Althouse: "Like Bush and the neocons, Hitler and the Nazis inaugurated their new era by destroying an architectural monument...."

October 10, 2006

"Like Bush and the neocons, Hitler and the Nazis inaugurated their new era by destroying an architectural monument...."

From the required textbook for Kevin Barrett's course on Islam, here at the University of Wisconsin. The book is: "9/11 and American Empire: Muslims, Jews, and Christians Speak Out," a collection of essays including one by Barrett. Lots more quotes from the book at the link.

UPDATE: Blue Crab wants him fired. Note that I'm supporting the decision not to fire him. But I advocate criticizing him -- harshly and disrespectfully.

40 comments:

Simon said...: Isn't it vaguely embarassing to be associated with a University that thinks that this fellow should be teaching this material to students? I just feel terribly for the alumni, staff and students of UW whose prestige is being negatively affected by this extraordinary decision.

UW: You can't stop morons from believing what they want, but as an institution, you can refuse to lend them your resources, your prestige and your imprimatur.; 10/10/06, 6:58 AM
Simon said...: "UW-Madison spokesperson Brian Matmiller told 27 News Department Chair Ellen Rafferty declined comment on '9/11 and American Empire' because she was unfamiliar with the book and was not an expert on 9/11 and its implications."

Yeah, I'll bet he refused to comment. But the real irony is that Barret is not an "expert" on anything relevant to 9/11 either - materials science, structural engineering, and so on. Mainstream Republicans have Fred Phelps to make us cringe by association; mainstream Democrats have Barrett and his ilk. I suppose the difference is that no major university gives Phelps a platform.; 10/10/06, 7:02 AM
Ann Althouse said...: Simon: I do not believe the university "thinks that this fellow should be teaching this material to students." I think the university thinks that he should not be fired but also that he should not have been hired. I believe this story has brought strong attention to a problem that exists at the hiring level. Firing Barrett would have been a distraction and quite possibly counterproductive. Stay turned and see how things shake out in the future.; 10/10/06, 7:07 AM
Simon said...: If my employer thought I should not have been hired, they would fire me. If UW truly thought that what this fellow was teaching was beyond the pale, his feet would not touch the ground. If he was teaching holocaust denial -- which could also, in warped minds of Barrett's ilk, be tangentially connected to "an introduction to Islam", insofar as the leader of a major Islamic nation has repeatedly denied the holocaust -- his feet would not touch the ground. He would be fired almost instantly, in response to either immense media outcry or an innate sense of shame on the part of UW, a desire to correct their mistake. That UW ever let him step into a classroom, knowing what he was going to do, is an endorsement that his viewpoint is valid, even if it doesn't rise to an endorsement that his viewpoint is accurate.; 10/10/06, 7:24 AM
Goatwhacker said...: UW-Madison spokesperson Brian Matmiller told 27 News Department Chair Ellen Rafferty declined comment on "9/11 and American Empire" because she was unfamiliar with the book and was not an expert on 9/11 and its implications.

I'm no academic, but maybe the departmental chair needs a little better handle on things. It's not like this topic just became controversial this morning.

Anyway I understand the point that keeping Barrett is the "lesser evil" when compared to firing him. From a practical standpoint though, UW has given Barrett not only resources, but a measure of credibility. Whatever disclaimers may come from UW, he'll have "lecturer, University of Wisconsin-Madison" after his name forever. And the attitude that the UW administration is projecting is that they're not particularly concerned about that.; 10/10/06, 7:42 AM
Ann Althouse said...: You have to take into account the legitimate concern that if he were fired, there would be demands to fire others who have controversial ideas. The UW is following a tradition of academic freedom, and in the broad view, there are good reasons to maintain a strong policy here.; 10/10/06, 7:54 AM
Telecomedian said...: A video recently released to the web shows a fuel tanker truck that caught on fire on a bridge. The resulting blaze structurally damaged the bridge until it collapsed.

