Outils :Vous avez un site web ? Un blog ?
 Technorati reactions rencontre |
| David Horowitz | |
|---|---|
| Born | January 10, 1939 Forest Hills, New York City, New York |
| Occupation | Writer, Activist |
| Nationality | American |
David Joel Horowitz (born January 10, 1939) is a American conservative writer and activist. The son of two life-long members of the Communist Party, and once a supporter of Marxism as well as a member of the New Left in the 1960s, Horowitz later renounced his "left-wing political radicalism" and became an advocate for conservatism.
He is a founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center (formerly the Center for the Study of Popular Culture), and has served as president of that organization for many years. He is the editor of the conservative website FrontPage Magazine, and his writings can be read on news sites and publications, including the conservative magazine NewsMax.[1] He founded the activist group Students for Academic Freedom and is affiliated with Campus Watch. He occasionally appears on Fox News Channel.
Contents |
David Horowitz was born in 1939 to a Jewish family in Forest Hills, a neighborhood of the New York City borough of Queens. His parents, Phil and Blanche Horowitz, were school teachers in nearby Sunnyside Gardens. Horowitz attended Columbia University, receiving a BA in 1959 with a major in English, and later the University of California, Berkeley, where he received a master's degree in English literature.
His parents were long-standing members of the Communist Party. While still identifying as a Marxist, Horowitz, like many other left wing figures of his generation, sought to distance himself from the Soviet Union.[citation needed] In the 1960s he was employed as a political aide to Bertrand Russell.[2] At this time, Horowitz was a close friend and associate of Marxist historian Isaac Deutscher. Horowitz wrote a biography of Deutscher in 1971.[3]
After returning to the US in 1968, Horowitz wrote several books that were influential in New Left critiques of American society and particularly its foreign policy, including The Free World Colossus: A Critique of American Foreign Policy in the Cold War. Horowitz was an editor at the influential New Left magazine, Ramparts.
Horowitz was a confidant of Black Panthers leader Huey P. Newton, and provided legal and financial assistance to the black revolutionary organization. He would later cite experiences with his involvement in the Panthers as the primary catalyst for reassessing his views. In December 1974, his close friend Betty Van Patter, a bookkeeper for the Panthers, was murdered.[4] While the case officially went unsolved, Horowitz has maintained that the Panthers were responsible for her murder, which, he alleges, they committed in order to silence Van Patter from revealing the organization's financial corruption, and thereafter covered up the killing.
Other events that Horowitz cites as being influential in his political realignment were the impacts of the US abandonment of South Vietnam in the Vietnam War on the peoples of Indochina, and particularly Cambodia, which under the leadership of the Khmer Rouge experienced mass terror and famine, leading to millions of deaths. Horowitz believes that the far left turned a blind eye to such atrocities because the ideological vision of the Communists was one which they shared.
Along with close associate Peter Collier, Horowitz hosted a 1987 "Second Thoughts Conference" in Washington, D.C., described by liberal journalist Sidney Blumenthal in The Washington Post as his "coming out" as a supporter of the right. According to attendee Alexander Cockburn, at that conference Horowitz recounted that his communist parents had not permitted him or his sister to watch Doris Day and Rock Hudson movies and instead had required them to watch celebratory films about the Soviet Union.[1] His gradual shift to the right has been recounted in a series of memoirs and retrospectives, culminating in 1996's Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey.
Growing out of their increasing "second thoughts," Horowitz and Collier committed to a new cause, opposing what they assert is a baby boomer new left status quo in academia. Peter Collier wrote that, "there was only one antidote for the new orthodoxy: Heterodoxy."[5] In 1992, the same year as the election of President Bill Clinton, Heterodoxy magazine was founded.
