>> thank >> and editor-in-chief of cnsnews.com. he was the campaign manager for patrick buchanan's presidential campaign in 1996. for more information, visit humanevents.com. ..

>> brought builders there. he's the defendant in the most important free speech trial of our times in the netherlands. he's on trial defending the right to criticize islamic terrorism, islamic jew hatred, islamic hatred of gays, and impression of women. 20 years ago, i appeared on a local los angeles television program. on a panel with a hollywood left, named richard naser. he's the head of the screen actors guild. he was on the program because he was supporting a california

ballot initiative that would have created a universal government health care system in the state of california. and when it was my turn, i said richard, socialism has failed all over the world. why do you think it will succeed in california? to which he did not have an answer. we are at an historical moment when one of the two political parties and our president have rammed through a massive universal health care bill over the objections and opposition of a majority of the american people. we have a government, and driving actually for a single payer system which is the socialism, communist, whatever you want to call it.

that's totalitarian system. where the government will control your health. our government is trying to aim at election fraud. which is aimed at democracy. if the perpetrators are white. our government is suing the state of arizona because it will only -- does not want to prosecute violators of our immigration laws if their skin color is brown. in other words, our government has adopted the racist attitudes of the radical left of the fringe crowd that richard naser was speaking for 20 years ago. we have a president who

considers america to be guilty before the fact, and has toured the world and apologizing to leaders of the most tyrannical and oppressive regimes on the planet. we have a president that thinks that bankrupting our nation is a matter of equity. it will bring fairness and more equality to the international order. how do we get to this bizarre moment in our national history? well, at the heart of the development is the state of the nation's schools. beginning with the universities but going down through the k-12 system.

because the curriculum in our liberal arts college is america is a racist, sexist, classist, homophobic power that probably deserves to be attacked. the heros of this curriculum are the people who supported the communist empire in it's hay day. i'll just single out what? the most wildly used textbook on american history, both at the university, but especially at the k-12 levels is written by howard zinn, a lifelong communist, a supporter of joseph stalin, kim ill song, and supporter of islamic terrorists fighting the united states. that is the assignment for students in our country.

how did our schools get to this path? and, of course, i'm speaking now and i'm not speaking physics professors and engineering professors. i'm talking about the liberal arts schools, liberal arts colleges where our students take their required courses on their way to citizenship. and not every teacher is teaching howard zinn. but it's a dominant text and that tells you this is a trend that's been going on for 30 years and will continue unless something is done about it. our colleges were all created back in the -- actually harvard in the 17th century. but in the 17th and 18th centuries, and 19th century as training institutions for

ministers and priests. they were religious institutions. and they instilled the doctrine of the particular denomination. if you went to a catholic school, you learned the catholic view of the world. they didn't make a pretense to being liberal arts in the classical sense of diverse, intellectually diverse institutions. towards the end of the 19th century, there was an industrial revolution in america and a scientific revolution. and that saw -- the state universities were created, land grant institutions, and that saw the creation of what is called the modern research university. and the modern research university and where we get our precepts of academic freedom comes from the development. the modern research university conceived itself and promoted itself as representing the

scientific method. so that when there was matters of the opinion at stake, when you have a controversial issues, the procedure would be by scientific methods. it would be the attitude that was skeptical towards received doctrines and received truth. including the religious troops. yale, which was a school for ministers, became skeptical towards religion and everything else. and actually, william f. buckley wrote a famous book called "god and men at yale" protesting the yale had made a transition without a formal divorce from it's founding or clearing it with the alumni and the people that had contributed to and built it. the academic freedom provisions, which were created by the american association of university professors stipulate

that where there are matters of controversy and everything in the liberal arts practically is a matter, everything that's important is a matter of controversy. it's a subjected field. you can't do a scientific experiment in literature or philosophy and get a result. these are unresolvable conflicts of opinion. the academic freedom provisions and really the academic standards of the modern research university say that in these matters, the professor is obligated not to indoctorate it's students, not to instill a doctrine and have a point of view, but it can't be imposed on the students. therefore, he's obligated to present the opinions in a fair minded and judicious manner. and to provide students with materials like books, reading assignments, that reflect more than one side of a controversial

issue. sometime in the 1970s, a radical cohort began to gain tenure and positions of power in the university. and saw their mission as a radical mission of transforming society, revolutionizing our society, and in a radical direction. and the university as an instrument of that political agenda. and they began to reverse the 100-year development of the modern research university and revert to the 19th century model where professors come into a classroom to instill a doctrine. so students today do not get -- they don't get readings on two sides of controversial issues.

