Chemerinsky and the chump

You wouldn't be able to think up a more striking study in contrasts than Erwin Chemerinsky and David Horowitz. It was under rather unfortunate circumstances last week that interested Duke students got the chance to compare them up close. I say unfortunate because it marked one of the last appearances of Chemerinsky as a professor on Duke's campus, and because it meant David Horowitz was within 50 miles of me.

Chemerinsky, a well-regarded constitutional scholar, is a professor at the law school who will leave at the end of this year to become the dean of the University of California-Irvine's law school. Horowitz, a former Marxist and now conservative activist who has achieved niche fame through his criticism of liberalism on American college campuses, seems like he'll never leave, having already visited Duke two years ago to promote one of his books.

Outside of the obvious difference in politics-Chemerinsky is liberal, Horowitz is conservative-the two present an enormous difference in style. Part of it comes down to personality. Chemerinsky is essentially pleasant, almost avuncular. When people ask him questions, he lets them finish their thoughts, and his jokes are usually self-deprecating or goofy puns. Horowitz is abrasive and snippy; ask him a question and he'll probably cut you off to talk about what he wants to discuss instead. His jokes, when he makes them, are usually prologues to angry rants.

But it goes beyond that. Although Chemerinsky always looks a little befuddled, the second he opens his mouth you can detect his command of the facts of constitutional law and the state of the Supreme Court. His lectures are famously organized, and his speech went through current constitutional issues in alphabetical order. He is obviously an expert lawyer talking about the subject he knows best. You don't get the sense that he's trying to sell you something or push you in line.

Horowitz, on the other hand, never achieves that level of discipline. He paces continually and his speeches have no discernible organization. One sentence will send him careening off into an entirely different topic for a few minutes. He'll hopscotch from criticizing the Muslim Students Association to lambasting English professors for teaching about politics. (Fun fact: Horowitz's only formal education is a bachelor's and master's in English.) Although passionate, his defiance is only a few steps away from sounding desperate.

I suppose the greatest difference between Chemerinsky and Horowitz is that of the expert and the self-appointed expert. The first is successful and knows it, while the other is a failure but only suspects it. Chemerinsky has nothing left to prove and doesn't seem to worry about making a place for himself in the world. Judging from his quickly-filled classes and barrage of job offers, he seems to have pretty well established himself already. He doesn't really need to say anything about himself anymore. The speech he gave last week was supposed to be about his experiences with the law. After turning on the microphone, he said there was nothing more boring than someone talking about himself and focused on the Supreme Court for the next 45 minutes, mentioning his own experiences only tangentially.

Horowitz, on the other hand, is concerned with proving something about himself-his expertise, his intelligence or his relevance. He exhorts people to open their eyes to facts about Islam and American politics that he claims academics will never teach them, and proceeds to unroll a list of facts I've been taught in at least one class almost every semester. Throughout, his venom for American professors, and not just the few cranks who are true ideologues, is unrepressed. I don't think he's convinced many people of his importance, however. Since his C-SPAN2 broadcast from Page Auditorium two years ago, his imprint on the world seems to have diminished. His attempt to stir up our campus attracted perhaps 50 people. (Tip to Duke Conservative Union: Next time, have free food.)

I'll be sad to see Chemerinsky leave, because he seems to recognize that college campuses are the launching points for projects to improve our country. I won't be sorry if Horowitz doesn't come back, because he sees those same campuses as targets for attack, as dangerous and unnatural parts of the American community that should be sterilized. He fears and resents that there are experts out there who earned the name instead of giving it to themselves.