Here's the link - http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1159550048/Tanker_Truck_Crashes_and_Blows_Up_a_Bridge - though I'm sure Barrett will blame the thermite or some other nonesense.; 10/10/06, 7:54 AM
MadisonMan said...: I wonder what the other 14 essays are like.

Speaking as an alum, and the son of 2 alums, and the grandson of 4 alums, I don't see how this affects the prestige of the UW. It's not like the UW is a world-class leader in Languages and Culture of Asia, the department in which this class is taught. Among alumni that I know, this kind of thing is usually met with eyerolls. Now if I worked at the UW Foundation, I might sing a different tune; I don't know how the episode is affecting donations.; 10/10/06, 7:55 AM
Anonymous said...: Ann,

I'll be the first to admit that I don't have a good handle on what "academic freedom" means, but from this layman's perspective, it appears to be the last refuge of academic scoundrels--like Ward Churchill.

Can't reasonable people make reasonable distinctions between controversial ideas and obvious bullshit? I think they can, and Barret's stuff stinks to high heaven.; 10/10/06, 8:28 AM
Sloanasaurus said...: I went to UW for 8 years including grad school, and agree with MadisonMan, I don't see how Barret affects the long term reputation for the UW.

Maybe they should offset Barret's left wing conpiracy class by at lease hiring some mainstream professors to teach military history....maybe military history that actually concentrated on the military part of it rather than some left wing construct of the military... but that would be too much for UW.

Still my best memory of the UW has to be the free beer that was offered me to attend the no blood for oil march during Gulf War I. I was proud to be part of a rent-a-crowd.; 10/10/06, 8:38 AM
Ann Althouse said...: Well, see, the argument that Noam Chomsky should be fired proves my point about the larger picture.; 10/10/06, 8:54 AM
MadisonMan said...: mike, there is not an administrator alive who likes to make work for himself (herself). Whomever signed off on the hiring of Barrett added a whole slew of hours to their workload. Do you think they're willing to make that same mistake again.

Of course, these are University Administrators we're talking about. (rimshot); 10/10/06, 9:23 AM
Anonymous said...: So the UW has a pr problem on its hands over hiring Bartlett as a lecturer, and it appears to be too late to fire him now that he has wrapped himself in the flowing robes of academic freedom. But we aren't talking Socrates here, Dude. So that leaves out the hemlock solution. Just kidding, folks.
But here's a radical idea: Let the students decide for themselves about Bartlett. Have a little faith in your sons and daughters to come to their own reasonable conclusions. I am sure they are evolving into intelligent, responsible adults and citizens during their education at UW.
Bartlett just lucked out landing a temporary gig to play air guitar for one course. He's probably getting paid as a lecturer about 1/3 the amount of money he could make as a waiter at an upscale Italian restaurant in New York City. And I'm not even including all the excellent Barolo, Brunello and Chianti wine that he can drink on the side at the waiter's station! So he's definitely a classic underachiever enjoying his 15 minutes of fame.
I just wish that one of his students would tape his looney tune rants and post them on YouTube. I've always been a sucker for cheap entertainment and like a good laugh over my morning cup of coffee.
Of course, the real issue is the less than rigorous standards that administration officials used during the hiring process. Direct your criticism toward that venue and reform the hiring process, so UW administration officials and concerned alumni can avoid any future embarrassments.; 10/10/06, 9:36 AM
Vader said...: Barrett isn't tenured, is he? My impression is that he is on contract. Even the most spineless of administrations should feel free to not renew that contract.

Am I wrong?; 10/10/06, 9:48 AM
Sloanasaurus said...: The UW already has a left wing reputation. Barrett just reminds us of that. If it wasn't for sports, the UW would lose a major portion of their alumni support and giving because most of the alumni that I know think the acadmics there are a leftwing sham; 10/10/06, 9:52 AM
Beth said...: "Like Bush and the neocons, Hitler and the Nazis, the Taliban in Afghanistan inaugurated their new era by destroying an architectural monument..."

My suggested revision to that chapter. I'm still pissed off about the Buddhas.; 10/10/06, 10:21 AM
Joan said...: Elizabeth, what did Bush and the neo-cons have to do with the destruction of the Buddhas? I'm pretty sure the original quote meant to blame the administration, not the Taliban, for their destruction.