i've audited courses, for example, in the supreme court where the only book assigned is jeffrey toobin's left wing version of supreme court, recent supreme court history. this is a violation of academic standards and academic freedom, but there's no -- the university as an institution is pretty unaccountable. both on the financial side, but especially on the curriculum. the curriculum side. i wrote a book called one party classroom. which is just a review of over 150 syllabuses at 12 major universities. at the university of santa cruz it's described in the exact words. the goal is to learn how to

organization a revolution. it explains the revolution is anti-capitalist. a proper academic course would examine the proposition, first of all, that a democratic society where you can vote people in and out of power needs a revolution. or that a revolution might be a good idea considering the bloody failures of revolutions throughout the 19th and 20th century. and it would present texts on presumably on both sides of controversial issues as to whether capitalism as a bad or good system, given all of the other systems that are possible. but this course just was -- how to organize a revolution. completely improper in any university, calling itself a

modern research university that respects academic freedom. but especially in the state institution. seven years ago, i began a campaign to try to address this system. one of the serious problems is that 95% -- this is a harvard study, but it's confirmed by just a dozen studies. 95% of professors in liberal arts colleges today are on the political left. they vote left, they think left, they finance candidates of the left. that in itself is a huge problem. and you can't come about firing professors for their political views because that is kind of what we are trying to prevent, the establishment of a politicizeed educational system. so seven years ago, i devised an

academic bill of rights. to address this system. and i did it for the chairman of the regions of the state university of new york. a system with 400 colleges and 400,000 students and 69 colleges. i was introduced to them by a son of philadelphia, willie nunn. he was thrilled. what i did what i cot if -- codified the academic freedom provisions that the university professors had devised in 1915 and had been part of the template of all universities were nearly 100 years. i just made it -- you know,

points 1, 2, 3. and i presented them as rights and much more radically as rights for students. that is if a professor was obligated according to the aaup to present views that diverged from his in a fair minded manner, and provide students with materials that would allow them to think for themselves. this was the professors obligation, my bill said that students had a right to expect that from their professors. it was as simple as that. and for devising this academic, -- well, what happened at sunni system was that we had the opposition from the teacher unions. which is the aft, the aup, and the nea are the three big

teacher unions. all of them run by left, all of them alterably opposed to having two sides presented. and i say that because they were the chief opponents of this campaign for an academic bill of rights. and what's faced with the opposition of the teacher unions, and the left on it's facilities, and because he was an appointee of governor as where all of the regions, and because governor had presidential ambitions, he became completely powerwise. he told mexicali how he was going to -- he had told exactly how he was going to put it in place. then it never happened. i thought for the only for college presidents to have the

spine to define academic standards which they have claimed to support, was to get another actor involved. and that would be legislatures. and i went to the colorado legislature. and asked them to devise a resolution. not a law. because it would be a very bad idea for legislatures to try to run universities. that's a very bad idea. nothing that i've ever supported. but to pass a resolution urging the university to adopt an academic bill of rights. and i went to the president of the university of colorado and asked her to do the same before i went to the legislature. she had said we have all of the protections. they would go up to her web site. we don't have a problem. when i went to the legislature, the first thing that happened was even before we published the

academic bill of rights, the rocky mountain news ran a story that i wanted to fire all of the leftist professors and hire conservatives. the first principal is you cannot hire or fire a professor based on their political views. i put that in. i knew there was already guarantee that nobody respected it. i put it in to prevent people for attacking motor -- attacking me for wanting to fire the leftist professors. i even defended the notorious lord churchill who said the inhabitants of the world trade center deserved to die because they were nazis. i defended him because the first amendment of our constitution gives everybody the right to embarrass themselves in public and come out with views such as

churchill undoubtedly has and not be fired for expressing those views. it's another thing what he does in the classroom. but that was an internet article. despite this. and the rocky mountain views immediately retracted the story because i happened to know one of the editors who was a libertarian, and printed an accurate story on the academic bill of rights. two days later, the denver post ran an editorial says that david horowitz and republicans want to fire leftist and liberal professors in the state of colorado. and just ignoring the truth. and that's because of the pressure of these teacher unions. a former lieutenant -- democratic lieutenant governor in the state -- compared me to

