Mr. Barrett’s critics argue that academic freedom has limits and should not be invoked to justify the dissemination of lies and fantasies. Mr. Barrett’s supporters (most of whom are not partisans of his conspiracy theory) insist that it is the very point of an academic institution to entertain all points of view, however unpopular.....
Both sides get it wrong. The problem is that each assumes that academic freedom is about protecting the content of a professor’s speech; one side thinks that no content should be ruled out in advance; while the other would draw the line at propositions (like the denial of the Holocaust or the flatness of the world) considered by almost everyone to be crazy or dangerous.
But in fact, academic freedom has nothing to do with content. It is not a subset of the general freedom of Americans to say anything they like (so long as it is not an incitement to violence or is treasonous or libelous). Rather, academic freedom is the freedom of academics to study anything they like; the freedom, that is, to subject any body of material, however unpromising it might seem, to academic interrogation and analysis....
In short, whether something is an appropriate object of academic study is a matter not of its content — a crackpot theory may have had a history of influence that well rewards scholarly scrutiny — but of its availability to serious analysis. This point was missed by the author of a comment posted to the blog of a University of Wisconsin law professor, Ann Althouse: “When is the University of Wisconsin hiring a professor of astrology?” The question is obviously sarcastic; its intention is to equate the 9/11-inside-job theory with believing in the predictive power of astrology, and to imply that since the university wouldn’t think of hiring someone to teach the one, it should have known better than to hire someone to teach the other.
I have said this:
It's conceivable that [Barrett] could still, as a teacher, present [the 9/11 conspiracy theory] 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.So my problem is that belief in this conspiracy theory reveals such a defective mind that the teacher cannot be trusted, and that the factual truth of the conspiracy theory isn't properly taught in a course about Islam. That many Muslims believe the theory could be part of the course, but the inquiry should be into why they would be drawn into such beliefs, and a teacher who thinks the beliefs are true would not seem to have much grasp of the topic.
And I've said this, as a comment in the thread with the quote that isn't mine:
[A] test for the university will come when we see how it treats others in similar positions. What if we found someone hired to teach here was a white supremacist, planning to devote a week of his course to his theory? Would he be treated with as much respect as Barrett? What if we found someone hired to teach evolution was a young earth creationist planning to devote a week of his course to his theory? These people now must be treated the same. Pretty horrible. I hate to even type that out. But this underscores why the hiring phase matters so much.Back to Fish:
[T]he truth is that it would not be at all outlandish for a university to hire someone to teach astrology — not to profess astrology and recommend it as the basis of decision-making (shades of Nancy Reagan), but to teach the history of its very long career. There is, after all, a good argument for saying that Shakespeare, Chaucer and Dante, among others, cannot be fully understood unless one understands astrology.
The distinction I am making — between studying astrology and proselytizing for it — is crucial and can be generalized; it shows us where the line between the responsible and irresponsible practice of academic freedom should always be drawn. Any idea can be brought into the classroom if the point is to inquire into its structure, history, influence and so forth. But no idea belongs in the classroom if the point of introducing it is to recruit your students for the political agenda it may be thought to imply.I agree heartily right up to the last sentence. It is the responsibility of the teacher not to cross this line. But how is the administration to police it? Students may think a teacher is really pushing a viewpoint when he isn't, and a good teacher can sell his viewpoint without it showing. I could use the Socratic method in the law school classroom and only ask questions but have a position I'm hoping to ingrain. I could run a discussion in which I constantly take the opposite side from the one I want the students to adopt and do it in a way that I think will cause students to internalize the side I'm forcing them to defend. How could the administration find out? What would you want them to do about it? And what percentage of university professors do you think cross this line? You'd need a witch hunt if administrators got serious about Fish's line: "that is a moment no college administration should allow to occur."
And this is where we come back to Mr. Barrett, who, in addition to being a college lecturer, is a member of a group calling itself Scholars for 9/11 Truth, an organization with the decidedly political agenda of persuading Americans that the Bush administration “not only permitted 9/11 to happen but may even have orchestrated these events.”
Is the fact of this group’s growing presence on the Internet a reason for studying it in a course on 9/11? Sure. Is the instructor who discusses the group’s arguments thereby endorsing them? Not at all. It is perfectly possible to teach a viewpoint without embracing it and urging it. But the moment a professor does embrace and urge it, academic study has ceased and been replaced by partisan advocacy. And that is a moment no college administration should allow to occur.
