Questions: - Would you have him fired? - Should the school be forced to get rid of him? - Freedom of speech an issue? http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/21/Sept.11.prof.ap/index.html Teacher under fire for his Cheney-9/11 theory State legislators demand college bar him from teaching Islam course A letter sent Thursday and signed by 52 Assembly representatives and nine state senators condemns a decision to let Kevin Barrett teach an introductory class on Islam this fall. U.W.-Madison Provost Pat Farrell launched a review after Barrett spoke last month on a talk show about his views that the terrorist attacks were the result of a government conspiracy to spark war in the Middle East. After the review, Farrell said Barrett was a qualified instructor who can present his views as one perspective on the attacks. Barrett has said he thinks the most likely theory about the 9/11 plot is that it was an "inside job" organized and commanded by Vice President Dick Cheney.(Watch why Barrett thinks Dick Cheney authorized 9/11 -- 1:45) "I still have every expectation this will be a very positive educational experience for our students," Farrell said Thursday. "Some are upset about Mr. Barrett's viewpoints on 9/11 and don't want to pay much attention to what makes for a quality educational experience." Republican Rep. Steve Nass said the lawmakers' letter, which called Barrett's views "academically dishonest," sends a strong message to top U.W. leaders. "When 61 legislators condemn a decision by U.W.-Madison and demand the dismissal of Kevin Barrett, the leadership of the U.W. System operates at its own peril if it continues to ignore views of the taxpayers," Nass said in a statement. Barrett has said Nass was "only interested in name-calling and witch hunting." The state Assembly last week refused to take up a proposed resolution supported by Nass calling on university to fire Barrett, who will get $8,247 as a part-time instructor this fall. In Colorado, another professor has been under fire for an essay likening white-collar victims of the September 11 attacks to Nazi official Adolf Eichmann, a key planner of the Holocaust. University of Colorado officials concluded that ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill could not be fired over the essay because of free-speech protections, but they launched an investigation into allegations of academic misconduct. A faculty committee concluded he committed research misconduct and university officials said last month that he should be fired. Churchill has appealed to keep his job.
I think the legislators may be right in accusing him of academic dishonesty, but I think they should leave the university to make their own hiring choices. The guy isn't tenured I don't think, so I don't know if he'll be sticking around long anyway.
Universities need people like this. Even if he ends up being a total crackpot, at least a handful of his students will start thinking critically about important issues. If he did conduct himself dishonestly, if his position is completely untenable, then that is the sort of thing that should be peer-reviewed and not public-relations reviewed. If it's true, then he won't last long in his field anyway.
Whether he has wacky conspiracy theories or not what matters is if he is qualified to teach the course he is teaching. As a teacher at a State University that doesn't mean that he should give up his free speech rights as long as it doesn't interfere with his teaching.
It's ok if he talks about his conspiracy theories on a talk show IMO. However, if he is going to spread this message in the classroom, he better has proof. No one said he is teaching this in the classroom, so I have no qualms with him teaching.
If wants to stand outside in the afternoon with one of those doublesided billboards with 'Cheney planned 9/11' on it, fine. OTOH if he brings his conspiracy theories into his classroom then it could be a problem unless your class is about conspiracy theories. The article says "After the review, Farrell said Barrett was a qualified instructor who can present his views as one perspective on the attacks." That implies that he can be talking about this in class. I think that's a problem.
And I don't think that students coming out of colleges today are, by and large, capable of critically examining the complexities of modern society. I deal with these students everyday for 9 months out of the year, and very few of them even comprehend that questions like these can, and should, be asked. Even if students vociferously disagree with what Kevin Barrett is teaching, they should be expected to explain why they disagree. Politicians should not be part of the process. Like I said, the most vital course would be to let his peers review his research and his reasoning - if it's flawed and untenable, he won't last long in his field, and if he doesn't last long in his field, people won't be listening to him for long.
I hate to think what the "conservative" equivalent of this type of talk and teaching would be. Any professors out there teaching a half-decent Holocaust Denial, Eugenics or Confederate Apologists course? I suppose flagship public universty presidents are in a bind here, because they don't want to give the impression of academic censorship to prospective quality (liberal arts) professors, whom prestigious private colleges would be more than happy to scoop up.
Again, teaching conspiracy theory is unnecessary to develop critical thinking skills. The existence of a problem with students coming out does not impact that at all. Make them take a philosophy class, lol, or participate in an argumentation class. In addition, there is little indication that having a professor expressing an off the charts opinion is going to provide critical thinking skills. OTOH there is always the power dynamic between students and professors to consider. The influence as an authority figure is a reason not to favor professors spewing whatever crackpot opinion they hold in a classroom. In the end students are more likely to either adopt or reject the conclusions without critical thinking - neither of which provides the benefit you seek. I don't necessarily endorse the state legislature taking up the issue. I would prefer it was handled at the university level. However it is often the case that a priority on tolerance overrides a priority on scholarship.
Students today aren't having their beliefs challenged, and it sometimes takes something provocative to do that. I think that's an important aspect of critical thinking. And this ties directly into the world as it exists now. A challenge to conventional thinking based on current events may do more to inspire students to critically examine the world than a few American history classes and Logic 101 will do. There are always a handful who will engage in that type of thinking even with the most mild stimulus, but the vast majority, through the tried-and-refried pedagogical methods, aren't thinking at all. They're just memorizing because they aren't engaged in the process.
I agree that challenging established belief systems can be beneficial. However I think it is a mistake to propose that the best way to do that is to throw out assertions that are themselves not examples of critical thinking. There would be a much more significant impact, if that is your goal, by challenging established beliefs that can be reasonably shown to be mistaken.
Can one do anything reasonable with beliefs? I agree with you for the most part, but people aren't doing that - sometimes the provocation is more effective than the content. For the record, while I'm not convinced at all that Cheney or the Bush Admin had a direct role in 9/11, I'm not entirely convinced that they didn't have a peripheral influence (no, I'm not saying anything about remote control missles or the like - just pointing out that 9/11 turned a destined-to-be-lame-duck presidency into a political powerhouse with a mandate). I think it would make an interesting classroom exercise to bring the topic up. 1. Does the Bush Administration shoulder any of the blame for 9/11? If so, why? If not, why? This is much more mild than what the subject of the article proposes, but would leave room for that sort of response, and of necessity, the defense of that response. It would be an interesting question, and students would probably be interested in answering it.
That statement seemed fairly general and I read it as saying he was a qualified instructor for the course and that it was OK for him jobwise to present his views on the TV show as a perspective on the attacks. There was nothing specifically stating or even indicating he was presenting his views in the class.
Like I indicated earlier, if he wants to walk around with a billboard of his views in his off time, no problem. Of course I would find it amazing if this was his personal opinion and it didn't come out in his classes.
