Althouse: "If Farrell is not going to apply that reasoning across the board, why is he inflicting it on Barrett?"

August 5, 2006

"If Farrell is not going to apply that reasoning across the board, why is he inflicting it on Barrett?"

That's a question I'm asking, over on Instapundit.

12 comments:

The Drill SGT said...: Farrell has the polarity on his free speech positions reversed:

1. Barrett should not be allowed to teach his conspiracy gospel in class beyond raising it from a peripheral perspective (e.g. The Islamic world has a different perspective on various events (including 911). In order to combat Islamic extremists, we need to get inside their heads at some level (swimming is cesspools anyone?))

2. Barrett should be allowed to preach conspiracy from the rooftops or bay at the moon, on his own time, as long as it isn't a UW rooftop.

Ann said:
When I go on radio or TV, I am introduced as a professor at the University of Wisconsin, whether I'm talking about law or politics or culture or some other topic I presume to blab about. It's never even occurred to me that stating this true fact -- where I work -- means that I "speak for the university" or that listeners might be confused into thinking that I do. You'd have to think ordinary people are idiots to believe that they think Kevin Barrett is speaking for the university when he spews his offensive theory.

Unfortunately, I recall numerous interviews where Barrett has explicitly or implicitly said: "It's not a conspiracy, its the truth. The proof is that I'm allowed to teach it at the great U of W"

Ann, I don't think you start TV appearances with, "I'm Ann Althouse, Prof an UW Law, and obviously because I am allowed to teach there, what I'm about to say about nuclear physics must be fact."; 8/5/06, 11:03 AM
Ann Althouse said...: Drill: If I did say that, I would be so blatantly an idiot that everyone should discount what I say, not give it more credit. And it would still be crushingly clear that I was not speaking for the university. I would be bringing disrepute to the university for having an idiot like me on the teaching staff, but that would simply be useful information that the public deserves access to.; 8/5/06, 11:11 AM
Ann Althouse said...: Tim: If the point is that Barrett's media appearances show him to be a nut, I think Farrell already had that information from the interviews he did before deciding to keep him on. The new problem that has emerged from the media appearances is not Farrell's perception that he is a nut but the embarrassment to the university caused by the general access to seeing what he is like.; 8/5/06, 12:16 PM
altoids1306 said...: For some reason, it didn't strike me until today that making a stand against Farrell and Barrett was incredibly brave. (While I cringe to use phrases like "making a stand", it actually does apply to this situation.)

As someone who hopes to be a tenured professor someday, it's inspiring to see someone who isn't cowed by the university bureaucracy. I'm not sure what professional pressures you're facing, but thanks anyways.; 8/5/06, 12:26 PM
Dusty said...: I'll second altoids1306's comment, Ann, and let me add that your eforts are admirable.; 8/5/06, 1:04 PM
Simon said...: David said...
"Free speech gives you the right to make yourself look idiotic. It does not give Barrett the right to make his employer, dependent on tuition and students, to look frivolous in it's hiring and teaching practices."

Ah, but if Barrett's employer IS frivolous in it's hiring and teaching practices (as evidenced by their decision to hire him and refusal thusfar to fire him), does free speech give Barrett a right to forewarn by example the potential students who might otherwise be tempted to attend UW and give them the money on which you say they depend?

Apropos, Ann's comment that:
"If I did say that, I would be so blatantly an idiot that everyone should discount what I say, not give it more credit ... I would be bringing disrepute to the university for having an idiot like me on the teaching staff, but that would simply be useful information that the public deserves access to."

Is that not an accurate description of what is actually happening here? Barrett is saying that, he is blatantly an idiot, everyone should discount what he's saying, and he's bringing the university into disrepute by having an idiot like him on the teaching staff? To some extent, aren't students entitled to know the quality of the judgement of the university's hiring practices?

If Barrett is performing any kind of public service, it is that he is serving as a beacon to warn parents that UW is nota place to send their children. If UW doesn't like being associated with Barrett, if they don't like their potential customers knowing just what kind of nutjob they're willing to hire, perhaps they should take the logical step and not be associated with him - to not have him on staff?; 8/5/06, 2:01 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Tim said:
I'm going to assume Farrell didn't know Barrett was a nut until the media interviews. People act differently in private than under the glare of media spotlight after all.

That assumption brings into play another problem. The Department Chairwoman, the regular Instructor and the whole interdisciplinary departments that are the home to LCA 370 (Intro to Islam) and where Barrett got his PhD and was a TA.

While Farrell can be excused for assuming that nobody could be as wacko as Barrett really is, those faculty in the department worked with him for 10 years including nearly 5 after 911. They knew his theories and granted him a PhD and thought he'd be just fine for LCA 370. It doesn't say much for the scholarship or the radical bias of the whole crew. If Farrell did even the most minimal due diligence before he made his decision, he should hold the people that mis-represented Barrett to him accountable now.; 8/5/06, 2:12 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "making a stand against Farrell and Barrett was incredibly brave"

It's not that brave. I have tenure (and even a vested pension) at a university that is fiercely devoted to academic freedom and free speech. That devotion, of course, is how they got into this fix in the first place.

In any case, not one administrator or faculty member or student or alumnus has said one word to so much as suggest even that I tone it down a smidge.; 8/5/06, 2:16 PM
Ann Althouse said...: And certainly no one has said that I shouldn't be making it seem as though I represent the university!; 8/5/06, 2:17 PM
Ron said...: OT, but still from Instapundit --

Kos Coy? Isn't that that place where you get liberal opinions in bulk?; 8/5/06, 4:45 PM
bearbee said...: Conspiracy nuttiness spillover Conspiracy theorists blog that Flight 93 photo is fake; 8/6/06, 7:20 AM
Editor Theorist said...: AA is quite correct about the wrongness of the President's comments.

The University of Wisconsin is evading its right and responsibility to prevent Barrett teaching this material (on the basis of it being inappropriate for the curriculum).

Instead of instructing Barrett not to teach this material, in his public statements the President has instead explicitly approved and endorsed Barrett's curriculum.

Therefore, teaching the 9/11 conspiracy is no longer Barretts responsibility, but the President's.

My feeling is that - by avoiding the tough decision at an early stage, the President of UW has dug himself into a hole.

Stopping Barrett teaching 9/11 conspiracy theories in a classroom is a curriculum matter, nothing to do with 'free speech'; but trying to pressurize Barrett to stop speaking about his ideas outside the classroom _is_ an infringement of his free speech.

It looks like the UW president has completely misunderstood the situation.

My guess is that this business will probably, quite rightly, lead to the resignation of the UW President, sooner rather than later.; 8/9/06, 11:01 AM