[inaudible conversations]. . :

the. >> dave horowitz presents an appraisal of higher education based on a multiear education of

college year curriculum. this event held at the four seasons hotel in los angeles is >> six years arcs i launched a campaign for an academic bill of rights, a campaign for academic freedom. on monday, i actually headed for chicago, where the trustees of the college of dupage, which is jim belushi's alma matter voted to adopt the academic bill of rights. the academic bill of rights was a very modest proposal. basically, said that if there's a controversial issue, that the subject is a matter of opinion, that students should get to hear both sides of the controversy.

that they should be able to read books with more than one perspective. that would seem like a very simple thing. i can tell you that the number of liberals who have supported this modest proposal, i can number on half the fingers of one hand. the campaign against it has been quite ferocious. i've been called a mccarthy reincarnate, a malice, the thought police, and worse. i knew that this was a problem. it's not obvious. it shouldn't be obvious that this is a problem, that an american universities, students would be assigned books on -- that take only one point of view

on any issue of controversy, and of course, in liberal arts subjects, all the issues are controversial, because they were all subjective in matters of opinion. when you get past the fact that charles dickens wrote a tale of two cities, he were involved in controversy or that there were so many pages. i knew this was a problem because i had spoken by 2003 on 100 college campuses. and one very poignant moment came when i spoke in minnesota, and a young female student, whose sister had been murdered, and a state where there was no death penalty, and had taken up criminology, to heal her wounds, asked me if there were any articles or any books that supported the death penalty.

i asked, i said, you're a criminology professor, are there such books and she said no. that still shocks me, but it is just an index of how widespread this problem is on american campuses. another part of the modest proposal was that if a professor has an opinion, or perspective, he should not -- or she should not leave the students to think that that's a scientific perspective. it's an opinion and there should be other perspectives available to the students. again, it should be obvious, i think most americans, which sure, a teacher should not mislead students into thinking that there's only one way of looking at the world. i by the way have never complained about faculty bias, even though i'm accused of this

and many other sins all the time that are not associated with, because everybody has a bias, but it's one thing to say this is my opinion, and these are other opinions on the matter. and quite another to teach the opinion as though it were a scientific fact. that is in fact indoctrination. that professors do this all the time. i was at carlton college, which is one of the top 25 liberal arts colleges in the country and students are almost -- they can be totally unaware that they're being indoctrinated. so i had dinner with college republicans and they assured me that carlton was an vent school, when there was -- excellent school when there was no problem like the ones i have been talking about, so i said how many of you have been taught as a matter of scientific fact that

there are race, gender and class hierarchies in america? and every hand goes up. well, this is not only an opinion that there are race, class and again dehere ar can is. very reactionary opinion, because it derives from a thinker who was so colast alley wrong. but this is standard on university campuses and it is not taught as an opinion, it is taught as a fact. another aspect of my bill of rights was to try to encourage universities to have intellectual diversity on their faculties. it seemed to me a problem, if 90% of a faculty is of one political persuasion, as it happens, they are leftist. that is -- 90% of american faculty, actually, it's more in

liberal arts colleges or on the political left. at first, when i brought this up, i was ridiculed, the methodologies, i mean, anybody that goes on a college campus knows that 90% of the faculty, certainly the ones who are willing to tell you what their opinions are, aren't going to be on the left, but it took us years and we had -- what happened was that we inspired social scientists, conservative social scientists, usually, and some had been doing this before we entered the fray, to do studies. and as a matter of fact, this year, a study out of harvard by two liberal professors conceded that 95% of all lib lal arts professors are on the political left. but then, what's the next line

of defense? that doesn't matter, because what's going on here is a defense of an indefensible state of affairs. where conservatives are excluded from faculties, where courses are not academic courses in the way that anybody over the age of 50 would understand an academic course, which is a disinterested inquiry into a -- into a subject. but what i will call indoctrination, which is teaching facts as though they were scientific -- teaching opinions as though they were scientific. the brookings institution has then put out a study which concedes that professors are on the left, but then concludes that no indoctrination is taking place and the "new york times" had a big article, "new york times" will not have a big

article, they will not even review the book, that jacob and i had written, one party classroom, which is about this problem. "new york times" wrote a big article, studies show there's no indoctrination, 0 other professors don't advance their political agendas in the classroom. how was the study conducted? well, they asked professors, do you indoctrinate? i wish i were making this up and they said no, we don't. so to is the one party classroom, how radical professors indoctrinate students at america's top colleges, and undermine our democracy in the process. is the fourth book i've written about universities, and this book was designed to end the controversy because jacob lawson and my co-author have done in this book is to examine 150