This quote I found even more disturbing: We have erected a wall of repression around 9/11 because deep down inside, we experienced a powerful wave of forbidden pleasure at the destructive spectacle.

That's just sick. I'd also like some clarification on who this "we" is, so I can avoid them in the future.

I'm curious as to how this is affecting fundraising at UW, also. Like Richard Fagin, I've quit donating to MIT. For me the trigger was Nancy Hopkins getting the vapors over Larry Summer's completely innocuous remarks, and the way the Institute failed to repudiate her. In the grand scheme, the loss of my annual contribution probably doesn't mean much to the institution, but I'm hoping that there are a lot of alums that feel the way I do.; 10/10/06, 10:51 AM
Simon said...: Ann, I'm not convinced. Sorry. To be sure, with my Scalian sympathies, I'm certainly sympathetic to arguments like "where might the broader principle behind this point lead us?" or "what is the logic that limits the application of that principle?" but in my view, there is a difference in kind, not just in degree, between what Barret is doing and any legitimate concerns for academic freedom. If Barrett was teaching a materials science class (and was qualified to do so), or some other controversial subject within his acknowledged sphere of learning, then there might be a legitimate academic freedom argument. But academic freedom does not (and should not) protect a lecturer who teaches something in which he has no academic (or other) expertise in the forum of a class where the material relates to the subject only tangentially at best. And, arguendo, even if there were legitimate concerns at issue here, then that would only mandate a particularized balancing of harms, rather than a blanket rule, and it should be readily apparent that such a test would not cut in Barrett's favor.

RSwan said...
"Simon, although you may associate his beliefs with Republicans, Fred Phelps is a Democrat."

The question is not whether I personally associate Fred Phelps with the Republican Party, or with anyone else; the question is, with whom does the average reasonable person associate him? In the public mind, Phelps is associated with the religious right (albeit its fringe) and the religious right is associated with the Republican Party. Hence, no matter how inaccurate, we Republicans must often suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous association. Likewise, I find it hard to believe that most Democrats -- who are, in the main, reasonable and intelligent people who simply happen to be deeply misguided -- share Barrett's paranoid delusions, yet they, too, are tarred by his behavior because his views are identified with their extreme fringe. The ability of a few high-profile idiots to associate their crap with major political parties is one of the downfalls of a party system where one is not, in the sense of political parties in most other countries, a "member" of a party from which one can be expelled.; 10/10/06, 11:00 AM
Brian Doyle said...: While I haven't been convinced by any conspiracy theory regarding Bush and 9/11, I'm not embarrassed by them, and, like Ann, I don't think professors should be fired for espousing them.; 10/10/06, 12:22 PM
Brian Doyle said...: Hmmm... I want to hedge a little bit on not being embarrassed by any of them.

Suffice it to say there are many legitimate questions raised by the conspiracy theorists which are by no means answered by the publicly available information.

The non-comprehensiveness of the 9/11 Commission's report is adequately demonstrated by its total omission of the 7/10/01 meeting w/ Tenet, Black and Rice.

...Plus the planted-explosive theory is rather compelling :-); 10/10/06, 12:33 PM
Anonymous said...: I once feared that Barrett could trigger a backlash that might damage academic freedom. As a University of California alum of a certain age, I know about backlashes.

It looks, however, like all this is going to fade away, and UW will roll along as usual, with perhaps a bit more caution on the part of administrators, but nothing else much changed. To put it in slightly economic terms, I think the reason for this is that academic loonyness has been thoroughly discounted by the "market," i.e., parents, students, and to a certain extent, the general public. Everyone "knows" professors in the humanities and social sciences are leftwing moonbats, so what's different here? Not much, so it would appear.

Most parents I know of college students are making damn sure their kids study the sciences or pre-professional subjects. "You wanna take Sociology? Not on my dime you won't," so the argument goes. I'm at an age where most of my contemporaries are parents of college kids, while I still have elementary and middle school students. I'm looking for a good Catholic college when the time comes.

