On the surface, Katherine Kersten's Nov. 20 column arguing that U.S. universities and colleges lack conservative diversity may seem reasonable. But by omitting important details and drawing illogical conclusions, Kersten has gotten the overall picture backwards.

She bases her argument on a study by David Horowitz. Horowitz, his Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC), and their tax-exempt patrons have had a surprising impact on our society. They wield their decidedly partisan political influence by using tax-exempt funds.

Kersten's institution, the Center of the American Experiment (CAE), is funded by the same conservative philanthropies that fund Horowitz's CSPC. The only difference is scale. Whereas the CAE has received about $310,000 from the conservative philanthropies since 1994, Horowitz's CSPC has received in excess of $12 million since 1989.

The two claim that after analyzing the voting records of a selection of college and university professors, an overwhelming majority are Democratic, and that this means that the universities and colleges they teach at somehow lack a requisite conservative diversity.

But a closer look at Horowitz's data reveals that it is incomplete, at best, and Kersten's claims about whose voting records were scrutinized is peppered with disqualifiers such as "those that can be found," and "those that can be established."

More importantly, just where is the proof that this alleged party allegiance of the professors has somehow affected their performance as teachers? There is no proof because the charge is untrue.

The dubious assertion that voting affiliation determines professional performance has also been used by other conservative-philanthropy-sponsored individuals to allege liberal media bias. In the case of the media, the claim is even more specious. A more probable correlation with the Democratic Party affiliation of a media person might be his or her proclivity to bend over backwards to give Republicans a voice in every discussion, in order to prove to his or her corporate bosses he or she has no bias.

What of the other point made in Kersten's column, that in order to combat this anticonservative bias young people should read books by Dinesh D'Souza? D'Souza's collegiate and professional career has also been sponsored by the conservative philanthropies. Kersten admires D'Souza, but many people don't, and for good reason.

In his 1995 book "The End of Racism," D'Souza preposterously argues that there is no racism in the United States, and contends that low-income blacks are "pathological" and that white racism isn't racism at all, just a logical response to this "pathology." In his opinion segregation was designed "to assure that [blacks], like the handicapped, would be . . . permitted to perform to the capacity of their arrested development."

Of course, we can always follow the advice that Horowitz and Kersten are offering. That is, if we wish to ignore logic and reason. Similarly we can advise our young people to adhere to the principles espoused by Kersten's exemplars of moral rectitude, Horowitz and D'Souza. That is, if we want them to grow up to be selfish bigots. For some reason this doesn't seem to bother Kersten. Maybe it's because her true role is marketer of the conservative-philanthropy product.

-- Rob Levine, Minneapolis. Web site editor.