Other subjects: Ken Lay's escape from punishment via death, whether North Korea is just trying to get attention, biased coverage on NPR, whether George Bush's visit to Wisconsin will help gubernatorial candidate Mark Green, immigration policy, the two same-sex marriage cases that came out yesterday.
Ah, the archived show can be streamed here now (the 8 a.m. show). Listen!
IN THE COMMENTS: Lot's of good stuff, but I especially love this one -- from Mitch -- about teaching 9/11 denial:
Can we look forward to UWM's Chemistry department offering courses in Phlogiston Theory, or maybe the Almegest will be used as the introductory astronomy text. And let us not forget to include the Progessive teachings of Lysenko in the Biology department. I mean, it's only fair to include opposing viewpoints in the interest of academic freedom.
Barrett's big mistake was wandering from the safe areas of moonbattery and conspiracy theories into the dangerous places where scientific falsifiability can strike down the unwary crackpot. Yes, you are entitled to your opinions and points of view, but you are not entitled to teach what has been proven false. Otherwise, what is the point of teaching anything at all?
पोस्ट्स
७१ टिप्पण्या:
There is a pretty comprehensive set of summaries of the work of actual engineers (instead of intro-to-Islam scholars) on the reasons for the collapse of the towers. See: http://wtc.nist.gov/
It had to do much more with the failure of various joints that the melting of the building's steel.
What perplexes me, Ann, is that they chose you as the conservative voice.
Don't you consider yourself a centrist?
Elliot: They just asked me to do the show and I said yes. They didn't ask me to be the conservative.
I just listened to the recording and am glad I didn't sound as over-the-top passionate as I felt talking about 9/11 denial -- and also the stuff about North Korea. The other guest, Fortis, took such a carefree attitude about things that it really riled me.
Note that I was in the studio and Fortis was on the telephone. You have to hold back from being overpowering when you have that purely technical advantage, which includes not only sound quality but eye contact with the host.
I've listened to the show, and one caller said the teacher only planned to "talk about" the theory, rather than to advocate it.
This would be a very different thing--the difference, e.g., between a history of religion course and a course teaching that religious beliefs are correct.
Ann, is there any info at the University to let us know what the teacher actually plans to teach on all this?
JohnF: Read my earlier post and the links it contains. What you need to know is that the teacher has been very actively promoting the theory in the political sphere and that he is assigning his own book Barrett, Cobb and Lubarsky, eds. 9/11 and the American Empire: Christians, Jews and Muslims Speak Out. Northampton, MA: Interlink, 2006.
It's conceivable that he could still, as a teacher, present it neutrally, just as a university teacher on religion could teach the religion he believes in. My problem is that the teacher believes a crackpot, ridiculous theory and he's using a class on Islam to teach his theory. It's like being hired to teach astronomy and covering astrology and actually being someone who believes in astrology. I feel sorry for the students who think it's worth their time to engage with this material and to subject themselves to the power of someone who would believe something so nutty.
He's the founder of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance, "which claims the Bush administration planned the attacks to create a war between Muslims and Christians. He argues that members of the faiths must work together to overcome the belief that terrorists were to blame." The quote is linked at the earlier post of mine.
Make sure you understand what the theory is: that the government planted explosives in the WTC and brought the buildings down. Do you send you children to college to spend their precious time engaging with nonsense like that?
Mark: Do you not think that the university has some responsibility to its students to staff the courses with teachers who will refrain from requiring students to study the teacher's crackpot pet theory (and to buy the teacher's book on the subject)? Do you not think the university offering a course on Islam ought not to hire a person who will connect Islam to a belief in a political conspiracy that is no part of Islam? I said over and over again that the subject of censorship is a smokescreen. Address the issue I raised: the responsibility of a university.
Ann: "the responsibility of a university" in its hiring practices is a subject that interests me, at least, but I'm not convinced that we can have one because of the reflexive need to divert any discussion into a debate about academic freedom and free speech.
It seems to me that the university did little or no background check before hiring this individual, and shirked their responsibility to the students (and the taxpayers) when they chose such an extremist, even though his is a temporary position.
Had the university selected someone who published a book arguing that years of SAT test results demonstrate that, as a rule, black people are not as intelligent as white people and whites not as intelligent as Asians, I doubt many people would be arguing he or she was a legitimate choice.
