“Inside Higher Ed”:http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/05/09/report reports that some people got together and “went through”:http://www.freeexchangeoncampus.org/index.php?option=com_docman&Itemid=25 David Horowitz’s book _The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America_ looking for errors. They found a bunch, of course, but by far the funniest one was the discovery that “While Horowitz’s book promises a list of the 101 most dangerous academics, he actually includes only 100.” Inside Higher ed reports “Horowitz said that’s because he included at least two and possibly three professors in his introduction.” This stuff writes itself.
_Update_: Post edited to make it clear that the “that’s because …” quote was from the news report, and not Horowitz himself. (The report seems to be paraphrasing a response from Horowitz, though.)
{ 39 comments }
P O'Neill 05.09.06 at 4:07 pm
I thought he might have gone for something like “Ward Churchill is so dangerous he should count as 2.”
des von bladet 05.09.06 at 4:25 pm
It is in fact because he had to leave a place for the dangerousest of all perfessors, the Hidden Imam, patron saint and intellectual inspiration of the America-hating People’s Republic of Cambridge, MA and its west-coast twin Beserkely, at both of whose faculty meetings a seat is permanently reserved for the glorious day of his return, but the politically correct lobby bullied his weasely publishers into leaving him out.
Surely everyone knows that?
abb1 05.09.06 at 4:28 pm
Nah, it’s always a good idea to leave some mystery – for the sequel. I bet the remaining academic is so evil and dangerous that he’s gonna fill a whole ‘nother book.
BWHAHAHAHA! I’m back! Happy Halloween!
Simstim 05.09.06 at 5:54 pm
Isn’t #101 listed on the cover as author?
Jon Mandle 05.09.06 at 6:32 pm
I thought the funniest part was Horowitz’s reaction to the group’s plan to publicize their report – sending it to newspapers and such. According to the Chronicle, “It’s a political campaign,” he said. “This is fine for when you’re electing candidates or something, but it’s really inappropriate for an academic discussion.”
Dabodius 05.09.06 at 6:38 pm
Maybe he sees superadded to the one hundred all of them aggregated in a huge sinister Leviathan.
Colin Danby 05.09.06 at 6:47 pm
Jon nails it. There’s a kind of hypocrisy that’s so bald-faced it’s almost performance art.
but 05.09.06 at 7:03 pm
And doesn’t the quote that jon gave us in #5 also show another stable symptom of DHo’s psychosis:
That no matter how much he rails against the academy, what he most deeply, desperately wants is to be taken for an academic?
He writes a baldly political book–actually even “politics” suggests more savory and reputable standards of discourse than he indulges in–and then wants his gutter-political diatribes to be received with “academic discussion” and discussed according to those ground-rules? Is he mad?
Well, yes; he is. And in his madness, he imagines himself finally embraced into the bosom of the academy that rejected him, finally taken seriously, finally loved.
And if they don’t love him, then–well, then we get the ordinary infantile response of blind destructive rage, a.k.a. tantrums.
Not a happy man.
Adam Kotsko 05.09.06 at 7:21 pm
I think that if he had just said, “Gosh, you guys caught me — I guess I counted wrong,” the world would have literally ended. So actually, we should be thanking him for this.
Seth Finkelstein 05.09.06 at 10:49 pm
He could have said “Just checking to see if anyone noticed!”
'As you know' Bob 05.09.06 at 11:34 pm
Ok, I can understand how a book can be so badly edited that there’s a slip, and it’s “100” and not “101”.
But how can a human be so stupid that they admit in public that they’re unsure about the difference between “two” and “three”?
The stuff certainly does write itself.
theogon 05.09.06 at 11:50 pm
But how can a human be so stupid that they admit in public that they’re unsure about the difference between “two†and “three�
The concept of ordinal numbers is one to which people are introduced in schools, and, therefore, in no knowledge that depends on it can we be really sure that it is free of liberal bias.
reuben 05.10.06 at 7:27 am
Maybe number 101 is a pony.
Uncle Kvetch 05.10.06 at 8:24 am
That no matter how much he rails against the academy, what he most deeply, desperately wants is to be taken for an academic?
I like to refer to this particular malaise as Gingrich Syndrome.
