Althouse: "I predict that the controlled demolition of our corrupt two-party system by the 9/11 truth movement may begin here in Wisconsin this fall..."

July 8, 2006

"I predict that the controlled demolition of our corrupt two-party system by the 9/11 truth movement may begin here in Wisconsin this fall..."

9/11 denialist Kevin Barrett writes a letter to Governor Doyle after Doyle, who's running for reelection, yields to what Barrett calls "political pressure from your right flank."

This is a little political drama being played out in my state, but I note a more general problem mainstream Democrats face setting themselves apart from lunatics these days. The Republicans have some similar problems, chiefly keeping religious fundamentalists from weighing them down. Doyle is doing exactly what serious candidates need to do to appeal to ordinary voters.

26 comments:

Beth said...: Is Barrett a Democrat? He sounds like he's outside of the two-party system. I see no reason for Democrats to have to purge him, as he's not likely one of their own.

This topic reminded me of a similar dustup at my university. We have a tenured economics professor who is involved in a movement of people, some of them academics, who argue that intelligence is race-based. Their rhetoric is right out of turn of the century (19th to 20th) eugenics movements, right down to measuring skulls and facial features. He's tenured, so he's not going anywhere. I'd hoped our post-Katrina cuts might do away with him, but I haven't seen his name on the list of departing faculty.; 7/8/06, 2:08 PM
bearbee said...: Is he denying that the towers were ever destroyed, or is he claiming that they were destroyed by a secret government plot?

You can listen to the 4 part podcasts . See right hand side. In Part 1 he says 11 of 19 of those said to have flown the planes are still alive.

He mentions a Project for a New American Century memo Rebuilding American Defenses and says it "calls for a new Pearl Harbor" and for wars in the Middle East. I confess to not having read the 90 pages but did read the "Pearl Harbor" paragraphs - on pages 63 and 79. Nothing approached "calls for a new Pearl Harbor". I should read the whole of it to get the full context.......; 7/8/06, 2:33 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Elizabeth,

Wacko's cover the full political spectrum. However, I will postulate that the majority "9/11 was a terrorist plot by Bush/Rove/CIA" types self identify on the left flank of the democratic party. Yes, you'll be able to find a couple of Aryan survivalists in Montana or Idaho that identify as radial libertarians and who think the CIA did it (cuz the rag heads aren't smart enough) but the bulk of the 9/11 wackos started as Dems.

Pick another conspiracy and the center of it might be off on the right of the GOP (e.g. "Clinton took bribes from Marc Rich in return for a pardon")

There is a continuum of People trailing off to the left, including Murtha, Sheehan, etc that ultimately, gets too far wacko to be considered sane, much less Democrat.

But the Democrats have this problem. They need to draw some distinction between the "hate America crowd" and the "we think America is on the wrong track" meme.

They haven't had the balls to do it thus far. And you can only claim the big tent theory so long, especially if you are willing to purge on the right of the party (e.g. Lieberman). People begin to ask about the other side as well.; 7/8/06, 3:16 PM
Simon said...: The story says:
"In the letter to Doyle, Barrett acknowledged the governor's previous criticism: 'You apparently believe that I am incapable of performing well as an instructor of Islam 370 because I am convinced that the 9/11 Commission Report is a farcical coverup and that overwhelming evidence suggests top U.S. officials were complicit in the attacks of September 11th, 2001.'"

See, there's the persecution complex. Nobody is saying that he is incapable because he belives this whacked out nonsense; they are saying he is incapable because he proposes not only to teach it in a class, but to teach it in a class where it is utterly non-germane to the subject matter of the class.

Imagine if your lawyer was insisting he would close his argument in a major copyright infringement trial by talking about the Wookie Chewbacca, something totally irrelevant to the case. If you fired him for his insistence on mounting an inappropriate defense, how much credibility would he have if he dashed off an angry letter to the local worthless rag saying that "my former client fired me because he apparently believes that I am incapable of performing well as a defense attorney because I am convinced that Star Wars is the greatest movie ever made, and a jury will agree with me"?

BTW, look at the picture of him. Could you ask for a face more representative of the conservative stereotype of beirded lefty weirdos? Has anyone seriously considered the possibility that this could actually be a parody, an attempt to discredit liberals and U-Wisc by reductio ad absurdum?; 7/8/06, 3:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Careful, Ben, someone might believe you and you'll end up leading an organization of 1,000's, groupies and non-stop media attention. ;-)

I don't see what else Doyle could do or say after receiving that letter. If he ignored it, someone would eventually find out about it, and it just wouldn't do for it to be exposed a couple of days before the election.

For UW, this is fast becoming a lose/lose situation (if it already wasn't) no matter what they do. For Kevin Barrett, it is win/win - lots of attention and free publicity beyond his wildest dreams, and money coming into his non-profit, too.