I think there is logic in Ann's point from the broadcast, which is that this is a sort of contract issue (what was the guy hired to teach?) rather than a 1st amendment issue.
Of course, there are fuzzy borders here, but I can't believe the administration hired him to teach, in a course on Islam, that the U.S. wired the Trade Center-- any more than it hired him to teach that Jews were descended from swine, etc., etc.
Wow, Ann. I just became a huge fan of yours after listening to the show. I don't always agree with you, but you are, in my opinion, exactly right on this, and you articulate your points very well, despite your obvious passion.
Free speech, the right to advance crackpot theories, the fact that more than a few people agree with said crackpot theory, are all beside the point here. Promotion of this idea does not belong in an Introduction to Islam course.
One can not deny the importance of understanding Islam at this moment is time. Many of us highly educated people are ignorant about Islam-at least I am. To have such content in an Introduction to Islam course will discourage many students from taking the course, and will in fact skew the course composition in favor of adherents to radical and preposterous ideas.
I know this idea is out there-it can't be supressed, and that's fine. Anyone who wants to can buy Barrett's book. I wouldn't go so fa as to say that this idea has no place in a university curriculum, that it should not be explored and debated. But it has no place in an Introduction to Islam class. Hell, I have to wonder,if thisis Barrett's idea of an approptiate topic for such a course, exactly what version if Islam is he teaching?
Fortis accused you of censoring Barrett's class. Does he deny that there should be some consensus on the curriculum, especially for introductory or required courses? Is there some body of knowledge that most of us agree should be considered essential for university graduates to have? I'm a professor, and I serve on the curriculum committee for my department and at the university level. If we are to agree with Fortis that we can not advise and recommend in matters of course content, then I'll gladly take back my four hours per month of committee service.
Lets, for a moment, consider that the theory is true - that Bush and Co. somehow planned and executed the destruction of the towers on 9/11. The next question would naturally be - to what end?
The theorist will tell you 9/11 was perpetrated on the American people and the world to give us a reason to invade the Middle East, so Cheney and Haliburton could steal the oil, and reshape the region into an imperial outpost. Plus Bush was obsessed with getting Saddam, because, after all, Saddam tried to kill Papa Bush, so the invasion of Iraq would be the ultimate payback. But if the conquest of Iraq was so vital to Bush's motivation, since the Bush cabal was behind the events of 9/11, why wouldn't they structure the events to directly implicate Saddam's hand behind the attack? And surely they could have planted some WMD's during the run up to the war, that would be found during the invasion, giving the Iraq action even more validation. What about the anthrax attacks. There are people who pin that on the Bush cabal as well (my little brother sent me this - don't know if he subscribes, but his wife does). So again I ask: if the Bush's were so smart, cunning, and all powerful to pull these atrocities off, why didn't they bother to connect / concoct the evidence that would directly implicate the desired target, Saddam Hussein???
I'm just askin'.
I thought that the radio program was fairly out of balance in a couple of areas.
1. Overall Imbalance: I guess what passes for balance on NPR is a middle of the Road Democrat representing conservatives. Fortis, a self described 60's radical, former Democratic pol representing liberals.
2. Agenda: I think Fortis clearly had an agenda, turning most issues into something anti-GOP. Ann was on different sides on different issues. Sometimes taking a position in opposition to Fortis, sometimes agreeing.
BTW: Welcome to new Althouse readers that may have arrived today via the WPR show referral.
I agree with Mark, that it seems to me that a teaching department has a duty and obiligation to oversee course material and instructional techniques in all its courses with several clear distinctions.
1. TA's, Adjuncts and lecturers deserve more scrutiny than full tenured professors. Barrett is a new, temporary lecturer. He should stick to the standard sylabus
2. Introductory and core courses deserve more oversight than graduate level electives. Because they are both required, and provide the basis for advanced material, they must be more uniform in their approach.
Rafinlay: I would use a stronger example. Creationism is relatively benign. Why not allow Neo-nazi's to diverge from Western Civ to teach the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Or Ex-Keagles diverge from a biology or genetics class to teach race theory?
Those are uglier examples, but closer to the wackiness of WRC as a CIA/Zionist plot. And just as valid.