joseph stalin and joseph mccarthy in a column in the "denver post." but we got this bill. the academic bill of rights. just a resolution through the education committee. when that happened, it was a political miracle if you will. the first thing that happened when we got it through by one vote on party lines, the democratic party is in the pocket of the unions. everybody doesn't know that, should know that. they don't even think for themselves on these issues. that was no chance that they would read the academic bill of rights and come to a reasonable conclusion. but low and behold, when the 6-5 vote was done on the education committee for this bill, the president of the university of colorado appeared and went right to our legislators and said, would you -- will you withdraw

this bill if we put the principals in place? and by the way, i went up on her web site, the university of colorado web site. there were no guarantees of academic of freedom of rights for students at the university of colorado. so, of course, we said, yes, we will withdraw the legislation if you do the right thing. then there was a joint resolution from both houses in colorado. you know, the resolution was adopted. and, of course, nothing happened. and nothing happened because as you may know, a couple of billionaires in colorado set out to make the -- to make colorado a blue state and succeeded. and the minute the republicans lost the majority in the house, it's just out there. and that's the biggest problem in changing our universities and getting any kind of enforcement. university administrators are

scared of their radically, you know, i was going to radical faculties. the faculties are not necessarily radical. but they are dominated politically by radicals. larry summers, who just resigned as the chairman of academic advisers for president obama was the most powerful president in the history of modern research university. but he ran a foul of the political left at harvard. because he opposed the jew-hating campaign to divest from israel. that was his first sin. and then he asked a -- an airhead professor who happened to be black named cornel west to produce a scholarly work. something he hasn't done in 20 years even though he was getting a six-figure income and was very privileged title as university

professor. and cornel cornel west, all he o do was say that summers had a problem with black people. the harvard left went to his report. larry summers became the first person in the modern research university to be sentured and fired. then he had to force to resign. he was crippled. university administrators are intimidated by the faculty unions, which are all usually i should say, dominated and controlled by the left. there's a good reason for that, the leftist, their agenda is political. a true scholar doesn't want to be bothered with departmental politics. so i have been, and this campaign has been tarred and feathered, they not only accused me of being mccarthy, even

though i defended lord churchill, i defended irwin who was at law school at uc irvine because they then withdraw the appointment when some conservative donors finally woke up to the fact that he was a leftist. i defended irwin. i did so. i debated. i have no respect for his political views for sure, but you can't fire somebody for their political opinions. it doesn't matter, i am portrayed as the torquemada of the university. worse that, there was the systemic campaign to say that i was lying, and, you know, made up the facts when i reported what students told me about what goes on in their children.

what goes on in the classrooms would shock most people if you haven't already heard the stories? i mean i was just up at the university of massachusetts, amherst, and a political science major told me that his examine in a political science course was a speech by ronald reagan. and there was one question, which was explain why reagan is wrong. this is a indoctrine. it does not allow the student to have a different opinion from the professor. we had a similar case from colorado, the student was given an examine. in this book, i've told the whole story of my seven-year campaign at the universities in this book reforming our universities. the student was given an exam where the question so-called was explain why george bush is a war

criminal. and she was a fairly traditional person. and so she could not bring herself to answer that question or to explain why george bush is a war criminal. she explained why saddam hussein was a war criminal. she was failed on the examine. and that was then adjusted by an appeals process. what happened i was attacked by the the -- by an agent of the american association of university professors in the cleveland deal. by the way, the media generally, the mainstream, big city papers, small city papers, all are on the political left when it comes to these issues. in this column said that i had invented the student, claims identify -- claims i've tried to find the student, professor, and course and couldn't.

the first set was that i was lying. there was no such student. i had made the whole thing up. then, you know, we went to work. and they had to admit, of course, there was a student, there was an exam. but i had misrepresented the question on the exam. what had happened was that the professor had destroyed the exam papers and then reconstructed it. he reconstructed it so it was the same question, which was: explain why the united states was a -- the invasion of iraq was criminal. the united states was a criminology course. which is why it kept coming up. which was the same question. but the education media inside highered.com, they linked to my response to all of this. but the fact that it was kind of

obliterated. now why did they call me a lier? because it would have been in politic for them to call the students liers. which is basically what they were doing. we have hundreds and hundreds of testimonies by students about what goes on in the classroom. it's not very subtle. professors will go on incredible rants about george bush, about america being racist and sexist, and imperialist. every now and then a work of churchill is exposed. if you don't have respect for the students in the classroom, the professor is not going to tell you what she's teaching. we had our greatest success -- well, by pursuing this legislative resolution path, i

