Cross-posted from Free Exchange on Campus.
It looks like David Horowitz is growing sensitive to criticisms that he cannot provide credible proof of his indictments of higher education. Today began what promises to be a series of reports he's calling "Indoctrination U." I am not shocked to report that the new series of web articles involve just the kind of shoddy methodology, incomplete research and illogical conclusions we've come to expect (PDF) from Horowitz's campaign. In fact, the only thing this study is able to show are the subjects Horowitz is uncomfortable with having discussed and analysis he wants removed from the exchange of ideas on campus.
This new series of web articles attempts to prove that there is widespread political indoctrination in colleges and universities by examining a set of course syllabi. From reading part one, it seems Horowitz's argument is:
- If the syllabus does not expressly say critiques of a theory will be discussed, the course is bent on indoctrinating students
- If one method of analysis presented for a theory is to try and apply it to modern circumstances and problems, the course is bent on indoctrinating students
- If the reading list for a course does not include an author whose critique of a theory Horowitz respects, the course is bent on indoctrinating students.
There are, of course, other problems with this study, beyond the arguments against the syllabus. For one, the syllabus, though generally doing a good job of reminding you when tests occur and making sure you know how to contact your professor, does not tell you much about how a class actually functions. I know it's a bit shocking, but the syllabus actually does not list everything covered in a class! The idea, as I remember it, was to present a general outline and some goals for what to get out of the class (or as students often use it, a study guide to remember what you were supposed to have learned for the final). If there is indoctrination going on out there, you're not going to prove it by reading a couple of syllabi--you have to actually go to the class and see what really happens.
Horowitz also seems to imply that there's a problem with learning about theories he disagrees with. Most of the courses he criticizes investigate Marxism, Feminism or issues surrounding prejudice and discrimination. Learning to understand what argument Marx was making and how it would apply to different circumstances and events does not necessitate a person agreeing with the argument. Given that a number of countries still purport to be governed by some variation of his analysis, it may not be a bad idea to understand what that analysis is.
Likewise, not even Horowitz would argue that feminist theories and theories about race relations, equality, etc. have no impact on the world we live in. I'm pretty sure he would actually argue that they've had too much of an impact. Generally, it is useful to understand the argument in order to understand and offer a useful analysis of what impact it has.
Here are a few examples:
His first target is Sociology 5055, Modern Marxist theory. His first criticism of the course description is that it does not explicitly say the course will examine "whether Marx's theoretical insights are valid." Instead, the description says in part, "this seminar is designed to give students the ability to apply Marx's theoretical and methodological insights to the study of current topics of theoretical and political importance." Applying a theory to real topics and real world circumstances is in fact a useful way to analyze its strengths and weaknesses. Again, simply because a course has a goal of giving students the ability to apply a theory does not mean the course is designed to make students believe it is the best theory.
Another is Black Studies 4650-30, Black America and the War in Vietnam. The small quote of the syllabus Horowitz includes states, "My intent in this course is to provide a view of the War in Vietnam from an Afrocentric perspective." Horowitz's analysis-"there is no justification for an academic course that teaches the history of the Vietnam War from a race-centered point of view." What? First, this course is not a history course-it's not in that department and it does not purport to teach war history. Second, it is entirely possible (likely in fact) that many blacks had a different experience with the Vietnam War than many whites. There are probably a number of situations where it was a similar experience, but that does not make it an invalid question for inquiry.
Another critique-this one of Introduction to Feminist Studies. "The very title of this course indicates its non-academic nature. Imagine a course titled Introduction to Conservative Studies or Introduction to Monarchist or Introduction to Evangelical Studies." First, the name indicates the course will probably investigate feminism. Horowitz may not like anything with this title, but that does not make the subject invalid. Second, the course ideas he throws out here are not necessarily ridiculous.
Presenting an idea is not the same as indoctrination, understanding an argument and its applications does not require subscribing to it and Horowitz being uninterested in studying a theory does not mean that the theory does not exist, nor does it mean the theory shouldn't be studied. Horowitz's analysis only shows what subjects he's uncomfortable with having discussed.