Yes, Mike: Mike. though I have no great issue with Mark's last posting.
Rethinking my examples after considering mike's last post, maybe the ID example in a biology class is more akin to teaching structural engineering in a religion class. That is to say mixing the provable with unknowable and vice versa.
My examples of Nazis and KKK had the right threat to it, but didn't have the right juxtaposition of science and religion (sort of) in the same example.
perhaps reversing my examples and teaching the Elders in a genetics class and racial classification in Western Civ is closer to the correct alignment.
Mixing Faith and pseudo-science are at the heart of the problem in the Barrett case.
I think this theory should be taught in intro to chemistry, too. After all, if Islam makes bombers (out of believers or infidels) chemicals make bombs.
Another Mark wrote: I am not pretending I am necessarily right.
I am not pretending Mark's right either.
It's bizarre, this idea that it is impossible to determine whether or not a theory may be justifiably labeled "crackpot". Obvious examples are the aforementioned 2+2=5 and holocaust denial.
Accepting the idea also seems to lead people to the conclusion that the ONE thing you absolutely must not use select professors is what they actually teach. Now there's a crackpot theory.
This is an interesting topic and an interesting set of comments.
I think the radio program implicitly brought out the poverty of Fortris's position - which is probably the mainstream one in arts, humanities and social sciences (AH&SS) academic circles.
(Note: I take 'science' to include all systematic bodies of knowledge - including not just natural sciences but economics, linguistics, music theory, history, law, political science, quantitative sociology and similar.)
These problems don't arise in sciences or professional training subjects (medicine, engineering) - where it is usually pretty clear what needs to be taught, and the difficulties are in the business of teaching, of transmitting knowledge and skills - and maintaining motivation while doing so.
In the longer term, the arguments of Fortris et al. that defend self-indulgence and propaganda may convince AH&SS academics but they do not convince anyone else. Debating worthless theories with fools does not seem a useful way to spend 4 years and a lot of tuition money - it makes a lot more sense to study sciences - and that is what I think will happen.
I think the decades-long crisis of AH&SS will be terminal. Future undergraduate colleges and universities will increasingly focus on teaching science which is (I would argue) the best 'general education' for the modern world.
Drill Sgt: Joy Cardine is on WPR, not NPR. WPR shows cover so many different things: farming, weather, cheese, cows, pets, ... that aren't political. Unlike NPR
As for Barrett, I think the Mark that posted this is right:
I think the university should simply not renew the contract with this professor, if the univerisity decides that his teaching style does not advance the best interests of students. I'll have no problem whatsoever with his contract not being renewed.
While I generally agree with the dangers mentioned in Ben Wallace's comment (in essence the dreaded "slippery slope" argument), some things are just to beyond the pale (teaching neo-Nazi or white supremacist theories of racial supremacy as fact, teaching creationism as science) that there actually is a time and place to stand up, be counted, and say "Enough!" In this case, however, I think the message has been delivered and the best solution is not renew the contract.
It is unfortunate that politicians are demagoging this, but that is the way of most politicians.
The other Mark wrote: ...if the univerisity decides that his teaching style does not advance the best interests of students. I'll have no problem whatsoever with his contract not being renewed.
So they can fire a teacher if his style does not advance the interests of the students, but not if the content does not advance their interests? Right.
And if no theory can be objectively labeled "crackpot," how can a teaching style be determined to be objectively bad for students? Isn't that a bit inconsistent?
I'm listening to the stream right now.
Fortis characterized your objection as "censoring" the course? Why? No one's saying "muzzle Barrett". No one's saying he can't publish his theories online, or in a book. No one's saying that he can't give a presentation on the topic in an appropriate class. They're saying "why's he teaching this in a course on Islam?" Look... I give ground to no one in my beliefs and defense of free speech. But that's not the issue here!!!. The issue is the appropriateness of what Barrett is teaching given what course he's responsible for. Let's put aside the fact that he's pushing a crackpot theory. The point is that no one's preventing him from discussing it elsewhere.
And Fortis really thinks that Barrett's course would be a give-and-take on whether the course material is right or not? He really believes that?? Fortis can keep coming back to that 'let's throw this (idea) out there and if it's a crock, it'll get torn apart' (paraphrase, not quote) line, but let's understand one thing: The professor/student relationship is not equal!!! How is a student supposed to challenge the authority of the instructor? Because that's exactly what's happening when someone contradicts what the instructor is teaching as fact.