More Fish:
Provost Farrell ... is too hung up on questions of content and balance. He thinks that the important thing is to assure a diversity of views in the classroom, and so he is reassured when Mr. Barrett promises to surround his “unconventional” ideas and “personal opinions” with readings “representing a variety of viewpoints."...
Rather, the question should be: “Do you separate yourself from your partisan identity when you are in the employ of the citizens of Wisconsin and teach subject matter — whatever it is — rather than urge political action?” If the answer is yes, allowing Mr. Barrett to remain in the classroom is warranted. If the answer is no, (or if a yes answer is followed by classroom behavior that contradicts it) he should be shown the door. Not because he would be teaching the “wrong” things, but because he would have abandoned teaching for indoctrination.
[A]cademic freedom is just that: the freedom to do an academic job without external interference. It is not the freedom to do other jobs, jobs you are neither trained for nor paid to perform. While there should be no restrictions on what can be taught — no list of interdicted ideas or topics — there should be an absolute restriction on appropriating the scene of teaching for partisan political ideals. Teachers who use the classroom to indoctrinate make the enterprise of higher education vulnerable to its critics and shortchange students in the guise of showing them the true way.What Farrell did was to rely on the fact that Barrett "assured me that students will be free -- and encouraged -- to challenge his viewpoint," that "Barrett appreciates his responsibility as an instructor," and that "he will attempt to provide students with a classroom experience that respects and welcomes open dialogue on all topics." That is, Farrell accepts Barrett as a strong advocate for one side as long as he maintains an open debate in which the students can speak and argue with him.
Both Fish and Farrell stress process over substance. It's not a question of what subjects come into the classroom. (They ignore the process point I've made, which is that I doubt that administrators could stick to substance neutrality. Again: picture a teacher of white supremacy.) Farrell emphasizes the process of multiple viewpoints and debate. Fish emphasizes the process of academic inquiry and avoiding proselytizing. He would ask the teacher whether he could set aside "your partisan identity" and not "urge political action."
I wonder how far Fish means to take that. I've heard many law professors over the years say that since everyone is really partisan in some way, it's more honest to come right out and say what your positions are. They would portray Fish's ideal professor as a big sneak, posturing as neutral, but really slipping opinion in everywhere. Is Fish saying that professors who take the open approach are wrongly allowing their "partisan identity" to appear in the classroom? It would be terribly repressive for administrators to forbid that. Maybe Fish only means for the professor to refrain from "urg[ing] political action." If so, he's not saying very much. But Fish thinks he's identified a clear line:
The distinction I am making — between studying astrology and proselytizing for it — is crucial and can be generalized; it shows us where the line between the responsible and irresponsible practice of academic freedom should always be drawn. Any idea can be brought into the classroom if the point is to inquire into its structure, history, influence and so forth. But no idea belongs in the classroom if the point of introducing it is to recruit your students for the political agenda it may be thought to imply.Is that a clear line? The more I look at it, the less clear it seems. It's quite subjective. Each of the last two sentences of his essay contains the phrase if the point is. How are we to tell what the teacher's point really is? A smart person with an agenda knows how to hide it.
UPDATE: From ACTA:
The Times' publication of this piece, written by one of the great old lions of the academic culture wars (recall that Fish chaired the English department at Duke during the years when it was making a serious bid to become the most politically and theoretically avant-garde department in the country), is highly significant. Perhaps the time has finally come for a national discussion about what academic freedom is, why it matters, what it protects, and, crucially, where its privileges end.Polonius writes:
[W]hat on earth is wrong with professors urging activism? Professors are the canaries in the coal mine; they're often the first ones to see what's gone wrong. If they don't urge activism, there's often no one who will.Similarly, in the comments here, Ben Wallace writes (and I've added links):
Fish argues that advocacy of ideas is the dividing line between legitimate and illegitimate speech in a university. This is an acceptable normative position but the position is inconsistent with academic freedom as practiced at the UW since the 1890s. Under Fish's standard, Richard T. Ely would have been fired, not defended, for advocating socialism and encouraging activism. Fish's position, if implemented, would undermine a long-settled standard of academic freedom by attempting to eliminate partisan advocacy of ideas.Is Fish's idea at odds with "The Wisconsin Idea"? If so and if Fish is right, we have a huge problem here.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Let me first say that by writing "If so and if Fish is right, we have a huge problem here," I mean to suggest the likelihood that Fish is wrong.
Southern Appeal writes:
[T]his is a bit of a strange argument for Fish, who has made his name (outside literature circles) by pressing the view that we can’t separate ourselves from our basic beliefs and that there is no neutral ground....