actually got john boehner, who was courageous enough to put it in the education authorization bill act, the principals of the academic bill of rights. and that got the university presidents very frightened. even though it was just a resolution. i should say i was in a meeting with boehner and his legislative aides, and the legislative aides said that the democrats, there are four parts of the educational authorization act that are nonnegotiable. they will absolutely not support the act. and they may have had a majority in the senate at the time. if those are in. and one of them was the academic bill of rights. and i said to congressman boehner, i said, you know, it's a multibillion bill. i probably think the money is

mainly wasted. but what if there's one students. the academic bill of rights could wait on the bill. he looked at me and he said this is a fight that i want. and the result of that was a compromise where the american council on education which represents 1800 universities and colleges, the president said we have an indefensible position. we looking at david horowitz's academic bill of rights. we don't have the objection. :

i actually have found one or two. to me be out of a hold university community that's willing to stand up and say that and defend the kind of criticisms that i work with. the result was that the american council on education came out with a statement in 2005, which pretty well reflected our concerns. it said that the core principles of the american higher education are intellectual, pluralism. intellectual diversity and academic freedom and the students should not be

indoctrinated. so every university of this country has signed on to the document. but only universities and ohio have actually attempted to make a step toward implementing them. why is that? because we went through the legislature in ohio and got a resolution for an academic the love rights, and the universities, the 17 state universities came to us and said will you withdraw the legislation if we implement the american council? so we said yeah. and i will tell you -- and there are two other universities i'm going to talk about in this state of pennsylvania, where we may even more progress -- with the only reason that those ohio universities did that is because

we went to the legislatures. and i will say and there would not be 15 but we could have 2,000 or 3,000 universities sign onto this if the republican party but we got and the conservative establishment and put this reform on their agenda. every republican party, every state party should have an academic bill of rights in its platform and put the pressure on if that happens, the university's -- there are good people in the universities, and they will do the right thing. our greatest success was in the state of pennsylvania, where a courageous, young legislature, who was an army ranger in mogadishu, gib armstrong, agreed to sponsor a bill in the legislature behind the academic bill of rights.

and we had, thanks to a friend in this state, we had the support of the speaker of the house in pennsylvania, john prisell. but the republicans did not have the stomach actually to pass a resolution, a toothless resolution. and that's because of the power of the teacher unions with their allies and the local and statewide media. it's just a political fact. so what they came up with was what turned out to be a much better idea, which was to create a committee to look at the academic freedom principles in the state. our students from guaranteed the right to hear the two sides in a classroom. when al gore's inconvenient lie i guess you'd call it, his alarmist propaganda film about

global warming has been shown in classrooms across the country with critical material, never with -- dearth been a handful of other films. you know, good scientists and challenging this global warming doctrine of ideologies. and no class is that i know are those materials i'm familiar with produced. it was practically a party-line vote the democrats switched over and some republicans, but the committee was authorized, and to the course nine months in the state of pennsylvania the democratic members of the committee come from the get go, from day one, attacked it as one of them said this was a hunt for

big foot, this was the mccarthy committee. not a single professor's name was aforementioned. it was all the committee we organized was about looking to see if an academic freedom policy, to see if students are guaranteed the right to hear two sides if there is a grievance procedure, if professors abuse the classroom as many do. and so there was. we have legislators come administrator after administrator, and swear that students were already protected. in fact, it was not a single state university in pennsylvania, which there are more than 17 -- penn state has many campuses -- but there's also a pennsylvania state system which has 15, i believe,

universities. not a single one of them, not one, guarantees students have their rights of academic freedom to hear two sides to a question. there are a wonderful academic freedom provisions, particularly at penn state, or there were at a time, which said in so many words students -- said a teacher is obligated not to indoctrinate their students, but to give them the materials that will allow them to think for themselves. but it was in the employee handbook. students are not employees. this is for professor. pennsylvania state system with the 17 schools had as part of the union contract to students are not members of the teacher unions, so students didn't have

it. the demonstrators came and with a straight face said we have all these protections in place, and there are no complaints. at penn state this and we only have 13 complaints. immediately the democratic legislators jumped on gibson armstrong and the republicans saying 80,000 students and only 13 complaints. after the hearings were over -- i which i thought of this when they were in place -- we sent an inquiry to the provost at penn state. how many gender discrimination cases do you have? in a year and on the basis of race? one. one engender, one race, and yet there are tens of millions of dollars spent every year at penn state and other universities in this state on diversity means

