Dear Editor:
ETSU Associate Professor of History Doug Burgess’s Oct. 26 letter to the editor contains several erroneous statements about the recent Horowitz speech and its immediate aftermath.
Contrary to what Burgess states in his 650-word screed, SID did not bring Horowitz to campus to espouse a conservative point of view nor to identify the proper role of conservatism in a liberal arts education. Horowitz was brought in for one reason: to help SID inaugurate a discussion of the current state of academic freedom on college campuses, including ETSU, and to clearly articulate why and how political indoctrination in the classroom violates academic freedom.
Second, Burgess is completely wrong about how and why the event ended as it did. I was well-placed to observe these events and I believe there are many eyewitnesses that can corroborate my account.
After having explicitly stated at the end of his statement to Horowitz that he had no choice but to fight him, a male student began very slowly walking toward the stage where Horowitz was standing. The audience grew silent, the university public safety officer standing against the auditorium wall began to adopt a vigilant posture, and Horowitz’s bodyguard began very closely scrutinizing this individual. The offending student did not respond to repeated statements by Horowitz’s bodyguard that he desist and return to his seat. Horowitz, much to the dismay of all including myself, rationally concluded that the event was no longer safe and terminated the Q&A.
Students still remaining in line to ask questions began to grumble and vocally express their dismay toward the offending student and he responded by turning toward them and flipping them off. Contrary to Burgess’s claim that Horowitz used the occasion to immediately exit the room, he remained in the room surrounded by about thirty persons who were either asking questions – many of whom had been in the line – or seeking autographs.
Third, Burgess states that several members of SID were stalking and physically intimidating this threatening individual after the event and only desisted after seeing Burgess near the exit of the auditorium.
This is a very serious allegation. I am personally unaware of any member of SID who did such a thing. I encourage anyone who has knowledge of this alleged physical intimidation to contact Chris (Strode) or myself with information on this alleged event. If Burgess is prepared to identify these individuals as members of SID, I encourage him to contact Chris or myself as soon as possible.
Finally, on occasions too numerous to identify Burgess uses ad hominem arguments – literally arguments that are ‘against the man’, i.e. attempts to discredit the message, by discrediting the messenger (via character assassination). Burgess refers to the motives and behavior of SID members, and of Horowitz, in extremely unflattering terms that even if true (which they are not), still leave the main issue untouched. To restate Horowitz’s main thesis: in many parts of academe, entire programs and departments view themselves as active agents in leftist causes who use the academic classroom as a vehicle for propaganda about what to think, not an academic opportunity to teach students how to think.
Paul Kamolnick, associate professor of sociology
SID faculty advisor

Author