BTW, Interlink Books is located in Northampton, Mass., the heart of the Happy Valley, the closest thing we have in Massachusetts to Madison in terms of profusion of the Looney Left. Visit their Web site and see for yourself. We're not talking Houghton Mifflin here.

And I know Barrett is not a "professor." My use of the term above was in a generic sense.; 10/10/06, 12:43 PM
Brian Doyle said...: From the blurb for the above-linked "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions"

In fact, there are holes in the places where detail ought to be thickest: Is it possible that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has given three different stories of what he was doing the morning of September 11, and that the Commission combines two of them and ignores eyewitness reports to the contrary? Is it possible that the man in charge of the military that day, Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Myers, saw the first tower hit on TV, and then went into a meeting, where he remained unaware of what was happening for the next 40 minutes? Is it possible, as the Commission reports, that the FAA did not inform military that the fourth airplane appeared to have been hijacked—contrary to both common sense and the word of FAA employees?

"Respectable" imprimateur:

“With this new book, David Ray Griffin establishes himself, alongside Seymour Hersh, as America’s number one bearer of unpleasant, yet necessary, public truths.” – Richard Falk, professor emeritus, Princeton

Sounds like good stuff!
Thanks for the tip.; 10/10/06, 12:53 PM
Beth said...: Elizabeth, what did Bush and the neo-cons have to do with the destruction of the Buddhas? I'm pretty sure the original quote meant to blame the administration, not the Taliban, for their destruction.

Joan, you missed my point. I'm lampooning the chapter for its bias in overlooking the obvious parallel of the Taliban's destruction of the Buddhas.; 10/10/06, 1:02 PM
Brian Doyle said...: Making Chomsky's termination a condition for your financial support of MIT is effectively saying "I think MIT should fire Chomsky."

Cowing to outraged alums by removing faculty who are too controversial is probably not a precedent universities are apt to want to set.; 10/10/06, 2:09 PM
Brian Doyle said...: Richard would give money to MIT if they fired Chomsky... but he doesn't want him fired?; 10/10/06, 2:39 PM
JohnF said...: "Firing Barrett would have been a distraction and quite possibly counterproductive. Stay turned and see how things shake out in the future."

When the Barrett stuff was hot many weeks ago several commenters, including me, said if he were fired then there would be the usual flurry, and then all would be calm. Now that he is marching forward, there will be disruption until the end. Keeping him on is what will turn out to be counterproductive.

As for his firing encouraging a look at who else might be fired, well, tenure blocks a lot of that, and, as to the rest, it's a good idea. Personally, I think tenure is a bad idea (I come from, how do I put it, the real world, where tenure generally doesn't exist) and more professors should have their ideas put on the block for examination.

Of course government universities have first amendment issues to contend with that private universities do not, but having a marketplace of ideas doesn't require a private university (or any other organization) to give equal treatment, equal access, and equal stature, to every idea.; 10/10/06, 2:46 PM
chickelit said...: Do certain universities protect their reputations as "left wing"? Once upon a time, universities like Madison, Berkeley, etc., were top notch public research universities without a left or right (especially radical) flavor. Here's hoping that one day Madison slowly lose some of its left wing charm, and return to being an oasis of real knowledge in the Midwest.; 10/10/06, 3:01 PM
Harkonnendog said...: Ann,

Maybe you have some inside info we don't, but sans that your answer is a bit naive.

If the guy was saying comparably kooky stuff the left didn't like he would be fired in a heartbeat. (Then again, he would never have been hired in the first place.) Academic freedom is nothing more than an excuse. It is politically correct for him to be a lie spreading conspiracy theorist nutjob as long as Bush is his target. That's why he hasn't been fired, and that's why he was hired in the first place.