and the tremendous amount of literature. what would be so hard about this intellectual diversity which is the core of the academic education should be. should be about. so we were attacked by the democrats on the committee. gib armstrong had 50,000 testimonies from pennsylvania students. none of them signed. he knew the names. students were of trade it -- afraid to sign, and the press was completely uninterested in the student testimony is, and there were descriptions of reims in the classrooms of one professor attacked the languages school which is where the army personnel can train and hire languages saying it was set up because they want to kill colored people. i mean, it is tragic what is

going on in our universities. you have students in a democracy in america intimidating from watching a complete with a professor of english goes on the rant about a war in iraq completely unprofessional, completely outside of their expertise. there are -- there are some good places that have appeared as a result of our campaign. the last year's president of the modern language association, professor gerald crafts to become graff of university of l.a., he is a leftist. professor graff is a very leftist. he writes for magazines like radical teacher. but he has -- this actually --

he has a theory that teachers should teach the conflicts the shouldn't be advocates on either side of the conflict. the should teach the conflict. they shouldn't impose on students. it seems like very basic elementary stuff. and he has been challenged. he is a lone voice, let me tell you. he's challenged now by professors particularly in the education field where they have devised the argument they held that he can have one of two views, you can have the radical view of social justice, social justice is now a part of the curriculum. social justice meaning of the redistribution of income, just a socialist doctrine. in fact, i try to meet a requirement for graduation with of one of the schools.

there was a protest they withdrew, but now they've devised a second truck model for determining whether a prospective teacher or an undergraduate in education or graduate students in an education school has social justice values, and if they don't, they are not qualified to be a teacher. there is a to be a radical witness for k-12 teachers in the imminent future if people don't wake up and start opposing these ideas. and they say in so many words you can read this in the publication. the modern language association is the largest professional association of academics. 40,000 members, and in the last

issue there is a letter which states and so many terms you can have only to use. you either have the radical view or the hegemonic view. with the left is great at is changing its name my parents were communists call themselves progressives and leftists and liberal. i didn't go along with this change but others said they were liberals, now progressives again. it makes it very hard to pin them down. so, hegemonic means you're speaking for the rahman class, the white supremacist so there's only two possible positions. one is you accept their radical critique this is a perspective k-12 teachers. you accept the radical critique and the other is your present the rahman class and the author

of this letter says such a teacher that accepts the hegemonic view isn't qualified to teach the conflict, so for the left which is now offended and our liberal arts colleges what is legitimate the conflicts are within the left you can be a feminist marxist or socialist or feminist socialist or whatever. there's a spectrum within the left but that's all legitimate. we are transforming our liberal arts colleges into training indoctrination and training centers for the political left and the democratic party. this country's democracy cannot survive this trend if it isn't stopped and reversed. and to stop it, i mean, for

anybody who is an actual liberal is only to make it -- bring it back into conformity with the scientific methods and the scientific institution. there are different ideas, divergent ideas and i respect them. in the university level there should be respect for different opinions and the discussion should take place on the intellectual level. the fact i'm going to close with this that that trend in our universities evidenced by the fact that i, and i cannot alone, robert spencer, michelle malkin and other conservatives cannot visit the college campus without bodyguards and without the university of signing five, ten, 15 security guards just to

protect our physical safety. that is not the majority of the student body. it's a small fraction of the student body. but university administrators will not discipline the students, will not discipline the sood organizations. students for justice and palestine. the muslim students association, which is the arm of the muslim brotherhood and both of them really are. the international socialist organization. all of these organizations get money from student found and behaved like campus of fascists and university administrators will not touch them because they are afraid of their faculties. that is the situation, so it's not an insoluble problem. there are plenty of people of goodwill in the universities would do something if somebody will get us there and act and put pressure on them to do. and what we have shown in

pennsylvania and i actually should close with this, the upshot of the pennsylvania academic freedom hearing, which were described as a total failure and a recent time by the press, by the teacher unions and door by the republican party and the conservative establishment resulted in a tense state fine academic freedom provisions taken out or were extended from the employee handbook to apply to students. they passed the resolution and applied them to all students now for the first time in the history of this country or the history of penn state and academic freedom and the trustees of the university's did the same thing while penn state hearings were going on, when

they are concluding so i will tell you those are the only two universities in america where students have the right to hear two sides of the controversy wish you which is a really sad commentary on the state of our universities, but it is a sign of hope for the future because if the republican party will we got there will be democrats who will break up. if this becomes an issue for conservatives, just to get the curriculum into conformity with scientific methods with traditional academic standards and by traditional and modern liberal universities, the one bill buckley complained about if they would just listened to durham standards we could solve this problem. thank you. [applause]