Horowitz became an opponent of affirmative action policies, as well as reparations for slavery.[6] Horowitz also supported the interventionist foreign policy associated with the neocons, a label that Horowitz rejects as a smear. FrontPageMag.com, his conservative website, carries editorials from many authors who were and are strongly supportive of the war on terror and the war in Iraq. However, along with many Republican opponents of the Clinton Administration[7] Horowitz opposed American intervention in the Kosovo War, arguing that it was unnecessary and harmful to U.S. interests.[8]
He has voiced support for the Euston Manifesto, but has suggested that it has little chance of reforming the Left and that its signatures have more in common with Tony Blair than with what Horowitz calls "the anti-American left."[9]
Horowitz purchased, or attempted to purchase, advertising space in school publications in order to get his views and arguments across. Many of these offers were refused and at some schools papers which carried the ads were stolen or destroyed.[6][10][11]
In 2004 Horowitz launched Discover the Networks, a conservative watchdog project that monitors funding for, and various ties among, individuals and organizations supportive of leftist causes. Part of the motivation for Discover the Networks is Horowitz's view that leftist individuals and groups provide support, intentionally or not, for Islamic terrorism, and thus require ongoing scrutiny. This theme is explored in Horowitz's 2004 book, Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left.
An agnostic, Horowitz has rejected what he sees as the intolerance of some Christian conservatives towards gay men and lesbians. While Horowitz disagrees with gay marriage, he believes they have a fundamental right to privacy and that the term "homosexual agenda," common among right-wing pundits, is an "intolerant" one. He criticized them for accepting the claims of the Democratic Party that it represents gay and lesbian interests, noting that 30% of gays and lesbians voted for George W. Bush in 2000, more than did blacks, Hispanics, or Jews. [12]
The issue of "political abuse" of the university is currently Horowitz's main focus. He, Eli Lehrer, and Andrew Jones published a study entitled "Political Bias in the Administrations and Faculties of 32 Elite Colleges and Universities" (2004). The overall ratio of Democrats to Republicans they were able to identify at the 32 schools was more than 10 to 1 (1,397 Democrats, 134 Republicans, 1,891 Unidentified). With regard to administrators, they reported that they could find only 3 Republican administrators in the entire Ivy League. [2][3][4]
Horowitz's book, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America (2006), criticizes individual professors for their professorial conduct. Much of his criticism is aimed at those who are critical of Israel. Horowitz accuses these professors of engaging in indoctrination rather than a disinterested pursuit of knowledge.[13]
Horowitz and others promote his Academic Bill of Rights (ABR), an eight-point guide that seeks to eliminate political bias in university hiring and grading. Horowitz says that bias in universities amounts to indoctrination, and charges that conservatives and particularly Republicans are systematically excluded from faculties, citing statistical studies on faculty party affiliation.[14] Critics of the proposed policy, such as Stanley Fish, have argued that "academic diversity", as Horowitz describes it, is not a legitimate academic value, and that no endorsement of "diversity" can be absolute.[15]
In 2004 a version of the ABR was adopted by the Georgia General Assembly on a 41-5 vote.[5][6]
In Pennsylvania, the House of Representatives created a special legislative committee to investigate the state of academic freedom and whether students who hold unpopular views need more protection. In November 2006 it reported that it couldn’t find evidence of problems with students’ rights.[16][17][18][19][20][21]
On April 14, 2008, the David Horowitz Freedom Center ran an ad in the Daily Nexus, the University of California Santa Barbara school newspaper that stated, "the Muslim Student Association is a radical political group that was founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the godfather of Al Qaeda and Hamas, to bring the jihad into the heart of American higher education."[22] The Nexus editor stated that Horowitz's ad, while not necessarily the view of the newspaper's staff, was a protected form of free speech and the paper's advertising representatives continued to accept other Horowitz ads. Meanwhile, the GW Hatchet at George Washington University apologized for running Horowitz's ad,[23] noting that it will "provide more stringent guidelines for advertisements."[24] Aharon Morris, a member of the UC Santa Barbara chapter of MSA, gave a statement that ran the next day saying, “The underlying [message] is an ambiguous and perceived threat of a UCSB group being a terrorist organization. The ad is not only hurtful but threatening and could incite violence on campus. As a Muslim organization we should be concerned for students and the entire community. It is frightening and upsetting.” Horowitz responded in another article by arguing that UCSB's MSA denied that MSA is acting as a support for the jihad network, but, at the same time, he refuses to condemn the genocidal incitements and actions of Hamas and Iran" because MSA refused to sign a petition created by Horowitz himself.[25]