[T]here’s something to Fish’s distinction between “teaching” and “indoctrination” and in the idea that the classroom isn’t supposed to be a recruiting session for one’s pet projects, however noble they might be. But that doesn’t mean, I think, that teachers need to separate themselves from their views. ...
[T]he detachment model is deficient [because] it subtly teaches students that what smart people do when faced with controversial subjects is to take an air of detached neutrality, cooly surveying the various options, and declining to embrace any of them. My experience as a teacher has been that students don’t really like to get engaged in arguments over controversial subjects -- the detachment model merely reinforces that tendency.
This goes along with something Ben Wallace and I have been writing in the comments here. Ben says:
Under Fish's rule, a faculty member in the South in the 1950s could not embrace and urge the idea that segregation is wrong and that students should act to remedy the situation. The only thing that would be available to a faculty member in that situation [w]ould be dispassionate analysis of the benefits and costs of segregation and a discussion of the different arguments behind segregation. Allowing advocacy and urging students to engage all ideas has demonstrated more effective than efforts to create speech codes, which is essentially what Fish has come up with.I add:
[I]f the university required teachers to take this dispassionate, neutral stance, it would exclude a certain type of emotive, engaged person who actually is an excellent teacher. The drier, abstract folks would get more jobs in Fish's ideal university... and the students would get more... bored.
YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Jim Lindgren has a post titled "Astrology, Fish, Althouse, and 9/11 Conspiracy Theories." He's into the astrology subject:
I have actually been studying who believes in astrology. Some indices of conservatism use a belief in astrology as a measure of how conservative a respondent is. Yet Democrats are more likely to believe in astrology than Republicans, with the most conservative subgroup -- conservative Republicans -- being among the least likely to believe in astrology.That makes me want to remind you of this old post of mine from back when were were all talking about Jerome Armstrong (which may well be what prompted Lindgren's study). I have no idea what the politics of believing in astrology are. I don't see it as having anything to do with politics, but it has something to do with being unscientific. I think there are lots of unscientific folks out there, and neither party is completely anti-science or bound to science.
पोस्ट्स
४० टिप्पण्या:
Ann--
Forgive me if I misunderstood your piece, but I think you left out an important section of the piece here. I say this because your skepticism seems to suggest that we already know that no one is incapable of being anything other than a shill for one's own beliefs.
Fish writes:
It is part of a teacher’s job to set personal conviction aside for the hour or two when a class is in session and allow the techniques and protocols of academic research full sway.
This restraint should not be too difficult to exercise. After all, we require and expect it of judges, referees and reporters. And while its exercise may not always be total, it is both important and possible to make the effort.
It seems to me that the first question to ask is: have we jettisoned this idea(l)? It seems that we have in certain arenas but not others. Your comment about law profs is telling precisely because lawyers are one of the few areas of endeavor left where we choose to believe that the advocate need not actually believe in the cause or the the client. So in the domain of law we think that personal politics will not automatically win out (well, that was the theory, at any rate). But if we have lost that everywhere else it will be a tragedy for society. So I suppose the question is: do we really want to act as if it's impossible for anyone to have a space between personal beliefs and public acts?
Fish's points seem reasonable as far as they go - but surely there is more to say about the constraints on what material is presented in teaching.
For example, teaching is constrained by some kind of summary of curriculum content (ie. if offering a math course, then you should mostly be teaching math in it).
Responsibility for what is offered in courses, what is judged appropriate, usually lies with the Department or School who approves the course (unless the teacher - when in class - goes way outside the official curriculum - which is of course his or her responsibility).
And this leads onto the point argued by Louis Menand in The Future of Academic Freedom that AF is strictly (legally, he says) the freedom of academics as a group to regulate themselves without external interference.
So, AF is about professional autonomy - ie. who gets hired and promoted, and the criteria for doing so; and what gets taught.
I guess this implies that those who hired Dr B, and approved the course, are responsible for this teaching - unless Dr B goes beyod the approved curriculum. ie., by this reasoning, the teacher is not personally responsible for what they teach (after all, in some situations, they may have been told exactly what to teach).
As AA originally said - I agree that the key issue here probably concerns the university and department's procedures for hiring and course content approval.
This has nothing to do with "academic freedom." Or very little. It has to do with simple contract principles. He was hired to teach an introductory course in Islam!!! What is this 9/11 crap doing there? If he decided to throw in a little phlogiston theory, would the administration be justified in saying stop?
