Freedom to Teach Lies
"The 9/11 lie was designed to sow hatred between the faiths."
UW Instructor Kevin Barrett, quoted in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 6/30/06.
Mr Barrett, who is scheduled to teach an introductory class on Islam at UW-Madison this Fall, claims that the US Government (not Al Qaeda) planned and carried out the attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon, costing nearly 3,000 American lives. Barrett has said that he discusses his beliefs about 9/11 in the classroom. In his own words "....we discuss the compelling evidence that 9/11 was an inside job....." (same article)
Absurd as this view may appear, Barrett is far from alone in holding it. A survey of Muslims in many countries showed a solid majority ( in some countries, such as Jordan, an overwhelming majority) do not believe that Arabs committed these crimes. Moreover, David Ray Griffin , a retired theology professor, has published two books that claim US involvement in the attacks. Barrett brought Griffin to speak at UW-Madison last year and is planning to express his views on the subject at UWM later this month along with James H Fetzer, who claims that the US military fired a mssile at the Pentagon and shot down Flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania.
Like UFO-fanatics, Kennedy-conspiracy buffs and Holocaust-deniers, devotees of this viewpoint challenge the accepted explanation of these events. Of course in a free country everyone, even a crackpot, has the right to freedom of expression.
The problem is that Kevin Barrett intends to invoke the credibility of the University of Wisconsin for his conspiracy theory by teaching it in a UW classroom. The University rightly protects the "academic freedom" of all faculty to teach what they believe, including unpopular ideas. Both the teachings and publications of faculty are subject to "peer review", which is in practice the evaluation of their scholarship by the senior professors in their department. The standard underlying this evaluation is that of intellectual honesty, which includes abandoning theories that are flatly contradicted by the evidence. But what should the University do when one or more faculty members ignore all factual evidence and substitute political indoctrination for true scholarship? What if the deparment, such as that of Islamic Studies, approves teaching the Big Lie?
Republican State Representative Stephen Nass and US Representative Mark Green have both demanded that UW fire Kevin Barrett. The University is reviewing his employment status in view of the uproar over his intention to teach his 9/11 conspiracy theory at the institution. Under the procedures the University uses to terminate an instructor (1), I do not believe that UW will yield to the political pressure to fire him now.
If he actually teaches that the US Government deliberately attacked Americans on Sept. 11, 2001, and this lesson can be documented (by tape recorder, for example) there would be grounds to deny him re-appointment on the basis of academic dishonesty. The Dean of Letters and Science could do this even against the recommendation of Barrett's department, but such a move may evoke a backlash from other professors.
The University, placed in a no-win dilemma by this case, is better off following the established academic procedures to the letter, even while incurring the wrath of many pundits and politicians, than it would be to fire someone for something he has not even done yet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) In most cases the appointment of an instructor is for an academic year (September to May) and can be terminated early only for just cause, such as deliberate dereliction of duty, sexual harrassment, or conviction of a crime on campus. The instructor is entitled to a fair hearing and the right to appeal. Many state and federal civil servants have similar job-security protections.
UW Instructor Kevin Barrett, quoted in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 6/30/06.
Mr Barrett, who is scheduled to teach an introductory class on Islam at UW-Madison this Fall, claims that the US Government (not Al Qaeda) planned and carried out the attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon, costing nearly 3,000 American lives. Barrett has said that he discusses his beliefs about 9/11 in the classroom. In his own words "....we discuss the compelling evidence that 9/11 was an inside job....." (same article)
Absurd as this view may appear, Barrett is far from alone in holding it. A survey of Muslims in many countries showed a solid majority ( in some countries, such as Jordan, an overwhelming majority) do not believe that Arabs committed these crimes. Moreover, David Ray Griffin , a retired theology professor, has published two books that claim US involvement in the attacks. Barrett brought Griffin to speak at UW-Madison last year and is planning to express his views on the subject at UWM later this month along with James H Fetzer, who claims that the US military fired a mssile at the Pentagon and shot down Flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania.
Like UFO-fanatics, Kennedy-conspiracy buffs and Holocaust-deniers, devotees of this viewpoint challenge the accepted explanation of these events. Of course in a free country everyone, even a crackpot, has the right to freedom of expression.
The problem is that Kevin Barrett intends to invoke the credibility of the University of Wisconsin for his conspiracy theory by teaching it in a UW classroom. The University rightly protects the "academic freedom" of all faculty to teach what they believe, including unpopular ideas. Both the teachings and publications of faculty are subject to "peer review", which is in practice the evaluation of their scholarship by the senior professors in their department. The standard underlying this evaluation is that of intellectual honesty, which includes abandoning theories that are flatly contradicted by the evidence. But what should the University do when one or more faculty members ignore all factual evidence and substitute political indoctrination for true scholarship? What if the deparment, such as that of Islamic Studies, approves teaching the Big Lie?
Republican State Representative Stephen Nass and US Representative Mark Green have both demanded that UW fire Kevin Barrett. The University is reviewing his employment status in view of the uproar over his intention to teach his 9/11 conspiracy theory at the institution. Under the procedures the University uses to terminate an instructor (1), I do not believe that UW will yield to the political pressure to fire him now.
If he actually teaches that the US Government deliberately attacked Americans on Sept. 11, 2001, and this lesson can be documented (by tape recorder, for example) there would be grounds to deny him re-appointment on the basis of academic dishonesty. The Dean of Letters and Science could do this even against the recommendation of Barrett's department, but such a move may evoke a backlash from other professors.
The University, placed in a no-win dilemma by this case, is better off following the established academic procedures to the letter, even while incurring the wrath of many pundits and politicians, than it would be to fire someone for something he has not even done yet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) In most cases the appointment of an instructor is for an academic year (September to May) and can be terminated early only for just cause, such as deliberate dereliction of duty, sexual harrassment, or conviction of a crime on campus. The instructor is entitled to a fair hearing and the right to appeal. Many state and federal civil servants have similar job-security protections.
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 3:08 PM
3 comments
