional joke-writer (and I'm not quitting my day job!), and I suspect that ending with the link would have been stronger.

I think you'd have a much better argument that Burke went too far if he had poked at others who deserve to be treated more seriously. But he didn't. Horowitz invites the ridicule, and, well, as a tough-skinned president said many years ago, if you can't stand the heat, ...

Jacques, just a quicky tonight -- I wasn't mocking Great Books. I love Great Books. I've run a Great Books reading group in the past. I tutor junior high students by reading classics. I just find it ironic that the same sorts of people who object to, say, adding some black American authors to the curriculum because "they only have so much time on the planet and would rather re-read *Romeo and Juliet*" don't see any problem wasting their time posting regular comments to blogs about relatively unimportant issues like making fun of David Horowitz.

(I'm safe from this criticism myself. While I'd give anything for a week off to re-read Hank James' *The Ambassadors*, I'm content having an hour commute to listen to the brilliant new Beyonce album.)

Also, Jacques, I neither have a Ph.D. nor work in a university. (And I didn't storm off the ACTA blog in a huff. It's just that I only have so much time on the planet, and I really wanted to re-read . . .)

Karen Elohim: Know that I applaud your efforts to read and to prosyletise for the Great Books, and that you are right to suggest that while one is blogging in defence of them, it is difficult to at once be reading them. It is right also that one spend one's brief time here (but that duration of a mere sparrow's quick flight through a hall, as the Venerable Bede has it, for tempus fugit as quickly as Bede's sparrow) more on them, rather than on debates about their worth (inestimable to me, I might add). Accordingly, Samuel Johnson tells his biographer Boswell, e.g., that while two argue about which book to teach a child, another child has learnt them both. And Ernest Hello (1829-85)--in a simple (and very short, naturellement!) gem of an essay, Pas de temps! ("No time!")--reminds us that bustling about is not the same as the wise use of our time for love, learning and ideas. Nevertheless, the old saw of Bacon's (in the Essays) that reading makes a full man, conferences make a ready one, and writing makes an exact one, still holds and suggests the worth of "going public" with what we have learnt.

By the way, when I taught years ago at an African-American college in the South (six courses per term, plus foreign language tutorials in three languages), I never ceased to remind my students that the Great Books belong equally to all of us, and that none are excluded from access to them but those who did not read them. And that I would make no patronising choices in their selection for class reading, writing and discussion.

Incidentally, while your (jocular, je l'espere!) reference to Henry James as "Hank" (quelle horreur!) shows commendable familiarity and affection, I think he might ever so politely decline such an intimate appellation. I think also that Dorothy Parker's quip on him that he "chewed more than he bit off" cute, but wrong. But then critics usually are, nicht wahr? Cheers for now,

Mr. Dorn is correct that humor is idiosyncratic: there are doubtless a tiny but shifting minority who would find humor in any human event or circumstance, up to and including spoofing the Holocaust, who could rationalize their "humor" using just the same kind of contorted "close reading" Mr. Dorn does.

So it is Mr. Dorn's right to find "humor" where he will, and if he finds Mr. Burke's nasty mis-characterization of Horowitz and ACTA "humorous" then so be it, though I personally think his argument more clearly demonstrates his own ethically bankrupt thought process than it does Mr. Burke's "humor."

(Mr. Dorn seems to place great weight on the tortured logic of his close reading as if by itself logic were both necessary and sufficient to carry the day . . . it is not . . . one can rationalize virtually anything, from racist and homophobic jokes to the slaughter of the Jews.)

But, I quibble over details.

If Mr. Dorn has the right to define what he finds "humorous" and why, it is the right of others -- and I count myself among them -- to point out that Mr. Burke's "humor" at bottom rests on an ugly demonization of Horowitz and ACTA by (mis)placing them in the same moral category as the president of Iran.

That is a libel, though, fortunately in our society it is not a legal one, one that would result in a lawsuit (AFAIK) -- much less imprisonment or torture, as would certainly occur in Iran, were someone to Burke the Iranian president the way Mr. Dorn's client did Mr. Horowitz and ACTA.

And Mr. Burke builds his "humor" -- as commenter "Allan" points out -- on the basis of a "factual error:" neither Mr. Horowitz nor ACTA is trying to purge the university of liberals and secularists as the Iranian president is wont to do, much less is either Mr. Horowitz or ACTA advocating throwing their opponents in jail, as the Iranian president actually does.

I didn't and still don't find Mr. Burke's post funny, but if Mr. Dorn does, that is his right and I applaud him for sharing his sense of humor with the rest of us.

Clawmute

To "Sherman Dorn": Your "close reading" of M. Burke's jocular riposte on David Horowitz caught my nose with all the sudden arrest of an undiscarded sheet of papier torcheculative--vocatus, respondebo after my own close reading of the correspondence at hand. And know that ever I have no wish to pursue my adversaries BEYOND the grave. A bientot,

If Mr. Dorn, Mr. Burke and other supporters of Mr. Burke's post really believe that Mr. Dorn's close reading of the post makes it "humorous," why not send the post and Mr. Dorn's close reading of it to Mr. Ahmed Batebi, a former student activist, now on a hunger strike, who is languishing in an Iranian prison? I expect he could do with some cheering up . . .

Mr. Burke's post doesn't seem so very "humorous" when framed this way, does it?

Clawmute

My profound apologies to "Karen Elohim" for my assuming (wrongly, as she averred and I now believe), even accusing, her of taking the PhD in English! (perhaps she'll be resurrected yet again as "Karen Y-weh"). Still, I don't make sport of all her claims, for I've learnt to be more prudent in my readings of adversaries' posts, including hers. But--my promise--no pleasing lies--no satis-faction. Ma, mille grazie!--Karina o--whomever. Cheers, and I'll tell you a story to atone, JA

I've seen several arguments over the years that citing OA articles makes it easy for readers to verify that authors are accurately representing their sources, while citing TA articles makes this difficult and protects authors who want to blow smoke.