>> we have time for a few questions. david does need to be out of here at the top of the hour promptly. we also will have some books if anyone else would purchase and signature of reforming the university. if there is any questions we will get some microphones to you guys and just please, speaking to the microphone because this is going to be televised. thank you. >> i do want to recognize members of the steering committee that have come today. adel schaefer, thank you. and the members our steering committee, whether he knows it or not. we love him. and i also would like to thank garrey stevan who couldn't be here today. ed snider as well, for helping us to host these events. thank you. >> adel? >> [inaudible] in the guidebook for students has anything changed yet in terms of --

>> yeah, that's a very good question. i -- the students are scared. because there are no conservatives left, literally, two or three faculty does not do it. the students are afraid to bring a complaint. what they will do is what they think the teacher wants them to say which is again a terrible commentary. i would encourage a student at penn state, and i have a whole chapter in this book reforming our universities that describe what we went through to file a grievance, and if i hadn't been there absolutely nothing what happened. the fact that i had the presence of the provost, every president knows who i am, and they know

that gib armstrong's father was the chairman of appropriations committees of that also got their attention. otherwise, he would have just been brushed off. a courageous student did this. the issue was he was in a speech communications class and he gave a speech on the mohammed cartoons and as a free-speech issue they remembered the mta wants funded where a crucifix was inserted and he said that however offensive you may regard the mohammed cartoons or christ the are protected under the first amendment and that's basically what we have to live with and that's what free speech

is about. if it doesn't offend you the person doesn't have to write. he then in the course of the speech held up a friend of the mahomet cartoon and most of the students in the class called him a racist and the two leftist students said they were offended by his speech. the professor came over and said if you give another speech like that the defense students i will be forced to lower your grade to the direct infringement on the history speech. that's where we are to so he filed his complaint and first of all the meat you find a wet during the class and he said to me i can't do it it's during the class. i said look, do it after the class and we will fight that issue if it comes up, which ended. then you have to complete to the

professor who is abusing you. then you have to complain to the chair and say he went directly to the chairman and of the chairman of the department said good public speaking doesn't offend people. so, you know, it came to my mind martin luther king didn't offend segregation as well. so, it took us to go through the process the provost by the way hands off. i met with the three provost, and their attitude was to of faculty has to make the decision. it is an administrative ruling so i finally encouraged the student to go to the dean of the liberal arts college who i had a conflict as a pretty pretty

radical feminist maybe she's reminded. maybe she will be fair minded. it took 11 months to get these rulings. we have recourse is did not succeed in the other two. one of them the show our core's and inconvenient truth with no critical material. and she came down with an excellent ruling and in that ruling she said abraham lincoln's second inaugural address, which she said the civil war was sent as a person by god for the sent slavery probably offended slave owners but it was considered the finest speech in the english-language. and she said that the communications department would have to handle the academic freedom provisions and would have to have a course or lecture for the communications professors on the first

amendment so they would understand the principle. i was completely satisfied with that. however it's not we to happen again. i don't know -- i actually do know one conservative on the faculty. this is the university of the 113,000 students or so, there were 80,000, whatever it is. there's one professor, but this professor is an assistant professor and doesn't have tenure, and i know because he told me scared to leave so with out support, you know, a student -- you know, they would have to be fairly reckless or extremely bold to look at it to challenge professor. and probably in a department the are majoring in. this is a terrible situation. and i may direct for civil professor michael dubay endorsed

or i submit to the academic bill of rights to him when i first drafted and anything that he's a objectionable i took out just to get his support and he said it's fine with him. the minute i came out with, he had the most unscrupulous unprincipled officious attacked ridiculing and attacking me but you have to develop a thick skin so i appeal and said look, these students have no support. the doherty missed some professors to help force the academic freedom provisions for students. nothing. >> [inaudible] going back a little bit, i have a complex question and compound question. it's 2010. there's a lot of technology available that may render the whole going to a lecture with