Nat Whilk 05.10.06 at 8:51 am
Kieran: Isn’t it customary for the Y in phrases of the form “X said ‘Y'” to represent X’s own words?
Theogon: What school taught you that ‘two’ and ‘three’ are ordinal, rather than cardinal, numbers?
Rick 05.10.06 at 9:37 am
Nat Whilk:
Your snarky comments would be more impressive if they were substantive.
While I cannot speak for Theogon, I myself learned during my studies at the Rutgers Department of Mathematics, on my way to getting a Ph.D. in said subject, that ‘two’ and ‘three’ are both cardinal numbers and ordinal numbers. Certainly referring to them as ordinal numbers is not incorrect, and probably more useful in a context discussing counting as opposed to measuring the size of a set.
Nat Whilk 05.10.06 at 10:36 am
Rick wrote: “Your snarky comments would be more impressive if they were substantive.”
In case you haven’t noticed, this thread is almost completely composed of snarky comments.
“I myself learned during my studies at the Rutgers Department of Mathematics, on my way to getting a Ph.D. in said subject, that ‘two’ and ‘three’ are both cardinal numbers and ordinal numbers.”
You had to get to Rutgers to learn about ordinals and cardinals? I thought they were a K-12 topic. Every general-purpose dictionary I can find recognizes the distinction.
“Certainly referring to them as ordinal numbers is not incorrect, and probably more useful in a context discussing counting as opposed to measuring the size of a set.”
Um, no. For finite sets (like those we’re dealing with here), “counting” and “measuring the size of a set” are synonymous. Ordinals are for use in the presence of an order structure, which we don’t have here. (In addition to being allegedly disordered, the professors in question are inarguably unordered.)
theogon 05.10.06 at 11:16 am
What school taught you that ‘two’ and ‘three’ are ordinal, rather than cardinal, numbers?
See? Everything taught to you by the liberal universities is in doubt!
perianwyr 05.10.06 at 12:43 pm
Wasn’t he including himself in that number? Oh, he isn’t good enough to be an academic, so that can’t be true.
c 05.10.06 at 12:51 pm
An unsuccessful effort was made to order them, and great entertainment was had for a day or two participating in the ordering process:
http://www.michaelberube.com/index.php/weblog/citius_altius_fortius/
bi 05.10.06 at 3:02 pm
Should this be post number twenty-one, or post number twenty-first?
But if the book is indeed about the “101 Most Dangerous Academics”, then clearly there’s some sort of partial ordering of academics from “most dangerous” to “least dangerous”. Who said they’re “inarguably unordered” again?
'As you know' Bob 05.10.06 at 7:27 pm
There’s an alternative explanation, of course: perhaps Horowitz HAS mastered the difference between “two” and “three”.
Maybe what he’s actually admitting is his unfamiliarity with the contents of “his” introduction.
Tad Brennan 05.11.06 at 9:17 am
Never let it be said that I defend the indefensible DH.
But Kieran, I think #15 is write about the quotation issue.
I looked at the IHE article, and the words you quote are the authors’ paraphrase of DH, not DH’s own words. (Yes, in a sense that’s clear in your post, because of the use of “he”).
Thing is, we don’t know how fair or unfair the paraphrase is. The original defense may have been just that stupid, or it may not have. (I dunno–maybe the intro discussed a work with a long author-list or something).
To avoid falling afoul of DH’s specialty–hyperbolic indignation at imagined slights–I’d change the post a bit to make clear who is responsible for the word-choice.
S.J. Redman 05.11.06 at 3:04 pm
I am keeping my fingers crossed that I will be named to the 101st slot.
Maybe if I’m lucky Horowitz will have his ‘research assistant’ read my CV somewhere and I’ll suddenly become a threat to society.
Tad Brennan 05.11.06 at 3:24 pm
Thanks for the update and clarification, Kieran.
You are a shining beacon of academic integrity and intellectual honesty, a light to the nations and a lesson to the ages.
Honestly.
arden chatfield 05.11.06 at 3:53 pm
While I cannot speak for Theogon, I myself learned during my studies at the Rutgers Department of Mathematics, on my way to getting a Ph.D. in said subject, that ‘two’ and ‘three’ are both cardinal numbers and ordinal numbers.
‘Two’ and ‘three’ are cardinal numbers and ‘second’ and ‘third’ are ordinals.