Second, Fish's point that the teacher should not act as if he believes what he is saying (like the astrology professor teaching us about it to understand Chaucer) is plainly wrong in many, many cases, e.g., physics. There is always some historical stuff that has been discredited and is nevertheless worth study from a teacher who doesn't believe the discredited theory, but, in general, one wants teachers to believe in what they are teaching!
We just don't want them teaching nonsense as fact. Especially when that subject was not on the agenda when they were hired!
I think what Fish is advocating is that "theories" such as Barrett's should be examined, as a couple of commenters have said, in a class designed to study conspiracy theories, their "structure, history, influence and so forth."
I would encourage such a class that examines critically why Muslims, for instance, or anyone, could believe Barrett's theory; however, this will never happen on today's campus.
I agree with Fish. You say you use the Socratic method--do you think this is also Barrett's method??
It may be difficult to distinguish between advocacy and teaching, but it is the job of the university to try.
Again, Ben, you are ignoring my point that the actual process of debate between two unequal parties is important. The Socratic method is one thing; naked advocacy is another--and is wrong.
However, the provost has not asked for my opinion yet, so I will sign off on this subject.
PatCa: "You say you use the Socratic method--do you think this is also Barrett's method??"
I said that I could use it as described, meaning I know how it is done. In fact, I don't use the Socratic method, at least not in the pure form referred to in the post, which requires the teacher to use only questions. The more important point is how you use it. It could be used, as I say in the post, to make the student believe something and to make it feel to the student as if he had discovered the idea himself, thus making it more persuasive than if the idea had been spoon-fed. I have no idea what Barrett's method is.
Ben: You're making so many good points. Thanks. I would add that if the university required teachers to take this dispassionate, neutral stance, it would exclude a certain type of emotive, engaged person who actually is an excellent teacher. The drier, abstract folks would get more jobs in Fish's ideal university... and the students would get more... bored.
Cool page : )
I can't help wondering if Barrett is mentally stable enough to be placed in charge of a classroom. Oh, put him on Hannity & Colmes and he can appear fairly reasonable (just another shouter); but listen to some of his interviews with his fellow conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones and suddenly we're in the Twilight Zone. Have you read his letter to John Kerry?
One revealing aspect of this debate is the implicit assumption many people have that a college education should properly consist of debating propositions - and that this process should ideally be impartial but is bad when biased.
However, students are _not_ at college to debate propositions. While this discussing stuff may have some educational value, surely attending college for several years at vast expense should primarily involve acquiring quite a lot of new conceptual knowledge related to things that are true, and enough related facts to understand and use these concepts.
It must seem utterly bizarre to outsiders that some academics in some diciplines seem to regard it as perfectly reasonable to spend the whole of their professional lives (and many years of their students lives) discussing the pros and cons of a bunch of arbitrarily chosen notions.
I think the sad truth is that there are indeed many disciplines and courses which are nothing more than a matter of generating moralistic (typically one-sided) debates about anything under the sun. The moralizing is intrinsic, because without a moralizing (ie. 'political') agenda it is utterly pointless.
But then again students are not at college to be morally-brainwashed and politically-indoctrinated.
You may gather I believe that the undergraduate colege curriculum should be radically-pruned.
At no job I've ever had would such a doofus enjoy the luxury of so many people urging that he remain employed and paid, while simultaneously acknowledging his idiocy.
Bravo to Barrett, I guess. He found the right medium for his message.
From Fish's op-ed:
"It is not the freedom to do other jobs, jobs you are neither trained for nor paid to perform"
This is the crux of the issue here. Barrett is a humanities professor who has openly stated that he's going to teach things that he has less expertise in than a high school student who took honors physics, and have nothing to do with the subject he was taught to teach. Even if his views were valid he'd be out of line, since he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Sadly, I have to concede my experience with humantities professors in college left me with a view very similar to commenter Dave's, though I wouldn't call Barrett a liar. I think his views (about the 9/11 stuff) are sincere - he's just too ignorant to know any better.
"I've heard many law professors over the years say that since everyone is really partisan in some way, it's more honest to come right out and say what your positions are."
I tend to think that this is accurate, not least because I think most people like to convince themselves that their views are reasonable, fair and supported by many other reasonable fair-minded people. In other words, people often believe that they are far closer to the mainstream than they really are, and in order to to this, they simply imagine that the mainstream is just a little to the [left/right] of their views, and accordingly call themselves "moderate", or "just to the left of center", or "mainstream [liberal/conservative]". I don't think many people -- a fortiori those who are academically-inclined, and thus like to think of themselves as being especially susceptible to reason -- like to think of themselves as ideologues or being posessed of extremely strong views that are totally outside of the mainstream.
