Inside Higher Education reports that neo-conservative activist David Horowitz has a new book out entitled The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America that chronicles the “academic atrocities” allegedly committed by professors who disagree with Horowitz’s right-wing philosophy:

Academics who just view The Professors as a joke risk having their ideas distorted and losing credibility as Horowitz defines their work for large audiences of the people who don’t frequent faculty clubs. . . . “I remember McCarthy made up dangerous people lists too,” [Texas A&M University Sociology professor Joe] Feagin said.

“I never thought, as a 1930s baby who lived through the Depression and World War II, that I would live to see this country sink so low as to have public attacks on social science researchers because of their research.” Feagin said that Horowitz or anyone else is entitled to disagree with his findings.

But Feagin said that his conclusions are based on a 43-year research career in which he has published nearly 50 books and 180 research articles. Before Horowitz and his allies attack him, Feagin said, he’d like to know: “What are their research credentials? Have they done 40 years of solid research on racial and gender issues?”

An undercurrent of the book -- that Feagin and other scholars are somehow un-American for their views -- is particularly grating, Feagin said. “I was taught by my folks, and still believe in, the old American values of liberty, justice and equality. Are these now ‘dangerous’ values?”

I believe in free speech so in that sense, Horowitz certainly has the right and freedom to publish his critiques of anyone he wants. On the other hand and as President Bush said the other day (I’m actually agreeing with Bush???), with freedom comes responsibility.

As the article notes, some of the critiques in his book apparently border on libel and more generally, as Prof. Feagin said, where is his research to back up his particular assertions, or are they nothing more than just partisan ideological rhetoric, the very same thing he rips his opponents for? Let’s not forget that he’s had to retract past allegations before due to lack of proof.

In other words, Horowitz can criticize all he wants, but when he does, he needs to back it up with more meat than just his personal hatred against liberals. In other words, if he’s gonna talk the talk, he needs to walk the walk.