I don't want to think ill of Fortis, but he seems to be a bit purposefully naive, nearly Pollyannaish on that subject.
I'm debating taking this course. It's rather relevant to my major and the course material as a whole seems interesting and the subject cannot be more pertinent. If I have room in my schedule I might squeeze it in and see what the fuss is all about.
"Barrett sees himself as increasing the ability of the American people to better understand the meaning of Islam."
9/11
"Kevin Barrett will discuss strategies for turning the 9/11 psychological warfare operation against its perpetrators, and using 9/11 truth as a "magic bullet" that could demilitarize the American economy, overthrow corrupt elites, turn attention and resources toward pressing environmental concerns, and usher in a new era of peace and justice."
Here is all kinds of videos and stuff if you have the desire, patience and energy to go through.
1
2
3
4
Danny: I say "Go for it!" Especially if you like circuses. It should be quite entertaining at first because many of the usual suspects, pro- and con- [whatever], will likely make appearances for a while. You may get what you hope to get out of it, or what Ben hopes you will get out of it (and I hope you get both), but I tend to doubt it at this point. In the end, though, it's your time and money.
For a preview of coming attractions, you can always visit his website, or rather the website of the group he co-founded and runs: http://www.mujca.com/index.htm
Lots of real interesting stuff to be found there. Quite fascinating. Some of the links to previous feature articles don't work any more, but google still has a cached copy and there is always the "wayback" machine.
Maybe the class will be overrun with kids like Danny. Just keep track of when the last day to drop is.
He can hope. Based on my prior experience with "controversial" classes, the room will be filled with a lot of angry people spoiling for a fight and a few genuinely interested. From what I've heard, the angry these days rarely confine themselves to old methods of body language, scowling and asking pointed questions, but insist on lecturing the lecturer or shouting down other lecturers of the lecturer with a different viewpoint. Oh well, that is what the campus police will be there for- to maintain order. The furor will probably die down eventually, when the combatants get bored with each or find another cause to champion.
I listened to the podcast. It was a good show- Ann sounded level-headed and logical while the lib, Fortis, sounded a bit doctrinaire. But all in all a very good show with a nice kinda "lightning round" list of topics.
Nice job.
And I agree with you there is no reason to include a "crackpot" theory in an Intro To Islam.
Ben mentions a politicization of courses. I was reflecting on my own experience, having attended the University of California at Santa Cruz, a place renowned for its left-wing bent. If there are ten registered Republicans among students and faculty, I'd be very much surprised. I attended during the Watergate scandal and can't remember anyone mentioning it during any class. There was a lot of talk by both faculty and students outside of class, though. Most of my professors were liberal Democrats, but I only knew that from conversations outside class, not in it, with only one notable exception.
Looking back, most of my K-12 teachers were probably Democrats but I had no reason to know that based on what went on in the classroom. Through my own political activity outside the classroom, I learned the politics of many of my high school teachers. Otherwise, I would not have known how more than 1 or 2 voted in any election, for example. Judging by what the children of friends and family say today, that is becoming the exception rather than the rule, even in the primary grades. And I think that is sad. It's fine with me if Ann, for example, wants to say who she is voting for or whatever in a college classroom, but I don't think third graders need to know that George Bush (or John Kerry) is an evil man bent on the destruction of the nation.
My chemistry teacher in college, circa 1980, was an anti-fluoridation zealot. Otherwise, he was pretty much on topic, but you learned to bring up fluoridated water whenever you were bored and wanted to see the Adam's apple go up and down his skinny neck. Quite fun, really.
But in retrospect, it wasn't worth the hundreds of dollars per credit I was paying (really, borrowing to repay for decades later!).
This course is just bad, on so many levels.That the virtues of rigorous and true scholarship needs to be defended is shocking. Shame on the people who support this waste of time. It's insulting to students and parents.
This is a real John Birch Society moment for the Democrats. Rein in the crazy talk and expel the daft, or get comfortable wandering in the wilderness for 40 years.
Advice? Read a little WFBuckley for guidance on how this unfolded for the GOP in the 50s.
(The other Mark here.)
