Well, Conventioneer and I are now safely ensconced back in our little think-tank, where, surrounded by likeminded progressives, we'll try to sum up what we think of David Horowitz. It's pretty simple, really: he sucks.

Watching people get up, talk into the microphone, other people answer them with bad puns and appalling language, I lost interest in what was actually being said fairly quickly. This is obviously not a popular groundswell of a movement, the kind that would keep going on its own merit. No serious academic could take these accusations earnestly, and no politician worth her salt would, either. If this were a movement dedicated to making classrooms safe for all political viewpoints, why were all the wronged students not just conservatives, but conservative activists?

Nothing could possibly result of this debate, except perhaps that David Horowitz feels a little vindicated now that people - panelists, audience members, maybe even the unionized catering staff - left the last panel angry. Why is it a victory for David Horowitz to have angry people leave his event?

Rebutting Horowitz's claim, that there is a liberal bias in education - for instance, by pointing out that his argument is invalid because it's just a bunch of anecdotes - is pointless, because then he has set the grounds for debating the issue and defined the terms we'll be using. It doesn't matter what academics or socialists or what have you counter his arguments with. In his world, our arguments are wrong by virtue of who we are.

By getting drawn into discussion with this character we've also been diverted from some very real issues we could be talking about instead: Who is this man? Who does he speak for? Whose interests, again, do they speak for? What the heck do the bloody Scaife foundations get out of sponsoring this, and why was everyone at that event talking about how everything'll be better when the Republicans are in charge in the state legislatures?