DS 05.11.06 at 6:10 pm
I would number three as the second two and two as the third non-three.
But that’s just me.
The funniest part of Horowitz’s response is when he says there are “two or three” others named in the introduction. We sure don’t need an explanation about the title then, do we?
Maybe he should have called it “100 or 101 of the Most Dangerous Academics in America – with 2 or 3 More Listed in the Introduction.”
On bookshelves now for only 19 or 20 dollars.
The New York Times gives it 1 or 2 stars.
The 2nd or 3rd Edition to be published June or July of 2008 or 2009.
anon 05.11.06 at 7:34 pm
So.. he knew it was either 100, 102 or 103. And so he chose 101. Makes sense to me.
Eli Rabett 05.11.06 at 11:02 pm
Is Juan Cole the hidden professor?
Michael Bérubé 05.11.06 at 11:59 pm
But if the book is indeed about the “101 Most Dangerous Academicsâ€, then clearly there’s some sort of partial ordering of academics from “most dangerous†to “least dangerousâ€.
As a matter of fact, the book proves quite clearly that academics whose last names start with letters near the beginning of the alphabet are far more dangeral than academics whose last names start with letters like “T” or “W.” And Howard Zinn turns out to be not very dangerous after all.
Hattie 05.12.06 at 2:51 am
I want to be dangeral like you, Prof. B.
Brian Palmer 05.12.06 at 5:07 am
In set theory terms, assuming the axiom of choice, cardinals are just the initial ordinals. So 2 and 3 would be both ordinal and cardinal numbers.
Tad Brennan 05.12.06 at 7:47 am
“dangeral” is a word that has been needed for a while, like “truthiness”. Except in this case it has a very *precise* mathematical definition, as a vector product of pure ideological danger projected onto the political axis, resulting in a complex-number located in the wanker-wingnut plane.
All values plus or minus two or three.
Jason 05.12.06 at 9:33 am
But I’m sure that it’s okay that Time listed at least 107 people in their 100 “People Who Shape Our World.” I don’t think any complaints about that will be forthcoming from all of you.
Michael Bérubé 05.12.06 at 1:40 pm
I, for one, will defend Time magazine to the death. It is not for nothing that Time is called the “liberal Bible”; Joe Klein, in particular, is widely regarded as infallible by liberal bloggers.
I think it was brilliant of them to sneak an extra seven liberals into their top 100. And they would’ve gotten away with it, too, if not for those pesky Jasons and the Army of Davids. Fie, fie on you all!
huxley 05.12.06 at 2:18 pm
Jason,
You’re right, I am now willing to concede that David Horowitz is as stupid as the entire editorial staff of Time Magazine COMBINED (give or take two or three). Consider my complaint forthcoming!
huxley 05.12.06 at 2:27 pm
Well Mr. Bérubé, if that is indeed your name, that was nice bait-n-switch you pulled there.
First you were clearly taking about how dangeral academics were and then out of nowhere you say “Howard Zinn turns out to be not very dangerous after all.” And what does that have to do with anything? Howard might not be dangerous but he is DANGERAL! You don’t get to be the Decider about how dangeral Howard Zinn is … David Horowitz is the Decider!
You’re just lucky that Jason’s complaint isn’t forthcoming yet. I’m afraid he might write a letter to Time magazine about this …
Asashouryuu 05.13.06 at 10:00 pm
You have all obviously missed the point, and indeed the very patriotism, of system of numerologification. As is well known, the graphic representation of zero and its formal mathematical conception was introduced into European intellectual culture – along with many other evils such as ‘algebra’ and ‘alchemie’ – by arabs. This dangerous artifact of Islamofascism has been rendered impotent by D.H.’s new system wherein ‘one’ has been reassigned the value of zero, ‘two’ the value of one, and so on. Under this new patriotic system 101 now has the actual value of 100. Your failure to recognize this is simply another example of liberal intellectual inferiority.
Oskar Shapley 05.14.06 at 7:36 am
That no matter how much he rails against the academy, what he most deeply, desperately wants is to be taken for an academic?
Wait, I know this movie, Anakin Skywalker CRAVES to be a Jedi Master:
The Forcefessors: The 101 Most Dangerous Jedi Masters in the Republic and why they must be purged, purged I tell you!
Comments on this entry are closed.