Some stories Horowitz has used as evidence that U.S. colleges and universities are bastions of liberal indoctrination have been disputed.[26] For example, Horowitz told the story of a University of Northern Colorado student who received a failing grade on a final exam for refusing to write an essay arguing that George W. Bush is a war criminal.[27][28] A spokeswoman for the university said that the test question was not as described by Horowitz and that there were non-political reasons for the grade, which was not an F.[29] Horowitz responded that the student had indeed received an "F" on the exam but had appealed her grade on the course and been awarded a "B," and that the questions as supplied by UNC were evidence of indoctrination, not education, as claimed.[29][30]
Horowitz also claimed that a Pennsylvania State University biology professor showed his students the film Fahrenheit 9/11 just before the 2004 election in an attempt to influence their votes.[31][32] Horowitz later acknowledged that he had not been able to confirm this story.[33][34]
In 2006, Front Page Magazine accused a Brandeis University Professor of including anti-American bias in his classroom. The Justice, one of the University's independent student newspapers, discovered that the article lacked significant evidence and questioned much of the writer's sources. The Front Page article also failed to attribute quotes and information that it lifted from the Justice.
Finally, Horowitz has referred to the case of a student named Ahmad al-Qloushi, whose professor allegedly responded to an "irrational[ly]" "pro-American" essay by failing him and threatening to visit the Dean of International Admissions (who had the power to take away student visas) to make sure he received regular psychological treatment.[35][36] His professor admits suggesting al-Qloushi visit a counselor, but for anxiety resulting from events that had happened to al-Qloushi in Kuwait 10 years before rather than for his politics, and denies mentioning the Dean.[37][38][39][40]
Horowitz has also come under fire for material in his books, particularly The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America.[41] For example, the liberal group Media Matters for America claims that only 48 of the 100 (not 101) professors listed were criticized for in-class behavior and activities,[42] despite Horowitz's claim that he makes "a very clear distinction between what's done in the classroom" and "what professors say as citizens."[43] The group Free Exchange on Campus issued a 50-page report in May of 2006 in which they take issue with many of Horowitz's assertions in the book and describe what they see as factual errors, unsubstantiated assertions, and quotations which appear to be either misquoted or taken out of context.[44][45][46]
Jacob Laksin has since issued a lengthy, three-part response to this report on FrontPageMag.com.[47][48][49][50] which, among other things, claims that Free Exchange on Campus misrepresents itself as being "disinterested observers". According to Laskin, "The groups comprising the Free Exchange coalition are chiefly distinguished by their partisan commitment to left-wing political causes and their support for the politicized and one-sided academic status quo." Laskin cites member organizations, Campus Progress (which Laskin claims is funded by George Soros), the American Civil Liberties Union and People for the American Way as examples. Laskin also claims the report "misrepresents and distorts the arguments of The Professors in order to attack the book and its author, and is not above fabricating evidence to make its case," and that while the report does identify some errors in Horowitz's book, they are trivial and "in no way affect the substantive arguments of the book or the conclusions drawn in the individual profiles of the professors included."[47]
