101 dangerous book ideas

David Horowitz is his own worst enemy. Last week, the right-wing author released his most recent book, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America. Horowitz charges the 101 -- including three Penn professors -- with either injecting politics into inherently non-political classes or forcing students to accept one side of the story in classes that are political.

The book is part of Horowitz's quest for academic freedom, for classrooms in which students can study and express multiple viewpoints without fear of report-card retribution. But he has shot himself in the foot once again because the very format of his new book stymies the discussion we should be having.

The 101 Most Dangerous Academics? Please. The idea of such a list is so sensational that it can provoke only sensational responses instead of honest discourse. Look at what happened at Penn. Ann Matter, chairwoman of the Religious Studies Department, basically called the list racist because the only Penn professors included are black.

Law professor Regina Austin -- who is included on the list -- said, "You can't let your enemies set your agenda." Apparently, Austin views Horowitz's book as some sort of salvo in a partisan war of enemies.

Interestingly enough, that's a natural response. A recent Emory University study suggests that people with strongly held political beliefs unconsciously think in partisan terms when confronted with information that runs contrary to their beliefs. Obviously, the 101 professors don't believe they're dangerous, and they've responded in a partisan way.

But if anyone has an enemy in David Horowitz, it's the conservative himself.

He has created a list reminiscent of McCarthy's in form. That likeness will preclude liberals from taking his cause seriously, even if the list contains several deserving nuts (think Ward Churchill).

It's all such a shame, as Horowitz's overall point in the book -- that professors must not indoctrinate -- is both valid and pressing. No student should have to write an essay on a criminology midterm explaining "Why George Bush is a War Criminal," as students had to in a 2003 University of Northern Colorado class.

And no student should have to deal with the pro-life ethics professor at Foothill College in California who compared abortions to first-degree murder and gave Ds and Fs to his pro-choice students in 2004.

Such abuse may not be widespread, but its very existence here and there is troubling enough. Horowitz acknowledges this in the new book, but buries the point beneath unconstructive name-calling and finger-pointing. So let's go beyond these book-selling tactics and begin a dialogue now on the real issue: protecting students and professors from political mistreatment.

In previous writings, Horowitz has urged state governments to prevent such mistreatment by enacting his Academic Bill of Rights. Pennsylvania held hearings last month about the bill, which states that universities should hire professors for their merits, not politics; students should be allowed to disagree with their professors' politics without having their grades lowered; and professors should acknowledge both sides of a debate.

On a simple level, the bill is pretty fair. But upon closer examination of its language, the bill frightens: The state would ensure Penn's "curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences ... reflect the uncertainty and unsettled character of all human knowledge."

Given that some in this state still believe evolution is unsettled, I'd rather Penn control its own curricula. Unfortunately, the bill of rights wouldn't merely cover public schools but would also cover "private universities that present themselves as bound by the canons of academic freedom."

Obviously that includes Penn. And while Horowitz's bill doesn't contain consequences for violators, he has said it should. Imagine a world in which the state withheld Penn's yearly appropriation (of about $45 million) because it disagreed with our reading lists.

Common sense calls that censorship, not academic freedom.

But there is an alternative to government oversight; Ohio professors figured that out last year when their state senate considered adopting the bill of rights. The professors used a local umbrella group, the Inter-University Council, to bring together Ohioan universities and discuss academic freedom among themselves.

The council has since used those discussions to write resolutions affirming students' and professors' rights, and the pacified state senate hasn't seen the need to adopt Horowitz's bill.

All of which demonstrates the power of civil conversation. 'Enemies' or not.Gabriel Oppenheim is a College freshman from Scarsdale, N.Y. Opp-Ed appears on Fridays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.