I just listened to the show. Brava, Professor Althouse! Great arguments presented with great passion.
SC and Bearabee,
I read the links: Amazing!
Madisonman: looking at the WPR site, I thought I understood that WPR and NPR were overlapping from material like:
Wisconsin Public Radio consists of 27 stations programmed by seven regional studios and carrying programming from the two WPR networks - the Ideas Network or the NPR News & Classical Music Network. This allows Wisconsin Public Radio to serve local, regional and statewide audiences with the highest quality programming available.
For me, the academic freedom arguments in favor of Barrett collapsed when I found he was using his academic position to validate his claims:
(excerpt from http://www.mujca.com/nytimes.htm):
"If I could not distinguish between garden-variety conspiracy legends and solid 9/11-revisionist historiography, I would hardly be a suitable candidate to teach Folklore at one of America’s leading public universities, as I did last fall. Likewise, if my arguments that the “Islamic terrorist threat” is fabricated, that “al-Qaida” is really al-CIA-duh, that the “Bin Laden confession video” is ludicrously phony, and so on, were viewed as crazy, I would hardly have been chosen to teach the introductory courses on Islam at both the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Edgewood College of Madison next fall."
If UW lets him teach after he's said that, they deserve all the egg-on-the-face that comes their way.
I think Saysmeow is right. If Barrett uses the fact that UW allows him to preach conspiracy theory from the podium as a Prof that what he says is correct, then all bets are off on the freedom of speech defense.
He is using the UW in the most perverted sense.
"if my arguments that the “Islamic terrorist threat” is fabricated, that “al-Qaida” is really al-CIA-duh, that the “Bin Laden confession video” is ludicrously phony, and so on, were viewed as crazy, I would hardly have been chosen to teach the introductory courses on Islam at both the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Edgewood College of Madison next fall."
He also categorizes the UW LCA department and Edgewood as un-indited co-conspirators in his loony theories. I haven't seen any dispute from the UW administration.
After two and a half years of very public 9/11 truth work, which included bringing David Griffin and Morgan Reynolds to wildly successful, officially-sanctioned events at U.W.-Madison, I have yet to hear a single negative word from a single colleague or administrator. On the contrary, I have received widespread support and encouragement from my colleagues, most of whom at least tend to agree with my interpretation of 9/11 but prefer not to say so in public. (One who has gone public is my Edgewood College Religious Studies colleague James Goulding, a MUJCA endorser.)
Never mind... not taking the class. I visited this guy's website and he's a complete joke. Everything he says on his website makes him out to be a paranoid hippie who forgot to do something after graduating. There's a reason the tenure process exists and it's to shed faculty who have ulterior motives beyond teaching and research. Academic freedom doesn't mean not having standards.
And then there's the website... scrolling text banners? I can't help but be reminded of Borat's website.
I found a couple of nuggets:
the LCA course description.
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.
The UW Provost's statement:
http://www.news.wisc.edu/12696.html
"I just listened to the recording and am glad I didn't sound as over-the-top passionate as I felt talking about 9/11 denial"
Heck, that's the first time I've heard you sound actually pissed.
Holy cow this guy is a tool. I mean, the more he talks, the more one feels like paraphrasing David Frum to say that he "reminds us of the reasons why - and [] how - that party has rendered itself unfit for ... political power." I think it's a little unfair that they thrust Ann into a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
I think Mr Barret has accomplished his goal. I suspect this is less about academic freedom and more about gaining recognition to raise his conspiracy theory full throttle. How long before he is interviewed by Good Morning America? I wonder if he has approached the New York Times. If there was even a remote chance of a smidge of truth, I think that they would be more than willing to elevate such a theory.
Doyle's office releases letter from controversial UW instructor
UW System inconsistent in sifting and winnowing
An "introduction to Islam" can't mention everything. Whether professorial conspiracy theorists "teach" their prejudices is immaterial. Why not just say, "Anyone of paranoid Leftwing tendencies should review Popular Mechanics magazine's point-by-point refutation of every extant 9/11 denial syndrome," and leave it at that.
More important, why has Islamic culture over 1600 years proved an absolute sinkhole for human progress? (Review India's experience with the Moguls.) Why has the Saudis' tidal wave of petrodollars resulted in exactly zero economic, scientific, social evolution? Why does Islam lend itself exclusively to "conquest" via barbaric violence, to suppression of basic human rights, to an insufferable, overweening arrogance in defiance of reality for, lo! these many hundred years?