But this is entirely false. Joe Biden probably believes his legal views are mainstream; Sam Alito probably thinks his views are quite mainstream (although I'd note that conservatives have generally got a better track record of being honest about their inclinations). Both cannot be right. So what Biden et al do is to take their views, and asssume that the mainstream can't be far away.
When teaching any subject which is susceptible to ideology and viewpoint, I stand with Weber et al - genuine viewpoint-neutrality is impossible (or at best, rare), and the best remedy is for professors to be honest about their views so that students understand and can see (and either reject or embrace) the subtle or unsubtle inducements of the prof. So, for example, if your torts professor says he voted for John Edwards, you probably want to get another torts professor, and so on and so forth.
I agree with the position in several previous comments that the fundamental process of teaching is convey to others what you believe is true. The entire point of paying money for education is to be instructed in the knowledge someone else knows. In that sense all teaching is advocacy to believe in the material taught. If advocacy is wrong then most of the UW Madison Sociology Department should be fired. (Not that that there is anything wrong with that.)
What is clouding this debate seems to be differentiating new ideas which arise from traditionally accepted knowledge, from ideas which are created without historical foundation to serve emotional or political needs. For example, Nicolaus Copernicus was certainly advocating a literally earth changing unconventional theory, but it derived from attempts to more accurately match theory to observed reality and not because he hated the Pope.
Zach said:
"You should never forget that at the end of the semester, the professors are doing the grading and the students are getting graded. If you do tell your students your position on an issue, I think you owe it to them both to go out of your way not to let it affect the grading, and to let them know that you do so. Even then, I think you risk sending the signal that the students should pull their punches when discussing the issue for fear of offending you."
I think students have a responsibility for their educations and assumptions. Are they just there to figure out the prof's views and what's going to be on the test, fearing with a low grade they'll miss out on the good life?
Maybe having "sneaky", neutral-posing professors over the years has contributed to this student mindset-- the need to search for those subtly dropped clues, and the fear of penalization for saying the wrong thing. Sad.
"So, for example, if your torts professor says he voted for John Edwards, you probably want to get another torts professor..."
I voted for John Edwards. And I defended his malpractice work on this blog.
Well, this is spiraling to the outer edges of the solar system here.
We started talking about the loon Barrett. I suggested that what he proposed to teach, and what he was hired to teach, might not be the same, and thus that the issue was not one of academic freedom, but a much simpler issue.
Now we are talking about whether academics can or cannot be advocates. I am reminded of a class on administrative law we took from K.C. Davis, who was asking the class whether some principle or another was the correct one. One group of students was vigorously saying it was, and the other was saying it wasn't. Finally, Davis brought the conversation to an end by proposing that "sometimes" the answer was right and sometimes wrong, by which he meant that it depended on a variety of circumstances.
Well, is it not obvious that professorial advocacy has its places and doesn't have its place? To take one example from the comments, the southern professor in the 50's who wanted to advocate social justice might well use his class in U.S. history, or social studies, to present these views and give arguments in support (while no doubt tolerating arguments against, as well (yeah, that's the way it works)), but he SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO PERVERT HIS PHYSICS CLASS WITH IT, even if, as a physics professor, he has as much academic freedom as the next guy.
Mary: "Maybe having 'sneaky', neutral-posing professors over the years has contributed to this student mindset-- the need to search for those subtly dropped clues, and the fear of penalization for saying the wrong thing."
Students can do this to excess. I've gotten evaluations from students that say it was clear what my positions were, leaving me wondering which way they thought it was clear. When I read exams and feel that students are trying to replicate what they think is my position, I feel embarrassed for them. Why are they saying to me that that's what I want? It insults me. I'm not interested in teaching my own views but in understanding the cases and learning legal skills. My students are wasting their time paying attention me like that. I understand that they may have learned to appease the teacher elsewhere and feel that they need to defend themselves, so it might not be their fault, but it's still a problem.
JohnF: "Well, this is spiraling to the outer edges of the solar system here. We started talking about the loon Barrett. I suggested that what he proposed to teach, and what he was hired to teach, might not be the same, and thus that the issue was not one of academic freedom, but a much simpler issue. Now we are talking about whether academics can or cannot be advocates."
What are you talking about? Did you read Fish's op-ed? What you say isn't even close to the topic is exactly his topic? You're welcome to focus on the aspect of the problem you want, but denouncing others for going off topic is going off topic. Plus, it's not true.
