Rather than listening to the arguments against the poor scholarship and and unwarranted conclusions of the likes of David Horowitz in works like The Professors and responding to the serious questions raised about experimental design (Horowitz, for example, has none) and breadth of research, Bauerlein tries to turn the argument on what he, too, groups together as “the professors,” saying we’re the one looking at things too narrowly.
And yet, how have the professors responded? Not by taking up the critical challenge and carrying out the analysis. Not by bouncing the samples off of the institution in which they appeared. Instead, they shot the messenger. They declared the samples isolated and un-representative, or they denied to them the symptoms alleged by the critics. The course description wasn’t a fair stand-in for the course itself, they protested. Ward Churchill’s post-9/11 rant was an aberration. The conference paper title was just a way to garner an audience, so let’s not confuse it with the real substance of the paper. In sum, they put the most benign construction on the samples. That turned the allegations back upon the people who cited them, David Horowitz, Anne Neal, and the rest, who were cast as sinister crazies pushing a vile political agenda.
Oddly enough, Bauerlein hasn’t ‘taken up the critical challenge’ either—certainly not in his dealings with the attacks the professors (me among them) have made on the work of Horowitz and Neal.
The heart of our criticism of the Horowtiz crowd is this: they cut-and-paste bits from Internet searches, add in anecdotal evidence, and call what they have done “research.” Even worse: they then have the temerity to draw conclusions about the whole of academia from these slight bits of culled information. The problem isn’t the samples, but the method of sampling.
It’s as simple as this: I can make even James Joyce look like a bad writer—if I’m allowed to show only the snippets of his prose I choose.
But that’s not research, and my conclusion about Joyce’s writing skills would be as ridicuous as Horowitz’s about college professors.
The academic defense comes down to this: conservatives and libertarians read too much into bits and pieces of language.
He’s right, but he conveniently avoids the reason we make this claaim: these are selected bits, chosen to support a conclusion reached long before the research was ever started. You can only draw conclusions from parts to the whole if the parts are representative. Because these were selected based on outside criteria, not on their position vis-à-vis the whole, they cannot serve as a basis for commentary on the whole.
Bauerlein should know better than to overlook this basic, simple fact.