For the students? Remember them? They already lost. If Barrett stays, the class will be a circus. If he doesn't, there's no class. It is too bad whoever did the hiring didn't do their homework.; 7/8/06, 4:10 PM
stoqboy said...: It doesn't have to be lose/lose. UW can allow him to teach a class, but call it something like Critical Study of WTC Collapse. Get somebody else to teach Intro to Islam - win for the students, win for Barret, less embarassment for UW.; 7/8/06, 4:25 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Faeless and Brylin,

relax. I might even be a card carrying member of the Rich/Clinton conspiracy theory believers

I didn't say it was of equivalent wackiness to Bush/rove/CIA 9/11. I just said that most of Rich/Clinton believers were on the right side of the spectrum.

I couldn't come up with a far right current theory. after all fluoridation went out with the Birch society and DR Strangelove.

Faeless:

The class isn't precisely Islamic studies. Here is the course description. I don't see any hook for contemporary Islamic geo-political theories in it. Particularly if the theory is that Muslims didn't do 9/11.

370 Islam: Religion and Culture. (Crosslisted with African, Relig St) I; 4 cr (H-I). The emergence and development of Islam; schism; theology; asceticism; speculative and popular mysticism; literatures in diverse Islamic languages. P: Open to Fr.; 7/8/06, 4:31 PM
Ann Althouse said...: Elizabeth said..."Is Barrett a Democrat?"

No, but he's pressuring Doyle, who is a Democrat, and Doyle needs to figure out how to not get tarred by him, because Doyle's opponent, Green, a Republican, has taken a strong stand here. Clearly, Barrett is a man of the left. Whether lefties act as if they are part of the Democratic party or not, they pose a problem for Democrats, and it is a very real problem these days. Republicans try to associate Democrats with such people. I'm not doing that. I'm being supportive of Doyle as he tries to prevent them from creating this merger in the public mind.; 7/8/06, 4:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Ben, I think you are on to something here. We could tag-team him, and then go on a highly paid lecture tour of college campuses to spread the truth about nefarious plans of the CIA & GOP. We'd could toss in a few links to the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) for additional conspiracy prestige points. I draw the line, however, on alleging that he is really an alien recruited from Roswell, unless there are really big bucks in it for our non-profit [wink][wink] foundation.; 7/8/06, 4:57 PM
Danny said...: 9/11 and the period that followed should most definitely be covered in the class, which is why Barrett would be such a terrible instructor. The letter to Governor Doyle makes it clear that his passion for teaching is completely overshadowed by his need to indoctrinate tuition-paying students into supporting his "controlled destruction" or whatever. If Barrett is capable of teaching a course on Islam, perhaps Scanner Dan should make a good Women's Studies 101 professor and Tunnel Bob could lead a course in Civil Engineering. The Snake Guy could teach Wildlife Management and Pat McCurdy can teach Music. I'm glad Doyle/Lawton are actively questioning his credentials (without the witch-hunt tone Barret is begging for); this issue should be Wisconsin vs. Barret not Republican vs. Democrat.; 7/8/06, 5:10 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 7/8/06, 5:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Good point, Ben! We'll need legal counsel, of course. Lots of it, undoubtedly. Are you a lawyer yourself, by any chance? Or do you think we could entice the good professor to join our conspir.. {ahem} organization?

Seriously, while those two letters you posted links to are funny, I think they also cook his goose. His contract with the university probably has a clause stating that he agrees to do nothing to cause harm to the unviersity or its reputation (or something along those lines). As a lowly volunteer for the University of California, I had to sign a voluminous agreement with paragraph after paragraph of prohibited behaviors and escape clauses beneficial to the university. The strangest one was that I, as a volunteer, had to agree to actively engage in affirmative action while answering people's questions about their dying lawns, wilting plants, and bug-ridden trees.; 7/8/06, 5:47 PM
Ann Althouse said...: Danny: LOL. How I pity the nonMadisonians who don't get the references. People, we here in Madison know every single person he's referencing.; 7/8/06, 6:20 PM
The Drill SGT said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 7/8/06, 6:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Ben, a couple of things that people have mentioned that I am not quite clear on (because I'm lazy) that you might know the answer to:

1) IIRC, Barrett is only a temporary hire anyway because someone went on sabbatical. Is that your understanding?

2) You or someone else said "LCA is in receivership." What does that mean?

3) IIRC, from my experiences at the UC, departments do the regular hiring and the admin. is pretty much a rubber stamp, like the Queen in England. It would have to be an obviously disastrous choice for the admin. to veto a selection. (I'm not talking about this specific case here, just in general.) I'm curious how the UW hiring process usually works.; 7/8/06, 6:40 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Ben and Ann,

is part of the apparent departmental incompetence that we perceive in the Barrett hire due to the fact that this class and perhaps hire is interdepartmental across:

African Languages and Literature
Religious Studies
Languages and Cultures of Asia

My understanding is that these joint appointments don't get the clear buy in that internal hires do?; 7/8/06, 6:40 PM
Palladian said...: Ann, thanks to the power of the web, we can all become instant Madisonians: Scanner Dan, Tunnel Bob, Snake Guy (courtesy your son, who holds the top rank on Google for "snake guy Madison" searches), Pat McCurdy.