And with respect to Barrett, there is a way in which the 9/11 conspiracy theory could be relevant to his course, but it can only be handled competently by someone who concedes that the theory is false.
Fish's line between exploring something academically and espousing it in class is at least clear as a matter of theory. Whether it's enforceable as a policy is a different question, but it doesn't really matter here, because Barrett is clearly on the side of advocacy - he admitted to trying to convince his students that he's right. The idea of academic freedom is that administrators shouldn't fire professors for studying politically unpopular or seemingly trivial things. An administrator in the segregated South shouldn't fire a professor for advocating integration, but academic freedom isn't the reason, it's the right-ness of the professor's position. If the administrator is pro-segregation, then what are the chances that academic freedom will save the professor's job?
"But just because right and wrong are relative doesn't mean you can't act to protect your own perspective and cultural values to extent of using bombs if necessary."
Boldizar has just given us an excellent defense of the view that "justice" is nothing but "the will of the stronger". Too bad it isn't original. Thrasymachos made this argument in one of those 2000 year-old books that B doesn't like.
According to Ben Wallace:
Under Fish's rule, a faculty member in the South in the 1950s could not embrace and urge the idea that segregation is wrong and that students should act to remedy the situation. The only thing that would be available to a faculty member in that situation would be dispassionate analysis of the benefits and costs of segregation and a discussion of the different arguments behind segregation.
Do you equally believe that a professor in the South in the 50s has a right to be an activist for segregation?
Or could it be that you favor activism only for academics who happen to agree with you?
As for "dispassionate analysis of the benefits and costs of segregation and a discussion of the different arguments behind segregation" do you think that would support or undermine segregation? If the former, you ought to favor segregation. If the latter, you should welcome a professor doing just that.
"Yet Democrats are more likely to believe in astrology than Republicans, with the most conservative subgroup -- conservative Republicans -- being among the least likely to believe in astrology."
Wow! I'm so shocked -- how can it be that conservative Republican are unlikely to believe in astrology? It couldn't be because they already belong to an even more twisted and destructive cult, could it? Say, maybe, Christian Fundamentalism?
It saddens me to think that this kind of shoddy thinking goes on at my alma mater. Please tell me you haven't been tenured.
gnocchi said.."Wow! I'm so shocked -- how can it be that conservative Republican are unlikely to believe in astrology? It couldn't be because they already belong to an even more twisted and destructive cult, could it? Say, maybe, Christian Fundamentalism? It saddens me to think that this kind of shoddy thinking goes on at my alma mater. Please tell me you haven't been tenured."
So, you're quoting Jim Lindgren and objecting here? What is Lindgren's alma mater? If you have a question for him, it's probably more likely to be answered over on his blog. Presumably, you think the quote is mine though. Shoddy reading.
And you're "saddened"? Really? Thanks for caring and being all concerned about us ... or the phantoms in your head.
Hi, Ben,
I don't want Barrett fired either, now that he has been given a contract.
On the other hand, I do think that some conclusions have to be considered evidence of incompetence.
To use some hackneyed examples, I think a flat earther is incompetent to teach Geography, and somebody working on a perpetual motion machine incompetent to teach Physics.
Barrett thinks the suicide bombings in Iraq are western intelligence operations since Muslims would not do that to fellow Muslims. Imagine somebody teaching Western Civ who doesn't believe that Christians would kill Christians!
I admit that drawing the line can be difficult at times. When in doubt, err on the side of academic freedom.
I think UW made a mistake in hiring Barrett. Now that they have, I think they should keep him for the term of his contract. After that, it would be a blunder to hire him again.
After all, he only has "academic freedom" because they gave it to him.
What Farrell did was to rely on the fact that Barrett "assured me that students will be free -- and encouraged -- to challenge his viewpoint," that "Barrett appreciates his responsibility as an instructor," and that "he will attempt to provide students with a classroom experience that respects and welcomes open dialogue on all topics."
And then he will flunk the ones who disagree with him.
Will Barrett use his lectern to advocate his notions to his students? I don't know the guy, of course, but based on experience I would predict that is extremely likely he will do so, no matter what he promises. IMHO, the farther one is from the political and cultural center, the less able one is to refrain from proselytizing, and the less likely one can conduct a balanced and well-rounded discussion.
However, will his advocacy make any converts? This is more doubtful. I recall having classes with, umm, rather opinionated professors. For a student, Survival 101 involves parroting and regurgitation. But, at least for me, the more unfair and one-sided a prof was, the less likely I was going to treat anything s/he said respectfully or seriously. I doubt I'm alone in this reaction.