300 other people come a bit obsolete or unnecessary. so my question is what is even the rule of the university today and also beyond that should all the students are now going to school be going to universities or looking for something different and also regarding the problem you describe, the indoctrination at what point is there a market solution is the economy going poorly and when people start thinking it's worth it to major in sociology -- >> too many questions. i don't think -- i think injuring students by seeing everybody should have this university education. some students would do much better in their lives if the had some kind of a technical professional training to answer that question. i think that some of this problem is being solved by

internet universities, university of phoenix and so on. but harvard was created in 1636 and that is an incredible history. i guarantee people will be wanting to send their youngsters to harvard. and these institutions are world-class institutions when it comes to the sciences. what's very sinister about this is that a radical element has insinuated in itself into the structure of the liberal arts and the can will feels like the studies and convert them into political parties where you have to subscriber to a radical political agenda in order to succeed, that is a problem that won't be solved, it can't be solved by the market. it's got to be solved by people

who are -- it is a question of restoring standards. in a way it is no different from trying to get people when they go to to have the credentials that allow them to vote like the citizens or not being dead. it's a similar problem to that and they have to reinstitute standards. if you are a radical when you hear the word standard you reach for your weapon. a standard is just another way of enforcing a racist hierarchy, sexist, racist and homophobic hierarchy. but the standards is really what it's about. >> time for one more question. >> i think there is nobody better than helping create change than the kids themselves, and in listening, you spent a

lot of time with universities, people and even if they sign the bill of rights i don't know how if there is a way to actually enforce the have been on the professor level. however, if students themselves are the ones asking for that kind of change and asking for the bill of rights do you think it might be more effective? ..

>> ask the professor to adopt a dissenting book, and if he says no, go to the chairman, go to the dean, go to the chancellor, and take it public. i'm hoping to embarrass the more decent element into the university into thinking about their responsibility as educators to teach students how to think and not just tell them what to think. i would like to recognize this gentleman. he ran for the harvard corporation. you had a question. >> your general theme, david, is that the university professors are often not teaching the way they should. my question is this, in light of that fact and in light of the number of administrators in the

college have ballooned substantially. a lot of those administrators jobs is to do things, as i see it, that don't happen in the classroom or aren't related in that way. in today's financial world, should the college reduce the number of administrators they have very substantially? my question is if they did that, would that have a positive effect on what you would like to see happen? >> well, as i pointed out, there are, and i've had personal experience with this. the left is entrenched in the diversity administration. for example, i would guess that penn state and other universities like it or spending millions and millions of dollars annually for these diversity deans and so forth. i think there's probably a good chance -- and for one case, one case a year, i think there's,

you know, probably you could get a lot of savings there. andrew hacker, what i have not agreed with in 40 years has written a book. the universities are out of control in terms of accountability. the waste of money is unbelievable. there's many ways to economize. i don't think reducing the number of administrators will help the problem one iota. this is a problem with the lack of accountability in the classroom, the lack of respect for students, and the lack of respect for elementary, democratic, liberal if you will, principals. >> one thing, they said they should have -- why don't the trustees do something. they are the ones that hire the president and all of the administrators. >> here's why. i mean the problem -- the question is why don't trustees

do something. i believe the university of pennsylvania the sight one has 90 trustees. i've had lunch with one of the trustees who said that, of course, any board with 90 people on it is a rubber stamp. anybody who knows anything about running a corporation knows that. secondly, he told me personally that there are five trustees that make the policy at the university. and they are all loyalist and grouped around the president of the university which is a far leftist at the university of pennsylvania and it happens to be. but trustees are usually, and i had a friend who when i first met him, i immediately started in on all of my university experiences. and he said to me, he said, david, i have been the chairman

of the trustees at a major public university for 15 years. i had no idea what was going on in the classroom. and that's because trustees are doing really important work, which is building schools, raising money, so forth. that's how they see their roles. in the second place, if the trustee uttered a word about what went on in the classroom, the american association of university professors, which is a marxist now, would be screaming it's political interference of the corporate business world interfering in our sacred, you know, temple of reason. that's another one. you know, at duke university, there was a terrible incident a couple of years ago where three white students were lynched, basically by the university president and his

administration. they were accused by a criminal who happened to be black and a pathological liar and a drug addict of raping them. something that never happened. since there was a particularly scrupulous prosecutor, attorney, he's a prosecutor i think in carolina. he was seeking the black vote. he was willing to demagogue this. these students for a year their lives were ruined. the university president immediately with no evidence, nothing, suspended them, suspended the lacrosse season. i will tell you there are conservative trustees at duke, they were defending the school in this completely unconscionable believable. why? because they are duke loyalist. because duke is a great