It's weird, almost every college town has these same characters. I'm trying to think of the New Haven equivalents from my days there... Well, New Haven is a less colorful place than most college towns.; 7/8/06, 7:43 PM
Beth said...: Ann, thanks; I hadn't known Doyle's affiliation.

I suspect Barrett wouldn't be such a problem in my state, which is why I asked. The Democrats here are much more toward the center/right than I would guess they are in Wisconsin. Our governor would have already scored some political points off this guy by now, and no one in the GOP would have much luck trying to stick her with his rhetoric.

I can't think of a public university in this state that would have approved his syllabus, and with him being an adjunct, I doubt there'd be much debate about canning him, or insisting he stick to a departmental syllabus.; 7/8/06, 10:02 PM
Jennifer said...: Palladian - Yes, all college towns have these characters. Well, probably all towns do. Maybe its only in college towns that they achieve some celebrity.

At the University of Oregon, we had Frog and his handwritten joke books for sale. The silver man, living statue. And, bless him, but I can't find him, the-guy-that-rollerbladed-around-shrouded-in-a-giant-hot-pink-spandex-condom.; 7/8/06, 11:47 PM
Paco Wové said...: Ben-

"Receivership means that the department faculty essentially lose the authority to decide new tenure track hires for the department..."

So, 'receivership' sounds like a punitive action, or a least a severely remedial one. What does this say about the department in general? (And what does 'LCA' stand for?); 7/9/06, 7:51 AM
bearbee said...: Provost’s statement regarding lecturer Kevin Barrett
June 29, 2006
University of Wisconsin-Madison Provost Patrick Farrell issued the following statement in regard to radio talk show statements made Wednesday, June 28, by Kevin Barrett, who is scheduled to teach a class this fall in the department of languages and cultures of Asia:

"Mr. Barrett's statements regarding the events of Sept. 11 have raised some legitimate concerns about the content and quality of instruction in his planned fall course, 'Islam: Religion and Culture.'

"My office, along with officials in the College of Letters and Science and his department, will immediately undertake a review of his plans for teaching this course and his past teaching performance. We plan to meet with Mr. Barrett to discuss those plans, review his syllabus, his reading list and examine past supervisor and student evaluations. We expect to complete this process within 10 working days.

"Mr. Barrett is entitled to his own personal political views. But we also have an obligation to ensure that his course content is academically appropriate, of high quality, and that his personal views are not imposed on his students."

Barrett has accepted a one-semester appointment as an associate lecturer beginning on Aug. 28. This is a 50 percent appointment that has a salary of $8,247. Barrett received his Ph.D. from UW-Madison in 2004 in African languages and literature and folklore, and has taught only one other course since that time at UW-Madison. This fall would be the first time Mr. Barrett taught a course on Islam at UW-Madison.

Is the salary a reflection of his competence?

LCA = Languages and Cultures of Asia (I had to look it up); 7/9/06, 8:53 AM
bearbee said...: UW instructor controversial
A University of Wisconsin instructor under fire for his view that the U.S. government orchestrated the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks said Thursday he was confident he would keep his job.

Kevin Barrett also said he was elated the controversy has given his cause long-sought publicity.

"If these idiots had just kept their mouths shut, nobody would have ever heard of me," Barrett said of his critics. "I've been trying to get publicity for years."

Barrett, active in a group called Scholars for 9/11 Truth, is among a small group that believes the attacks were carried out by U.S. government officials, not al-Qaida terrorists. He came under fire after he spoke on a Wisconsin talk show and acknowledged he presented the theory to his students in the past.

After the appearance, UW-Madison Provost Patrick Farrell launched a review into Barrett's past performance and whether the content of the course on Islam he is scheduled to teach this fall is appropriate.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Mark Green demanded on Thursday that Barrett be fired for his views before he speaks today at a forum on social justice at UW-Milwaukee.

Well he made the Chicago Tribune; 7/9/06, 9:05 AM
Ann Althouse said...: Bearbee: That's typical of the way adjunct professors are paid. Presumably, it is worth it for one's reputation to work at a university at such low pay. For example, in the law school, practicing lawyers might teach a course. Clearly, they are not doing it for the money.; 7/9/06, 9:16 AM
Beth said...: Presumably, it is worth it for one's reputation to work at a university at such low pay.

Wow. For those of us who labor in the many undistinguished state institutions, the figure quoted for Barrett is not low pay. Presumably, if $8247 is a 50% appointment, an adjunct teaching two courses would make nearly $16497 a semester. Our adjuncts make less than half that, and in fact, our full-time, non-tenured faculty make quite a bit less, as well.; 7/10/06, 2:25 PM
Beth said...: Make that $16594, please. I'm proficient in math, but I type poorly.; 7/10/06, 2:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Ben: Thanks for posting that. For the sake of the students, and the reputation of the university, I hope they are correct about what will happen in that class. While I remain skeptical, as they have investigated the issue and bear ultimate responsiblity for the result, I must respect that decision and await that result. Under the circumstances, their courage is admirable.; 7/10/06, 3:07 PM