University President Dave Frohnmayer has criticized David Horowitz’s argument that “reparations for slavery is a bad idea — and racist, too” (“Our purpose is higher than that of Horowitz,” ODE, April 20). Frohnmayer makes three claims: That Horowitz’s purpose may be to sell books, that “Horowitz lobs simple catch phrases and slogans into a set of issues that are complex and divisive” and that “Our purpose is a higher one” than his.
Frohnmayer’s claims are not persuasive. He admits that he does not know what Horowitz’s purposes are. But even if Horowitz’s only purpose is to sell his book, what’s wrong with that? The University of Oregon Bookstore shows no guilt in trying to sell books every day of the week. Horowitz may be a typically poorly paid professor who only wants to feed his family. But more importantly, speculation about Horowitz’s purposes is an argument ad hominem and irrelevant to any assessment of his argument. He may have evil purposes, but his argument may still be sound.
As to Frohnmayer’s second claim, an advertisement for a book should not itself be a book. It must be brief and avoid technical detail. Just look at any dust jacket. Moreover, in this case, Horowitz does not “lob simple catch phrases.” He provides us with a full-page summary of his 10 premises. People who are interested in more detail can always buy his book.
Finally, Frohnmayer claims that “our purpose” is “higher” than Horowitz’s. But it is a mystery to me how he can make this claim when he doesn’t know what Horowitz’s purpose is. However, he does tell us what “our” purpose is. It is “to build community, to honor identity within community and to engage in thoughtful and respectful conversation.”
I’m disappointed to learn this because it has the frantic high pitch of multicultural politics, and I had hoped this fine institution would avoid partisan politics and would remain dedicated to the purpose given to it by the state of Oregon — higher education.
But times change and partisan political ideologies suddenly look as pure as the driven snow. The best that can be hoped for now is that everyone will understand what is going on. Not everyone will be pleased.
Students may be angered to see that there is an institutional conspiracy to get inside of their political heads, parents may wake up to the fact that they are paying dearly for the political indoctrination of their children, the faculty and staff may be insulted by Frohnmayer’s assumption that he has the right to engage in politics on their behalf, and legislators and the general public may discover that they are subsidizing and giving tax benefits to an institution that may be opposed to their best interests.
As someone somewhere said, “Any attempt to use the university as a means for the realization of putative moral ends subverts the very institution which makes it possible for individuals to understand what ends are moral.” Or as someone else has said more poetically, “A university has no mind; therefore, it should have no mouth.”