From the early 20th Century on, Chinese and Turkish empires showed some awareness of backwardness... not the Mullahs after WWI, never the Ayatollahs, never the Saudis' convenient anti-Semites promoting crypto-fascist ideologies in guise of a nihilistic Wahabi death-cult.
"Introduction to Islam"? Waal, take mah head off with a chainsaw, if it ain't the Religion of Peace come lookin' fer an extra coffin. How's about a cartoon or two? Dear me, they're rioting in the streets! Nothing like a sense of humor, when it comes to "introductions."
It's not a "free speech issue" when someone is being paid to teach a specific subject. When you're paid for speech it's a contract issue. I realize professors are supposed to stretch the envelope and whatnot, but this particular professor is as loopy as fruit.
I've read his stuff. If a university can't draw the line with this professor every paranoid schitzo can teach at university.
When you were asked what should be done when "professors teach fundamentalist Christianity" the correct answer is "Who, where, when?"
Pushing Islamic conspiracy theories is "protected speech." If a professor tried to teach Christianity in a public university he or she would be fired in an instant.
At some point universities need to deal with their role as terrorist training camps. Arab money poured into Islamic study centers and paying full out-of-state tuition trumps the national interest, safety interests, and the students' interests. Taliban go to Yale on scholarship. Christians face "hate speech" codes.
The hippie generation's relativism is staggeringly stupid. We watched the towers burn, buckle, and collapse. Steel gets soft long before it melts, stupid.
Chip: "When you were asked what should be done when "professors teach fundamentalist Christianity" the correct answer is "Who, where, when?""
That is one of several things I thought of saying, and I chose not to go that route because I was trying to keep Fortis from casting me in the role of right winger to his left winger, which he was continually trying to do. Listening to the recording, however, I wished I had said something like that. I did start by saying something like "Are you talking about parents or teachers?" because it just plain didn't sound like anything a public university teacher could or would do. But when he said teachers, I didn't follow up by saying it's not happening .
Sippy
"Professor Simpleton"!?!
Exellent!!
I'm gonna post about conspiracy theories 2-nite. Stay tuned!
Word Ver. crzqy
mbuckl1: I wasn't flustered. I was aware of how angry I was and did not want to ramp up the discussion in a way that would destroy colleagiality. I was speaking in a much more passionate way than I normally do on public radio. I was also thinking about my relationship with various people at the university. I don't think people listening to the recording will perceive me as being taken aback, at a loss for words, or anything like that. On the question of where the line is, I said what I meant to say. It's hard to draw the line, but some things are so far over the line that the precise placement of the line is irrelevant.
Can we look forward to UWM's Chemistry department offering courses in Phlogiston Theory, or maybe the Almegest will be used as the introductory astronomy text. And let us not forget to include the Progessive teachings of Lysenko in the Biology department. I mean, it's only fair to include opposing viewpoints in the interest of academic freedom.
Barrett's big mistake was wandering from the safe areas of moonbattery and conspiracy theories into the dangerous places where scientific falsifiability can strike down the unwary crackpot. Yes, you are entitled to your opinions and points of view, but you are not entitled to teach what has been proven false. Otherwise, what is the point of teaching anything at all?
"Do you not think the university offering a course on Islam ought not to hire a person who will connect Islam to a belief in a political conspiracy that is no part of Islam?"
No part? If only.
Jon: UW has a Religious Studies department. Take a look at all the courses offered. There are courses involving religion in many other departments as well. For example, I teach Religion and the Constitution.
Can we look forward to UWM's Chemistry department offering courses in Phlogiston Theory,..
Oooooh........ is there an alchemy course to show me how to change aluminum foil into gold??? Oooooh
Pat Williams is a very interesting writer, who indeed was a lawprof here. Had the same office I now have in fact.
And it's Barrett, not Beckett.
Sic 'em, Ann! You didn't put in any more passion than was warranted. There are only so many hours available for a course - why must we waste any of it on such easily-disproven moonbattery?
Wanna see the world's fastest flip-flop? See what some of these "free speech" types would say if someone proposed a respectful discussion of "intelligent design" in a biology class.