The professors mentioned in the book have since criticized Horowitz. [51] Caroline Higgins says she finds it absurd that she's being criticized for teaching about peace and social justice. She also notes that she puts her syllabi online so students already know what her beliefs are.[51] Joe Feagin, who was criticized for his studies on racism and sexism, says that his conclusions are based on a 43-year research career in which he has published nearly 50 books and 180 research articles and asks of Horowitz and others: "What are their research credentials? Have they done 40 years of solid research on racial and gender issues?"[51] Juan Cole, who was criticized for his studies on the Middle East, says of Horowitz: "He is an ideologue and he has a particular view of the Arab-Israeli conflict which cannot be sustained by anyone who studies the region with primary texts and a global perspective."[51]
Chip Berlet, writing for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), identified Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture as one of 17 "right-wing foundations and think tanks support[ing] efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable." Berlet accused Horowitz of blaming slavery on "'black Africans … abetted by dark-skinned Arabs'" and of "attack[ing] minority 'demands for special treatment' as 'only necessary because some blacks can't seem to locate the ladder of opportunity within reach of others,' rejecting the idea that they could be the victims of lingering racism."[52] Responding with an open letter to Morris Dees, president of the SPLC, Horowitz stated that his reminder that the slaves transported to America were bought from African and Arab slavers was a response to demands that only whites pay blacks reparations, not to hold Africans and Arabs solely responsible for slavery, and that the statement that he had denied lingering racism was "a calculated and carefully constructed lie." The letter said that Berlet's work was "so tendentious, so filled with transparent misrepresentations and smears that if you continue to post the report you will create for your Southern Poverty Law Center a well-earned reputation as a hate group itself."[53] The SPLC refused,[54] and subsequent critical pieces on Berlet and the SPLC have been featured on Horowitz's website and personal blog.[55][56]
Tim Wise, self-described "anti-racist essayist, lecturer and activist" criticized[57] Horowitz in the left-wing publication Znet for associating with alleged racists, pointing to his acceptance of funding from the Bradley Foundation, which supported the publication of The Bell Curve, as well for running a modified piece by white nationalist Jared Taylor on the media treatment of black-on-white murders. When Horowitz ran the piece, he admitted that the decision to do so would be controversial but denied that Taylor was a racist, instead arguing that his "racialism" was an example of identity politics precipitated by an intellectual surrender to multiculturalism; Horowitz denied that he and his publication share Taylor's agenda.
In an interview with paleoconservative activist Chuck Baldwin, [58], Horowitz speaks of "black progressives who kill people" and claims that O. J. Simpson was guilty of murder and was only presumed innocent because he is black, stating that "It's very, very difficult to convict a black man for such a crime". He also attacked the United States as an "anti-white racist" country, while in the same interview claiming that liberals "hate America".
On conservative commentator Glenn Beck's show on CNN Headline News, Horowitz criticized Ron Paul's US Presidential candidacy. "I think it's very significant he (Paul) chose Guy Fawkes as an image...There are plenty, unfortunately, libertarian websites which are indistinguishable from the anti-American left these days - LewRockwell.com and others like that - they are totally in bed with the Islamofascists and have turned against this country."[59]
In a March 5, 2007 interview in FrontPage Magazine, Horowitz stated that "Ron Paul – the only Libertarian in Congress – is a disgrace. He has waged a war against America’s war on terror, in lockstep with the left, and against the state of Israel, the frontline democracy in this war."[citation needed]
In an interview with paleoconservative activist Chuck Baldwin, Horowitz said, "I grew up in a community that was part of a vast international conspiracy, just as the anti-Communists said it was. It was orchestrated from Moscow, funded by the Kremlin and it had treason in its heart."
 |
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: David Horowitz |
 |
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (February 2007) |
|
|
The external links in this article may not follow Wikipedia's content policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links. |
Definitions from Wiktionary
Textbooks from Wikibooks
Quotations from Wikiquote
Source texts from Wikisource
Images and media from Commons
News stories from Wikinews
Learning resources from Wikiversity| Persondata | |
|---|---|
| NAME | Horowitz, David |
| ALTERNATIVE NAMES | |
| SHORT DESCRIPTION | Neoconservative activist, writer |
| DATE OF BIRTH | 10 January 1939 |
| PLACE OF BIRTH | Forest Hills, New York City, New York, United States |
| DATE OF DEATH | |
| PLACE OF DEATH | |