courses at 12 major universiti universities. penn state, university of texas, university of california, usc, columbia, arizona and arizona state, missouri, university of miami ohio, and we found 150 courses that it's blatantly obvious that students are being indoctrinated. if they read about poverty, they read leftist about poverty. if at the read about global -- well, i hate to tell the older folks here like myself, if you haven't been on a campus, they don't even read books now that teachers show movies, films in class. so if the subject is global warming, you've seen al gore's film and you may have seen it in a french class or i had a student at penn state that complained about being shown

michael moore's sicko in a french language class. the chairman of the department thought that was perfectly appropriate. here's a sample indoctrination course. at the university of california santa cruz is a course which is described in the official university catalog in these exact words. the goal of this seminar is to learn how to organize a revolution. and then it tells you what's an anti-capitalist revolution. now, the subject of revolution is perfectly appropriate for an academic setting, if it's taught -- if the approach is academic, that is, what is a revolution? and as it happens, there are very -- people have different definitions of what a revolution is. in fact, crane britain wrote a book called "the anatomy of

revolution" which explores these perspectives. so then you would say, ask, you know, what kinds of revolutions have there been, because of the french revolution was very different from the american revolution and the american of course from the bow bowl show vk revolution. and then you would ask what advances have there been from the american revolution? obviously the american revolution, and obviously, marksist revolutions have killed over 100 million people in peacetime, had huge costs in addition to which they bankrupted whole continents. but this course doesn't ask any of those questions. this course is a course in how to organize a revolution to overthrow the american government and the american economic system.

that is indoctrination. that's all that is. it's of the instilling of a doctrine. it happens that the regents at the university -- this is at sanity cruz. the regents at the university of california have a standing order, which says the classrooms -- and these are the words, they're not to be used for political indoctrination, that is an abuse of the university, an they have a fiduciary responsibility to enforce that and probably legal obligations, but since california is a very liberal state, which means it's a left wing state, nobody is going to do anything and the regents, even the regents who were appointed by pete wilson as i said, this chapter of the book, to them, i got one call from a regent who is has now left the board of regents. a little later, i'll get to what the politics of the university are that prevent -- that keep

this unconscionable state of affairs going. so our book has 150 such courses. whole fields are just given over to indoctrination. women's studies is not an academic field, it is a political party. that doesn't mean that women's studies couldn't be an academic field. it could be, if the subject of women and their status and their history were treated in an academic way, that is, where you looked at different perspectives and evaluated the evidence. women's studies courses are indoctrination courses in radical markoid feminism which teach that america is a racist, sexist classist homophobic society and an imperialist power

because they teach global feminisms now and terrorists are freedom fighters, and if they resort to unpleasant tactics, it's because the oppressors, that's because the united states and israel, force them to do so. that's the curriculum today how did it get that way? well, one of the pioneer and most important women's studies departments, which is now called the department of feminist studies at the university of california santa cruz, was architected by a woman named t batina, who spent nearly 20 years on the american communist party. i actually took a force with her father at a communist party school in the 1950's, pretty well known figure, batina was a

lifelong political activist with a very, very narrow intellectual horizon. she wasn't even aware, she operated out of berkeley, which was a cornucopia of left wing theater of all kind. she was not even aware of non-communist left wing thinkers. by her own accounts. she's written an autobiography, which is how i know what i'm about to tell you. she was given -- when she was a graduate student, the interlocks to women's studies course at santa cruz as a department was being created. she says in her book that she was very conflicted with becoming a faculty member. because that would be academic. she -- and verts used to be this way. that is, she would have to be a scholar, she would have to attend conference that is were scholarly, talk about research.

whereas, she had a mission in life that was to change the world. but then another faculty member named marge france, who, since i was a berkeley radical i also know, was a member of the communist party. told her, it's your revolutionary duty to become a professor, so she became a professor and as she says in her book, first thing she did was took the introduction to women's studies and politicized it. she made it much more political. and then she said, her doubts about becoming a professor were washed away as she saw her class and the classes she taught as a form of political activism. and there are many quotes in my book, but it is very easy to get testimonies by particularly women's studies professors, that what they're doing is indoctrinating students in feminism, they may not use that word, but trying to convert students to be radical feminists

and join feminist organizations, radical feminist ones, because there are conservative women who are feminists and some of them are well known. and one of the courses that in this -- the book we've written, one party classroom, the reader -- it's the only reading list where we actually found a conservative book and the book is by daphne, it's called professing feminism, and the professor has put a -- written a little comment next to, you know, where the assigned readings are. you have to read a chapter from this, it says, this is an anti-women's studies book prepared or refuted. prepare to refute it. well, it happens that daphne was a founder of the women's studies

movement and left it precisely because, or became critics of women's studies, because it's ideological indoctrination. it has no place in an american school, although now it has a very big place in american schools. for 100 years, the tradition in america has been to teach students how to think. not tell them what to think. if you want to go to school to be told what to thousand, you go to the -- you should just go to the university of havana, the university of tehran or go to the university of pongyany. they will ge tell you what the government orthodoxy is. i'm going to qualify this in a second, the orthodoxy in american liberal arts colleges is what i would call a

