David Horowitz issues a correction, then proves his point
Power Line
David Horowitz, the indefatigable crusader against political indoctrination on college campuses, has corrected his description of one instance of such indoctrination. Horowitz reported that, at the University of Northern Colorado, a professor had required a student to answer this question on a final exam in a Criminology course: "Explain why George Bush is a war criminal." The student wrote instead that Saddam Hussein was a war criminal and, according to Horowitz, received an "F."
Horowitz relied on an account of the student's story provided by his staff (he had little choice, the university would not give him any information). However, it now appears that the question the student answered was one of two optional questions, and thus she was not required to answer it. In addtion, she did not receive an "F." Finally, the actual question was this:
<<<
The American government campaign to attack Iraq was in part based on the assumptions that the Iraqi government has ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction.’ This was never proven prior to the U.S. police action/war and even President Bush, after the capture of Baghdad, stated: ‘we may never find such weapons.’ Cohen’s research on deviance discussed this process of how the media and various moral entrepreneurs and government enforcers can conspire to create a panic. How does Cohen define this process? Explain it in depth. Where does the social meaning of deviance come from? Argue that the attack on Iraq was deviance based on negotiable statuses. Make the argument that the military action of the U.S. attacking Iraq was criminal.
>>>
Horowitz has acknowledged the "serious questions" now raised with respect to his story, and he has corrected that story and apologized for it. He insists, however, that his point about political indoctrination is supported by the facts as they now appear.
I agree. The question posed by the professor asserts that President Bush merely assumed the existence of WMD in Iraq, whereas in truth Bush relied on substantial evidence presented by our intelligence agencies and believed to be correct even by governments that opposed military action. The question goes on to suggest that the administration's "enforcers" conspired with the media and others to create panic. It then instructs those who answer the question to argue that, under these circumstances, attacking Iraq was criminal. The only material difference I see between this question and the one Horowitz thought the professor had asked is that the actual question tells the students why Bush is a war criminal before asking them to explain why he fits that description.
Does the fact that students had the option of answering a different question help? I guess so, for students who felt they could handle the other question. But why should these students be required to read a statement by their professor accusing the president of actions he did not commit that cast him as a war criminal?
For his part, the professor has objected to his characterization as an out-of-control liberal, noting that he is a registered Republican who doesn't vote any party line. This devise is never very persuasive (wasn't Lawrence Walsh a registered Republican). One always wonders who is the last Republican folks like this voted for, and whether the deviation from the party line consists of voting for Ralph Nader or worse. But none of this matters. As Horowitz points out, the issue is not who the professor votes for; it is whether he seeks to indoctrinate his students. Based on the accurate version of his exam question, the answer to that question appears to be affirmative.
Posted by deacon
powerlineblog.com |
