"This is an illiberal, left-wing college campus-students at this college only hear one side of the issue," said Horowitz. "I come as a liberal prophet to tell Amherst that this is wrong. I am here to give you a brief but heavy dose of the other side of the story."
Horowitz suggested that the all-college meeting on Sept. 11 exemplified the need for the College to initiate an active recruitment campaign of conservative professors.
"What happened on 9/11 on this campus was a disgrace," said Horowitz. "I went to college as a Marxist; my parents were Marxists, but Columbia University in the McCarthy era was a freer campus than this campus today."
Horowitz noted that the College employs only a few conservative professors in a faculty of greater than 160; he indicated that this is symptomatic of the intelligentsia's disconnection with the general public.
"I am encouraged that the American public has the good sense to support this war," said Horowitz. "But I am distressed that our intellectual elite and our future elite is in the hands of people, many of whom hate this country and who have no idea how the world works and who take everything for granted."
Horowitz spent much of his speech justifying the perpetuation of the war on terrorism, declaring that America should now target Iraq, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia and others in order to protect itself and the world. He also addressed Israeli sovereignty at length.
"[Islamic fundamentalists] are worse than the Nazis, worse than the communists. They do it all because God told them to and they think they will go to heaven and screw 72 virgins," said Horowitz.
Many members of the audience took offense at Horowitz's general statements regarding Islamic culture, leftists and others.
"As a Muslim-American, [Horo-witz] insulted my religion, faith, culture and heritage. I was horrified by everything he said," said Sabrina Saleem '03. "I think a lot of the things he said were unsubstantiated ... they were really slanderous, bogus remarks. Saying that Islam is a 'deranged, degenerate religion' was very insulting."
Last year, Horowitz made national news when an ad he published in several college newspapers across the country resulted in student protests. Horowitz addressed this ad, which listed arguments against slavery reparations, as well as his history as a civil rights activist and his current stance against affirmative action.
"Those of you who have read the ad that I put in the papers carefully saw that the intention behind the ad was to warn black Americans and other Americans that the reparations movement is extremely divisive and will hurt black people," said Horowitz.
Members of the Black Student Union at Amherst met prior to the lecture and distributed literature about Horowitz, focusing on his stances regarding African-American issues.
"It was important for us, as the black Amherst community, to be visible at this lecture," said Kayla Roberts '05. "We wanted to be in the front row understanding his points and making some of our own. And to a certain degree I agreed with him ... but the more I listened to him the more he turned into an angry, dogmatic, bigoted man."
As part of his anti-leftist focus, Horowitz spent a large part of his speech criticizing the democratic party's and, especially, President Clinton's actions in regard to terrorism.
"To save his own ass, Bill Clinton antagonized hundreds of millions of Muslims," said Horowitz. "[He] is the most wretched human being who has ever occupied the White House."
The Amherst College Republicans (ACR) and the Young America's Foundation sponsored the speech as a means of getting a conservative viewpoint heard on campus.
"The purpose of this event was to introduce conservative thought into a place where it is sorely lacking and that was done," said Theodore Hertzberg '04, executive director of the ACR. "We need not hold ... some sort of Red Room-esque forum to discuss Mr. Horowitz's propositions. The forum ought to be the College itself."
The issue of the disparity between the number of conservative and liberal professors on campus proved to be of interest to audience members, liberal and conservative alike.
"[Horowitz's speech] was politically provocative, without much substance. I don't think it was an intellectual presentation," said Professor of Sociology Jerome Himmelstein. "But [the tendency of Amherst faculty to be democrats] is an interesting question- why is it that intellectuals have tended to be liberal? If that prevents thoughtful discussion of issues, it's a problem."
Many audience members criticized the speech's breadth, claiming that the lack of a defined focus deflated the potential power of Horowitz's arguments.
"Amherst is in need of a vibrant public conversation about these serious matters. I had hoped that his speech would've been more substantive," said Visiting Associate Professor of Religion and Black Studies Eddie Glaude. "He had arguments he needed to make, and failed. It was more of a soundbite than anything else. But soundbites can be helpful, if they get us to talk."
Many audience members were frustrated with the brevity of the question-and-answer session.
"It's unreasonable to expect Mr. Horowitz to reeducate the entire audience during an hour-long speech," said Hertzberg. "He presented a perspective that is contrary to the orthodoxy that prevails on this campus. Consequently, there are now new ideas to tackle and new arguments in which to engage."
Horowitz repeatedly made allusions to Professor of Political Science Hadley Arkes as the sole vocal conservative professor at the College. Following the speech, however, many still questioned whether conservatives are truly heard on campus.
"[Horowitz] obviously offers some 'high voltage' views, without the calibration we might find in other speakers," said Arkes. "He spoke sharply, but his views were distorted and caricatured in the questions from the audience ... Evidently, he wasn't received on this campus with the same respect that is typically tendered to people on the 'left.'"