neocommunist orthodoxy, that is, it teaches that america is a racist, sexist, homophobic imperialist country. and the people who teach that it's imperialist, teach that it's about the global imperialist system in the courses on global feminism, have credentials in comparative literature, women's studies, doctorates in education. i have yet to come across a woman studies professor who's teaching global feminisms and the global economy, who is an economist. so there's never massive consumer fraud going on also. in our universities. the qualification i will make is this. that is, that this amounts to about 10% of the curriculum. 10%. 90% of professors are what we always understood professors to be, quite decent, and your scholars. i think there is always going to

be a problem if you have 90% of your faculty have political views from one side of the spectrum. having been on both sides myself, i can tell you, it is very difficult to see outside your own ideological perspective. you miss questions, you have emphasis, think things are important that people on the other side won't, so it's a terrible -- it takes a terrible toll on the educational standard in our country. that our faculties are so one sided and of course, it's not an accident that they're one sided. one of the reasons they're one sided is that conservative students are harassed daily in their classrooms, and some of the harassment is quite unconscious. another by product of having only one side of the political

spectrum in place. you know, when i have went, for example, to -- i spoke at the western new england school of law, i had dinner with the federal society students, and their one complaint about their constitutional law professors was that the names clarence thomas or just cies scalia never came up without a snicker. which is a way of demeaning and depreciating and basically eliminating the conservative's perspective, because the students then understand that the people they look to as authorities, they're law professors, who if they don't look up to them as their authorities, they know they have the hammer of the grades over them, regard scalia and clarence thomas as ridiculous, as not

worthy, having opinions not worthy of consideration. so any conservative student going through school today in america, will know that this is not a really good institution to try to succeed in, where, the judgments are all subjective. of course, if you're a nuclear physicist, it doesn't matter. and in fact, when i went to columbia to speak, i was introduced, the college republican, who was the public face and introduced me, said i'm not really the college of republicans, but i'm in the astro physics department, but i got designated because they can't hurt me. it's terrible to have to say this about american universities. i just think this is an absolute disgrace. the one thing i will say negative about all those decent professors is they're not standing up for these students,

and they're not standing up for the principle of intellectual diversity on their faculties and they do nothing about these departments, which are just political parties. it's women's studies, peace studies, it's not study of peace. there are no professors of military science in the peace studies. often they're called peace and justice studies, if you just didn't get the idea of what they're real live about. they're about attacking american -- the american military, in america, in the world. why do i say there should be -- if it doesn't have a military science professor, it's not an academic department, if it's talking about peace, because in a democracy, what is the military there for is this it's to preserve the peace. now, if you're a leftist, you may have disagree with that, but

you have to hear the students -- the students have to hear both sides of the argument and evaluate it. teaching students how to think is teaching them how to assemble evidence, how to construct an argument, and then allowing them to make up their own minds. if we don't have the citizenry that makes up its own mind, we're gone, and this title of this book, one-party classroom, is just a foreshadowing of the one-party state that we will have in this country, if the educational system continues to be subordned by these radicals. because they are very political, academic leftists, the leftists are political. if you're a scholar, you really don't want to be bothered with departmental meetings and committees and so forth, so you will find that the president of the faculty senate, the lead leaders of the faculty senate are usually leftist.

the aaup, the american association of university professors, is a far left organization, the american federation of teachers is a thuggish far left organization, the american historical association, menses logical organization. the people running it ar all going to be political leftists and another reason is of course, if you get in the way of a political leftist, they will call you a racist or a sexist or a homophobe and in the academic world, that can be career damaging, shall we say. example, larry summers,est most powerful university president in the history of the modern university, ran afoul of the left at harvard. and became the first university president in the history of the modern university to be censored

and eventually fired. i was given out by his own factual. it was only 10% of the harvard faculty but probably 100% of the left wingers on the harvard faculty. his things, he asked cornel west, who has a university professor, making several hundred thousand dollars a year, and then of only 14 so designated at harvard, so you can imagine how elevated this position is, cornel west is an intellectual empty suit. he hadn't produced a scholarly paper if 20 years. and he had spent the previous year composing a rap record, i'm not making this up, with himself as the rapper,. and on his web site, where this rap c.d. was available, he had his brother quote saying that

cornell's c.d. is a watershed in the history of music. now, you get that kind of mars ciesistic institution. now, larry said to the professor, i would like you in the next year, because this is harvard and you're a university professor, to write a book that is reviewed in a schorlly journal and not just in the "new york times" and cornel west left the meeting, and gave a public statement, that larry summers has a problem with black people, and of course, all of the leftists began salivating, and before you know it, there was this huge uproar and west and other professors with brach professors were threatening to leave and of course, they had the support o