Mr. Horowitz cites no evidence to back up this claim.  Professor Evangelista responds, “I have, in fact, not played an organizing role in any of Cornell’s anti-war events, but I have accepted invitations to speak at them. I do organize weekly seminars for the Peace Studies program, but these are of an academic rather than activist character, contrary to Mr. Horowitz’s insinuations.”

Mr. Horowitz claims that Professor Evangelista once “suggested that the terrorists were avenging the grievances of the oppressed.” (157)

His claim is based entirely on this quote from Professor Evangelista: “We should separate those who sympathize with some of the same concerns as the terrorists from those who are actually willing to carry it out.”  Professor Evangelista responds, Mr. Horowitz’s characterization is “a view that I have never expressed in language that I would never use.”

Mr. Horowitz states that “during a discussion of Iraq with Cornell faculty members, Professor Evangelista declared that the planned American bombing attacks [on Iraq] would make American forces look like “‘war criminals.’”   (158)

Professor Evangelista’s full statement contains  and important qualifiers that Mr. Horowitz leaves out.  What Professor Evangelista actually said is that if the United States were to proceed specifically with Operation Shock and Awe, “we are more likely to be viewed by the Iraqi people as war criminals, not liberators.”[3]

Mr. Horowitz refers to the “overtly one-sided character of his [Professor Matthew Evangelista’s] teaching.”  (159)

Mr. Horowitz cites no evidence to back up this claim.  Mr. Horowitz has never sat in on any of Professor Evangelista’s classes, nor does he cite any evidence from anyone who has. 

Professor Evangelista responds, “If anything, my students become rather frustrated with my unwillingness to tell them ‘the right answer.’  Instead, my teaching style emphasizes contending explanations for political phenomena and my courses air a wide range of views, including presentations by guest speakers.  Several of my students and advisees over the years have been members of Cornell’s ROTC program or serving military officers and none has ever complained about any political bias on my part.”

Mr. Horowitz claims that “Evangelista’s opinion will naturally carry great weight within his faculty, both regarding the hiring and the promotion of future scholars, for decades to come.”  (159)

Mr. Horowitz appears to base this claim entirely on his own knowledge of universities’ hiring and promotion practices.  From Mr. Horowitz’s credentials, it appears that he is neither an expert on academia nor an academic himself, nor does he explain why his opinion on these matters merits his readers’ credence.

Professor Evangelista responds, “This contention reflects a naïve and uninformed perspective on how such decisions are made in academic departments.  In my case, for example, I am one of several dozen people contributing to the department’s decisions.  Even if I judged colleagues or potential colleagues on the basis of their adherence to my own political views—a charge for which Mr. Horowitz would be hard pressed to find the slightest evidence—I have only one vote and there are several subsequent evaluations above the level of our department that help assure that such decisions are made according to the faculty members’ teaching and research qualifications, not their political affiliations.”