Horowitz at Harvard

Article excerpt


Horowitz at Harvard

David Horowitz is taking his campaign against slavery reparations to the bastion of elite liberalism - Harvard University.

The radical-turned-conservative author speaks at Harvard today about his new book, "Uncivil Wars: The Controversy Over Reparations for Slavery." His 4 p.m. appearance is sponsored by Harvard Republicans - an endangered species in Cambridge, Mr. Horowitz notes.

"The red-and-blue electoral map shows that this nation is almost evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats," he says in a full-page ad in the Harvard Crimson. "But at Harvard, a Republican professor is as rare as a unicorn. ... Diversity at Harvard obviously does not reflect the diversity of America."

According to "the leftwing worldview" at Harvard, "white Christians are a demonized group and discriminating against them is 'social justice,'" Mr. Horowitz says. "White Christians - and I say this as a Jew myself - built Harvard and created America's freedoms. But while white Christians make up 73 percent of the American population, they are only 17 percent of the population at Harvard.

"Like the exclusion of conservatives from Harvard's faculty, this does not happen by accident, but by ideological design," Mr. Horowitz says. Citing a survey commissioned by his Center for the Study of Popular Culture, he noted that only 3 percent of Ivy League faculty identified themselves as Republicans.

"Not even Sen. [Joseph] McCarthy was able to repress ideas he opposed as effectively as Harvard's hiring committees have suppressed the conservative viewpoints they despise and fear."

No babies, please

"[On Tuesday], as expected, the House of Representatives passed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act," Kathryn Jean Lopez notes at National Review Online (www.nationalreview.com).

"The bill is as simple as they get. It gives legal status to a baby who is born, literally, alive. The baby, in the circumstances the bill covers, is 'alive' in anyone's dictionary; as the bill defines it: The 'complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother' of a baby who 'breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.'

"But if you get your news from the Associated Press wire, as a good portion of the news-reading ... world does, this is what you found [Tuesday] after the vote: Headline: 'House OKs Fetus Protection Bill.' First sentence: 'The House voted Tuesday to define a fetus that is fully outside a woman's body as having been "born alive," which would give the fetus legal protection.'

"But, wait, you say, didn't [National Review] just report this was about babies born alive? What's this about a fetus?

"Well, evidently the AP stylebook defines all babies as fetuses. Maybe Peter Singer wrote the handbook?" Mr. Singer is a Yale University philosophy professor who has argued in defense of infanticide.

Consistently unhinged

"Say this much for filmmaker Michael Moore: His fury at George W. Bush is not only consistent, it is consistently unhinged," writes Vincent Carroll, editor of the editorial pages at the Rocky Mountain News.

"At his book signing Saturday at the LoDo Tattered Cover [in Denver], Moore actually referred to Bush as 'bin Bush,' according to the News' Jeff Kass. Get it? Apparently you had to be there to savor a comparison between the president and a mass-murdering terrorist, as well as appreciate the many other crude, off-the-wall observations from Moore," Mr. Carroll said.

"The large crowd in attendance reportedly reveled at Moore's insights. And they will no doubt also love Moore's new book, 'Stupid White Men . …