university. it has a terrible -- let's see it's literature department which has a marxist studies course where people who are complete amateurs when it comes to any of the subjects that marx was seriously concerned in, are training students to be marxist. that's the bad side of duke. and they have a, you know, racist as completely documented in the book by stuart taylor and casey johnson. but racist in the black study departments and other departments that couldn't wait for the white kids to be, you know, ruined because they were white and middle class. nonetheless, duke has world class divisions and medicine and engineering and physics and whatnot. so the trustees are defending that. i think it's no different from the -- you know, the cover up in

the catholic church over the child molestation. the institution is just so big and does so much good work that you cover up the bad. but the bad in this case is to return to the outset of my talk and transforming our universities into training centers for radicals and has totally transformed the democratic party which is now a left wing, socialist party which it wasn't 30 or 40 years ago. >> david, is there a reason why talk radio which is the major voice of conservatism, i listen all day, why don't you have a presence with like kennedy and o'reilly? >> me, personally? >> yeah. >> first of all, west coast. i can't come into studio. when i do my professor's book i was on five times. which was unprecedented.

where we outed billy ayers, for example. anyway. thank you all for coming. >> thank you, david horowitz. >> david horowitz is president of the david horowitz freedom have. he's the author of numerous books including one party classroom and indoctrine nation you. >> host: michael hirsch, chief correspondent at "national journal" thanks for being here. >> guest: thanks for having me. >> host: i want to talk about your book "capitol offense." you think this book is about how

an idea that what's good for big finance is good for america came to define the era and spiraled completely out of control. >> guest: right. my basic idea is that you can't explain the magnitude of what happened with the financial crisis and the economic hangover that continues that we are dealing with in the headlines just by writing books about wall street and what a bunch of crazy traders did. something this huge and systemic, something that infected the entire financial system and then the economy happened over a much longer period of time. that's what i try to explain. it's a narrative going back to the reagan era on how an idea that free markets always work. markets are good. government is bad. including government supervision. it went completely over board. in particularly with regard to financial markets which exists have always known behavior differently.

that was sort of all thrown over board. we saw the period where they created complex products. what people didn't understand, these crazy cdos, the complex products didn't come out of nowhere. there was a long period of gestation, and they were repackaging them and selling them. there was the combination of the process. i try to explain the whole thing, the whole narrative in my book. >> host: you say wall street became the master rather than it's hand maiden. >> guest: yeah, that's one aspect of the economy that hasn't been addressed or fixed. after two years of debate and discussion in the giant financial reform bill. which is wall street continues to dominate the time horizon of corporations, the way ceos think, not in the financial, but

the real economy. i think you can trace back a lot of our problems, the hollowing out of destruction of the middle class to the way in which wall street and it's very short time and the compulsion to speculate, you know, led to a lack of concern about any other aspect of the economy. we got to the point over this three decade or so period where, you know, the health of the economy even today where is the dow? and that's not really true. the health of the economy has a lot more to do with the social equity and other concerns that were simply thrown over board during the period. >> host: what do we take nor granted when we talk about financial regulation? in the book, you throw out the change of time. the gradual change in the money marks and regulation. we take it for granted now sort of how the over righting philosophy is. >> guest: that's one the things that i try to explain.

regulation oversight was not only out placed, but it became kind of a fool's occupation. it became a lost art. it's very character driven. i told the story. one of them is a guy named jerry, who was the president of the new york fed back in the early '90s. it was the first person back in 1991, '92 to warn about all of the derivatives. jerry was known as a plumber. it was a guy who knew how the interworkers of the industry were conducted, he knew about back room payments and when banks would get in trouble and not. what's interesting is his way of thinking about markets are lost. we got vested in the idea that markets will correct them. this is the alan greenspan. you can depend on the markets, they will top themselves and know what they are doing. they didn't.

the regulatory art of jerry corrigan and people like him was lost. we got into the period where regulation was ridiculed. there was no regulation at all and we only found that out at the very end during the, you know, the nadir of this crisis when all of the sudden everyone from treasury secretary hank paulson, and ben bernanke, the chairman of the fed, realized the financial system was something they no longer comprehended. all of the products that were all of the books that were not being monitored for seeking the system. that realizization far too late to do anything about it. >> host: michael hirsch writing in the book "capitol offense" --