The real problem here is the lack of symmetry. If Barrett were espousing an equally extreme viewpoint, but one typically associated with the far right instead, would the administration and faculty's response be the same? I think the smart money's on their finding some creative pretext for removing the rabblerouser from the classroom.
"For example, I am an atheist liberal, so I am against immigration from religious countries, whether muslim or christian." Well, thank heaven you got here after Washington, Adams and Jefferson and all that "endowed by our Creator" nonsense. Now that you're here, we'll have no more of all that silliness. Those scary British Christians immigrants never accomplished much anyway.
The Barrett issue is the difference between freedom to say anything and the freedom to teach anything. Teaching is not just public speech; it is speaking with authority, placing a great deal of responsibility on the teacher to be knowledgeable and honest. Teaching the two sides of the Arab/Israeli conflict is controversial but valid; teaching a straight-up falsehood like the 9/11 conspiracy as if it were fact is another issue entirely. It is irresponsible for a teaching institution to allow an instructor to present a known lie as fact, which is why no Holocaust deniers have classes or tenure. We should be endeavoring to give our children useful, valid information not cluttering up their minds with nonsense.
1. If Barrett was teaching the history of Islam and proposed that Mohammed was an alien and that he secretly implants a mind-altering virus in the brains of all his followers from a bunker located under the Masjid al-Haram, he would be fired.
2. If Barrett was teaching the history of Islam and proposed that Islam was actually founded in 500 B.C. by a mouse in Cairo, he would be fired.
3. If Barrett was teaching the history of Islam and proposed that the Knesset was secretly controlled by Islamofascist vampire militias that arm Hamas and Hezbollah after dark, he would be fired.
So, now that Barrett is teaching the history of Islam and has proposed that 9/11 was brought about by the United States government -- a proposal that has no more basis in fact than 1-3 above -- why hasn't he been fired?
And as for whether the students in Barrett's classroom have the "freedom" to counter his views, let's remember the vast disparity in power between student and teacher. If a student stands up to Barrett, Barrett could smile and say he appreciates his perspective, but silently mark him down to a C in his mind. It would be virtually impossible for the student to combat that. Grade challenges are very difficult to win, and most students forego them in anything but the most egregious circumstances if they are majoring in the subject -- faculty politics, you know.
Similarly, a student who doesn't stand up to Barrett in the classroom, but then has to answer this question on a test: "Explain the cause of the 9/11 attacks and the implication that has had on current events." What now? Do you answer the way your professor would, detailing the grand conspiracy and Bush's justification of war against Islam? Or do you put your foot down, describing al Qaida's plan of attack and Bush's justified war against terror? Is this a fair position to put any student in - between a politically-correct lie for a likely A and a truthful argument that may or may not cause you to flunk the only test in the course?
As one who stood up to his professor's claim that all men are promiscuous and you're not a man if you don't cheat on your wife, only to get precisely the grade on the exam that dropped me to a B, I can say that principle can come with a price -- a price no student should have to pay. Who is protecting the student's academic freedom??
Prof Barrett appears to lack one of the most basic requirements of a professor: the power of critical thought. Add to that his apparent willingness to use grades to force his view on his students, as if they were facts, and you have not a teacher but a cult leader.
I would like to re-iterate that Academic Freedom is not individual autonomy but professional self-determination. A college teacher is not free to teach what they want to, and never has been.
On the contrary many - perhaps most - college teachers are and have been, one-way-or-another, told pretty exactly what they should teach. [Of course, teachers are free to resign if they disagree with what they are required to teach.]
For example, professionally accredited courses may have a detailed curriculum imposed from outside. Or the examinations may be external (the University of London was essentially an examination board - Medical exams are another example) which dictates the curriculum in reverse. I have known lecturers in the exact sciences who were given the script of their lectures by the department - and merely delivered them.
Teaching to an externally imposed curriculum may indeed make for dull and uninspired teaching, but it is an absolutely mainstream aspect of university education, and has nothing to do with 'academic freedom'.
Therefore, if UW Madison does not approve what Dr Barrett is proposing to teach, they should instruct him to teach something else of which they do approve - and if he refuses, they should cancel the class.
I don't know whether refusing to teach as instructed would constitute a formal breach of contract in the USA, it would do in the UK. However, in practice, it would be disproportionately costly and time-consuming (in the UK) to let go an employee on a fixed term contract, so the employer would probably let them serve-out the time of their contract in idleness.
A discussion of academic freedom really ought to mention Professor Jared Sakren and the Arizona State University theatre department.