Anne, you feisty devil you! You have a great radio persona - I know that is not necessarily a compliment in all quarters but I mean it in the least condescending manner. You don't become apoplectic when confronted with the rare resource of thoughtful reason which has long-since departed from NPR.
Listened to the first segment (approximately 20 minutes): an absolutely stunning exchange. Fortis trotted out the classic PoMo argument that no one should claim to know where the line is between good and bad educational material. His arguments were utterly indistinguishable from the "teach the controversy" meme of antievolutionists. It continues to amaze me, in fact, that the radical Left has not embraced the crusade against the historical sciences, or, for that matter, that the antievolutionists haven't allied themselves with the radical Left -- it would be a near-perfect fit.
Ann, you pretty much nailed him. Keep hammering away at the university culture that permits this sort of thing. As we would say in my line of work, don't you people have a process? Where are the entrance criteria that keep vicious nonsense from being forced on students -- paid for with tax dollars taken from their own parents?!
Arguing with Barrett or Fortis seems to be a bit like arguing with creationists or believers in ESP or Uri Geller. Or like arguing with Velikovsky, who claimed biblical miracles were caused by a comet erupting out of Jupiter and eventually becoming the planet Venus (or something like that). Some of the problems are the same: his believers don't know enough to refute him or believe the experts who did refute him, he was personally very impressive and projected an air of wisdom, and he was a skilled debater.
I listened to the whole thing. It did sound a bit like Ann was about to blow a gasket. I think that's a fully justified response to this crackpot theory on its own, let alone being taught at a university, let alone in an intro to Islam. However, I think that worked against her in a discussion like this. I freely admit I would have done far worse than Ann.
I think things as controversial as this should not be presented or hashed out in undergraduate classrooms. They should be presented publicly, in academic journals. Debates are good theater, but they can be decided on theatrical or rhetorical points rather than reason.
What is the point of a university if crap like this can be presented with a straight face and cries of freedom of speech? Maybe we should question what a university should be.
I assume Barrett is not an engineer, so he really has no business presenting this as he has zero expertise. Let the authors of the theory present their views and let qualified engineers respond.
Ann, maybe you would consider this strategy: Instead of the "crossing the line" analogy (that Fortis actually introducted and you accepted), use this analogy (courtesy of Martin Gardner): night fades imperceptibly into day, but that does not mean noon is the same as midnight.
By that analogy, the 9/11 theory is 11 PM at least. As is Fortis' claim that Ann is scarier than than the 9/11 theorist.
Professor Althouse,
You have slandered Kevin Barrett. To refer to what he is saying, without doing any research of your own, as "crackpot", is slander. By referring to him as "Anti-America" is slander.
I am going to recommend to Kevin that he consider suing you, as well as ANYONE who openly slanders him.
A few days after his inauguration, George W. Bush asked his principals to find a "way" to invade Iraq. 9/11 happened, and we went to war with Iraq. It's not crazy to suspect that 9/11 was the Bush Administration's "way" to invade Iraq especially since that's what they used to do it.
To have a family member like Bill Doyle, someone who helps to run the largest family organization www.coalitionof911families.org state exactly what Kevin is, why is it a "crackpot" theory?
A recent Zogby poll states that 45% of America think that "Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success."
Why do you think that is Professor Althouse?
Maybe you should read before you speak.
Sincerely,
Jon Gold
www.yourbbsucks.com
Well, Jon Gold, I'd say first, I never called anyone "anti-America." Second, I'd say you're not much of a free speech proponent. Third, I'd say, you have a dismal understanding of libel law. Fourth, I'd say if you believe the 9/11 conspiracy theory you are really quite pathetic.
And Alex, no, I'm not going to waste my time debating the merits of an idiotic theory that's already gotten too much attention.
Alex: I'm also not using my blog to debate whether aliens run the government, mermaids have taken over Lake Mendota, and that Governor Doyle is an android.
Alex: "If even ONE person here has the character to investigate the above links..."
Alex, how about if you had the character to respond to the criticisms aimed at you? And here you are now, telling people what they need to read to demonstrate their character, while you're saying in advance that you are leaving and won't be around to deal with the additional criticisms. Some authority on character you are. Loser!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा