Horowitz Accusers: Retraction Checklist
For two weeks, bloggers and journalists, both left and right, strongly insinuated that David Horowitz was spreading an "urban legend" – specifically, a story that a University of Colorado student had suffered academic persecution from her professor. The blogospheric consensus held that the student most likely did not even exist.
As it turned out, the blogospheric consensus was wrong. By March 14, the student's existence could no longer be denied. Many, if not most, of Horowitz's accusers lost no time in cooking up new reasons to complain about the story. However, the mere fact that they acknowledged the student's existence marked a reversal of their previous position so extreme that we feel compelled to call it a retraction (even if the accusers themselves would rather die than admit they retracted anything). All but one of the accusers listed below retracted. None, however, apologized. See the chart below for specifics.
2 Comments:
I will not make apologies for drawing reasonable conclusions from available evidence, or for vigorously engaging with the facts and issues. I did, as you note, post updates and revisions of my views as new data became available, and I think I've been entirely fair in evaluating the available evidence.
Nor do I consider myself an "accuser" ("questioner" is closer to the mark): as I noted in my post and elsewhere, these are serious cases and issues and should be discussed concretely; what bothered me, among other things, is that what looked like distortions of the record were taking place and that is likely to lead to bad policy. The record is much clearer now (though the case is murkier), and it is much easier to see what could or could not be done differently as a result.
Frankly, I consider this whole episode to have been quite productive, bringing new sources and details into the public discourse, and bringing new interest to the questions raised here and elsewhere about academic integrity and political activism. The facts may favor one side or the other, but having more facts makes the solution more likely to be broadly acceptable and effective for the greater good.
The episode is enlightening for the following reasons:
The original speculation of ‘urban myth’ came from a man who purportedly researched the claim, yet he apparently never went the source of the alleged myth, Mr. Horowitz himself. The ‘blogosphere’ then became an echo chamber of misinformation. Grand fun, but a little surprising and a very disappointing, as the cats in this fight were rocket scientists, lawyers, and Indian chiefs.
Post a Comment
<< Home