I'm goin' crosseyed . . . Farrell and Barrett are becoming Barrel and Ferret.
Barrel and Ferret and Fish. Ferret shoots Fish in Barrel.
I do wonder if Barrett's going to discuss the Shriners. Let's recap.
It's an Islam 101 course. If muslims actually staged the 9/11 attacks, it would be a reasonable minor topic to discuss. If muslims did not perpetrate the 9/11 attacks but a non-muslim group (or groups) did it and drew a false connection to muslims, then the Shriners who are very obviously faux muslim are an equally legitimate topic and should get equal time. To my mind that would be zero.
From Polonius' blog, quoted above: Professors are the canaries in the coal mine; they're often the first ones to see what's gone wrong. If they don't urge activism, there's often no one who will.
That's an interesting assertion.
Interesting because I don't think it's actually true; maybe it's a generational thing, or something to do with not being in academia (having graduated and Moved On).
But I don't recall the professors generally being the people to urge activism when nobody else will (though they certainly are known to push for activism, but I've only really seen it as part of established movements).
What activism does he speak of? Am I just ignorant of some great contribution of the professoriat to activism in general, or is my observation accurate?
Anyone?
(This, of course, ignores the question of whether or not the activism of professors is useful activism, or harmful, though I think a judgement on that might affect people's willingness to support professorial activism en mass.)
I don't see many grounds for such confidence.
When it comes time to drag the rotting corpse away, it does no good to disparage the undertaker for doing something distasteful. Of course legislative intervention is highly distasteful; but the fault does not lie with the legislators who have been handed the buck, but with the university that passed it to them.
I watched Barrett on CNN. He said 9/11 was a "New Pearl Harbor". What's that about?
Evidently he loves conspiracy theories, including the old canard that Roosevelt deliberately allowed Pearl Harbor to be bombed in order to end isolationism. Evidently he is in the same crowd as Jeanette Rankin, the only dissenting vote on the declaration of war with Japan, who objected that no one had proved to her satisfaction that Pearl Harbor was not bombed by British planes in false colors from the neighbor islands. (I wish I was making this up.)
Rankin was a Republican, by the way. Didn't someone make a spot-on but completely unprintable comment earlier on how the far Left and far Right wrap around and meet?
"Any rational person has to see that the U.S. government was behind the attacks."
Thank you, Mike, for adding some much-needed little balance to this very closed-minded discussion. I see a shortage a critical thinking skills here along with a surplus of dogma . Those who are brave enough to actually research and examine 9/11 revisionist theories (as outlined in David Ray Griffin's books, for example) are the real patriots. Undertaking this kind of research is so very painful and disturbing, so I certainly understand why people are quick to dismiss anything which challenges the official account as presented by the 9/11 Commission. However, it is necessary and important.
If you can't wrap your mind around the fact that there are many "evil-doers" running our own government (past and present), do a google search on "Operation Northwoods." Here is a link to the actual government document:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news
/20010430/northwoods.pdf
If you don't want to read the entire text, start reading on page 10 to get some valuable insight into the workings of our military. Sadly, there is indeed nothing new under the sun...
In response to the posts left by Seven Machos, I would like to clear up a few points. First, I am only me and am not Mike. In addition, I am not paranoid, nor a religious crackpot. Secondly, I came across this blog by clicking links related to the July 23 NYT article by Stanley Fish. I do very little blogging, as I feel that my time is better spent reading and researching. Your comment "My theory is that people like Mike and Debra (very possibly the same person, by the way) are so enthralled by their crazy ideas that they google around looking for places where their pet theories might be discussed," couldn't be more wrong. (Certainly, THIS particular discussion pokes huge holes in your "theory.") As I read through the posts, it soon became apparent that my views were not well-represented -- but I continued to read because I am interested in the opinions of others and am always optimistic that there will be an opportunity to learn something. You are right about one thing, Seven -- it is not likely that I will return to a forum where I am disrespected.
By the way, if you followed the link I provided for Operation Northwoods, that is the site of the National Security Archive at George Washington Unversity, which I think would make this document a verifiable primary source. To quote from GWU's site: "An independent non-governmental research institute and library located at The George Washington University, the Archive collects and publishes declassified documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. The Archive also serves as a repository of government records on a wide range of topics pertaining to the national security, foreign, intelligence, and economic policies of the United States."
Chew on that for awhile...
A great article indeed and a very detailed, realistic and superb analysis the issue. I would like to thank the author of this article for contributing such a lovely and mind-opening article.
Term papers
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा