It's not like one need write any more about the pathological dishonesty of right-wing lunatic David Horowitz but, what the heck, I'm in an effusive mood today. So, once you've read part one a bit lower down, you can continue the story here where we'll disembowel the rest of Dave's rancid piece of excrement here.
Now, in order to really appreciate the rest of this post, we have to briefly jump into the middle of Dave's ranting to the following short exchange between Dave and Prof. Jonathan Goldberg-Hiller at the U. of Hawaii, where Dave tries to get chummy with Hiller at their first meeting, describing it thusly:
[I] was about to put out my hand when [Hiller] retorted, "I'm one of the liberals on your list." What he meant was my McCarthy list.
In short, Hiller was making it clear that he didn't much care for Dave, given Dave's predilection for slagging any academics he considers unacceptably left wing, including many he's never even met. And, whether you like it or not, that's Hiller's choice. But why is that brief conversation such a big deal? Because of the very opening paragraph of Dave's article, in which he demonstrates just what kind of repugnant human being he really is:
The story I'm about to relate took place on my visit to the Honolulu campus of the University of Hawaii last week. It is entirely indicative of the unprofessional, ungracious, and unacceptable behavior of many professors on our college campuses, in this case the chairman of the Political Science Department at this school, a man named Jonathan Goldberg Hiller. The student who invited me to the University on behalf of the College Republicans -- I will call him Jamie -- is a political science major. In anticipation of my visit, Jamie had asked Professor Hiller if his Department would be one of the sponsors of my talk and if the Department would host a reception for me. Professor Hiller said yes to both requests.
That's right -- even though Dave had clearly previously slandered Hiller in some way (and Dave makes it clear that he knows what Hiller is talking about), Hiller still offers to help sponsor Dave's talk and, furthermore, offers to have his department host a reception.
Think about that.
Hiller has, Dave implicitly admits, genuine reason to be mightily pissed with Dave, but Hiller still agrees to both of the student's requests. Oh, yeah, Dave, that's some mighty fine anti-conservative discrimination there -- when Hiller would have had every right to tell you to cram it where the sun don't shine, and yet still gives you the chance to have your say. Talk about a biased, closed-minded bastard. But here's the funny part:
I hardly need to add that the only professor who showed up for the reception was the lone conservative in the department whom I knew already and whom I had already met, and who as a woman and a minority had slipped through the conservative hiring screen.
Now that's priceless. Apparently, it's not enough for Hiller and his department to let him speak and to set up a reception for him. Now Dave is pissed because they won't give him a hero's welcome or something. And this is where someone should explain to Dave the real meaning of "academic freedom."
Academic freedom, Dave, means that, even if some folks arrange for you to give a talk, they still have the freedom to just plain not like you. And to not show up for your reception. It's their choice, just as it's your choice to insult them publicly when you've never even met them. Academic freedom, Dave, means it's their right to treat you like the total asshole that you are. If only one professor showed up, that should tell you just how popular you are in academia. And it's not hard to realize that that's no one's fault but yours. But it's the larger picture that shows what kind of jerk Dave really is.
As you can read from the article, Dave had clearly already insulted Hiller in some way. And yet, in spite of that, we have Hiller agreeing to sponsor Dave's talk, which even Dave describes as:
My speech, which was in the evening, went tolerably well. There were no pies and though there were some catcalls and a wall of hostile posters faced me from the rear of the audience, I spoke for an hour and there no interruptions. I was even presented with a lei.
So ... invited to talk, a reception, no pies, no interruptions, and a lei to top it all off. And in response to this hospitality, we have Dave, teeing off on everyone involved:
"... unprofessional, ungracious, and unacceptable behavior ... Why can't we expect the same professionalism and decency from our professors? ... This is really what my academic freedom campaign is about. It is about professorial bullies, so pathetic in their self-esteem, as to carry on a daily war against students twenty and thirty and forty years their juniors and over whom they have immense institutional power..."
In short, Hiller and his department go out of their way to give Dave the chance to speak his piece, and Dave responds with insults and name-calling. Yes, there is a lesson here. Apparently, there's little incentive to accommodate Horowitz any more. Bend over backwards to appease him and you'll just get slagged for your trouble.
If that's the case, you might as well save yourself the effort and get slagged anyway. The end result is the same, it just means you'll have saved yourself the trouble of pandering to a whiny, unsatisfiable little piece of shit. It's your choice.