DISQUS

This is my favorite student complaint on the Horowitz site from a student who signed up for a course entitled "20th Century African American Thought":

"Professor was racist since she only assigned books that were written by african americans. Additionally, some of these authors believed that white people have some how had a negative influence on african american economic and social condition."

This is my favorite student complaint on the Horowitz site from a student who signed up for a course entitled "20th Century African American Thought":

"Professor was racist since she only assigned books that were written by african americans. Additionally, some of these authors believed that white people have some how had a negative influence on african american economic and social condition."

I had a professor who wrote speeches for Ronald Reagan and would regularly explain how there was an aura of goodwill that followed in the wake whenever Reagan walked down a hall. As a liberal, it didn't bother me. It was a way to draw students into political discourse. Period. Here are two samples from Horowitz' organization. They are poorly documented assaults on critical thinking and free speech.

"Fortunately, this isn't my college I am having to report. A friend of mine attends Mt. San Antonio College in Walnut, CA. He is a liberal which is fine, but he does not really pay much attention to politics. Therefore, he really does not have much of a clue as to what is going on. It is because of that I believe him to be vulnerable to his professor's biases. His professor, who teaches a Critical Thinking and Writing class at Mt. SAC, assigned "Stupid White Men" and "Dude, What's Happened to My Country?", (both by Michael Moore), as required reading for this class. According this friend of mine, the class was told to write an argumentative paper on "Stupid White Men". I do not know for certain what the professor will do, grade-wise, to those who hold a conservative stance on the book and I do not want to speculate."

"Used door for office as political pulpit: One day, when I was just happening to walk by [the professor’s] door, I noticed a letter on his door. This blatantly offended me. It was a letter from some organization for the election of John Kerry, thanking Mr. Mandell for being an elector for the Democratic primary. I can understand this being important to Mr. Mandell, and fully respect his own political views and the political views of all faculty on campus. However, being in a position needing clear neutrality between the faculty in general and the student body, this bothers me."

I had a professor who wrote speeches for Ronald Reagan and would regularly explain how there was an aura of goodwill that followed in the wake whenever Reagan walked down a hall. As a liberal, it didn't bother me. It was a way to draw students into political discourse. Period. Here are two samples from Horowitz' organization. They are poorly documented assaults on critical thinking and free speech.

"Fortunately, this isn't my college I am having to report. A friend of mine attends Mt. San Antonio College in Walnut, CA. He is a liberal which is fine, but he does not really pay much attention to politics. Therefore, he really does not have much of a clue as to what is going on. It is because of that I believe him to be vulnerable to his professor's biases. His professor, who teaches a Critical Thinking and Writing class at Mt. SAC, assigned "Stupid White Men" and "Dude, What's Happened to My Country?", (both by Michael Moore), as required reading for this class. According this friend of mine, the class was told to write an argumentative paper on "Stupid White Men". I do not know for certain what the professor will do, grade-wise, to those who hold a conservative stance on the book and I do not want to speculate."

"Used door for office as political pulpit: One day, when I was just happening to walk by [the professor’s] door, I noticed a letter on his door. This blatantly offended me. It was a letter from some organization for the election of John Kerry, thanking Mr. Mandell for being an elector for the Democratic primary. I can understand this being important to Mr. Mandell, and fully respect his own political views and the political views of all faculty on campus. However, being in a position needing clear neutrality between the faculty in general and the student body, this bothers me."

This is building upon a long-term Republican effort to "depoliticize" higher education. Horowitz has been collecting anecdotes about conservatives who were criticized in college classrooms. This is not balanced, however, as he has not collected information on liberals who might be criticized in business school classes. He focuses heavily on courses on gender and ethnic literature and the tendency for professors to expect students to understand the material rather than just characterize it and criticize it.

This is building upon a long-term Republican effort to "depoliticize" higher education. Horowitz has been collecting anecdotes about conservatives who were criticized in college classrooms. This is not balanced, however, as he has not collected information on liberals who might be criticized in business school classes. He focuses heavily on courses on gender and ethnic literature and the tendency for professors to expect students to understand the material rather than just characterize it and criticize it.

They really should consider terminating the lobbyist for attempting to use his position for overtly partisan purposes. It is one thing to promote relations between the university and elected officials; it is something quite different to use your position to try to elect a partisan candidate. The Regents' rules forbid this for employees. The lobbyist should be held to that standard whether an employee or contractor.

They really should consider terminating the lobbyist for attempting to use his position for overtly partisan purposes. It is one thing to promote relations between the university and elected officials; it is something quite different to use your position to try to elect a partisan candidate. The Regents' rules forbid this for employees. The lobbyist should be held to that standard whether an employee or contractor.

Sorry about that. The scandal here is that the lobbyist was using his position to advance an openly partisan perspective. The other scandal is that the White campaign was exploiting Alford's name without his permission. Both of these show a gross lapse of judgment.

The lobbyist should be terminated as he has violated the Regents' policy that "The University shall not be an instrument of partisan political action, in order to assure its autonomy and integrity." If they want a Republican lobbyist, they should find one with better judgment.

Sorry about that. The scandal here is that the lobbyist was using his position to advance an openly partisan perspective. The other scandal is that the White campaign was exploiting Alford's name without his permission. Both of these show a gross lapse of judgment.

The lobbyist should be terminated as he has violated the Regents' policy that "The University shall not be an instrument of partisan political action, in order to assure its autonomy and integrity." If they want a Republican lobbyist, they should find one with better judgment.

This

This