The whole thing, then, comes down to whether one believes that American university hiring committees are biased toward liberal professors, and thus taking action to keep the universities liberal, or whether bright, talented conservatives self-select themselves out of academia and into think tanks, big business, et cetera. I’ve seen little persuasive evidence for either, but the latter makes more sense to me, especially in light of the fact that hiring committees don’t look for party affiliation, and it would be near-impossible to discern in most disciplines. What does conservative art history look like, for example? Or liberal mathematics?

If what Horowitz claims to see (hiring committees vetting applicants for ideology and purging the conservatives) is really happening, then yeah, it’s wrong. Perhaps if he undertook a serious investigation, rather than puffing up any tangential bit of hearsay to bolster his case, he might appear less clownish. But as of this moment, it’s completely unsubstantiated.

Well, that depends. I believe in accepting the consequences of your actions. If the universities want to refuse to take any government money, then, yeah, they could also refuse to take any government influence.

Okay, you found someone who associates with Horowitz who is not, as best I can tell, a whining [insert gender-neutral term]. Horowitz is still a self-aggrandizing publicity hound who is contributing to a climate where anyone to the left of Joe Lieberman is seen as a dangerous subversive or even a traitor, and is in favor of the government intervening to make sure more Republican professors are hired. I thought this was the sort of thing those of a libertarian bent were supposed to oppose.

As for the "culture of persistent intimidation," I’d say that’s a bit overheated. Having spent more years than I’d care to number at the very university where Ward Churchill happens to be tenured, I never witnessed any such thing – though of course it’s improper to generalize from personal experience. Horowitz’s evidence has been less than compelling.

(At least I assume that’s what they’re alluding to, because it would hardly be an insult to compare someone to that most noble and wily and ruggedly individual beast, the household moggy, would it?)

I’m an admirer of said genitalia so don’t like to see the word used as an insult.

That would include John Bryant, would it?

> Conservative students may wish to attempt to argue with their professors, if they feel they are being fed lefty falsehoods.

If the only problem in American universities were what students were being told in the classroom, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. It’s a culture of persistent intimidation, sometimes — especially where Israel is involved — leading to violence. I thought that was the sort of the thing the Left were supposed to oppose.

"…and nothing, not even David Horowitz’s indefatigable activism, is going to change that soon."

Not to go all ad hominem on your ass, but anyone (I’m referring to the author of the essay you cited) who doesn’t immediately recognize the clownishness of a David Horowitz is, well, a whining twat.

Conservative students may wish to attempt to argue with their professors, if they feel they are being fed lefty falsehoods. But why argue when you can smear, threaten, and sue?

Check out this piece for a huge range of examples.