Cheers!; 10/10/06, 3:02 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Madison Man- let's take something libs really believe in- like the idea that Kerry was unfairly "Swiftboated". Would you care if John O'Neill was teaching a course at UW where the students were required to examine the many,many affadavits and statements by the 100 or so Swift Boat Vets for accuracy, validity and relevance?; 10/10/06, 3:25 PM
garage mahal said...: Madison Man- let's take something libs really believe in- like the idea that Kerry was unfairly "Swiftboated". Would you care if John O'Neill was teaching a course at UW where the students were required to examine the many,many affadavits and statements by the 100 or so Swift Boat Vets for accuracy, validity and relevance?

I think most Repubs would rather just leave this in 2004, rather than shine any sunlight on it. It reeks to high heaven, and this is the last thing they would want "taught"

Especially John O'Neill and William Franke.; 10/10/06, 4:18 PM
Tibore said...: "The major television networks, largely owned by defense contractors that would be lapping up 9/11's trillion dollar windfall, made absolutely sure we couldn't forget it, by running the same footage over...and over...and over."

"The obviously false 'let's roll' heroic mini-myth of Flight 93."

"It was intended to set the American empire in stone for at least a hundred years, perhaps even to found a new, imperial 1000-year Reich like the ones the Nazis dreamed of."

""We have erected a wall of repression around 9/11 because deep down inside, we experienced a powerful wave of forbidden pleasure at the destructive spectacle."

Good God... is this guy a complete idiot? I'm not sure which of the above were actually written by Barrett, and which were not, but if he actually 1. Believes in this crap, and 2. Is not teaching these as controversial topics to be analyzed and accepted or rejected on their merits, but is teaching them as existing facts, then I'm no longer going to pussyfoot around: He needs to be removed from teaching.

Now, I admit, if he was admitting these were not proven, but mere assertions, and challenging students to come to their own conclusions, I can grudgingly live with it. I still have concerns about the power of the teacher over the student in influencing belief, but if he really challenges the students to come to their own conclusions, and doesn't penalize students from coming to different ones, all right. I still don't like the guy, I still think he's full of (*bleep*), and I'd completely challenge the narrative he believes is true, but I could live with him keeping his job.

But that's if...

The unfortunate reality is that too many conspiracy fantasists aren't trying to let people come to their own conclusions. They're around to preach, not teach. If that's the case - and the cynical side of me believes it is, while the charitible side is sort of ducking it's head and not saying anything - then Barrett really needs to be removed. Really, seriously needs to be removed.; 10/10/06, 6:00 PM
The Drill SGT said...: a couple of thoughts:

1. Chomsky disgusts me on a personal level, but he doesn't teach that garbage in the class room and has tenure. I would give the same pass to a Nobel prize winner. I'd cut them a break on any additional loony fancies.

2. WRT Barrett, I'm with Dawn. After the Barrett story broke, the UW Provost and the Dept Chairman were supposed to have reviewed the syllabus and given it/Barrett their blessing. Doesn't that include the reading list? That's the second time that those 2 have demonstrated they are incompetent.; 10/10/06, 9:08 PM
MadisonMan said...: Madison Man- let's take something libs really believe in- like the idea that Kerry was unfairly "Swiftboated". Would you care if John O'Neill was teaching a course at UW where the students were required to examine the many,many affadavits and statements by the 100 or so Swift Boat Vets for accuracy, validity and relevance?

What's the course? Algebra? Material Science? Examining all those statements would be very tedious, I would think, but it could also be very educational, given the right department. Political Scientists might find it actually interesting. I'd be completely snoring through it. I'd have no problem with it being taught -- if there's a market for it.; 10/10/06, 9:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Barf.; 10/10/06, 9:32 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Madison Man- I applaud you for being consistent in support of free speech. Honestly, your answer surprised me a little.

To answer your question, the course could be under the pol sci or maybe marketing/ communications curriculum.; 10/11/06, 12:42 PM
Smilin' Jack said...: "Like Bush and the neocons, Hitler and the Nazis inaugurated their new era by destroying an architectural monument...."

Look, we all know Hitler had his faults, but I'm getting tired of seeing him constantly compared to Bush...that's just going too far.

More seriously, I agree that Chomsky and Barrett are completely different cases. Chomsky may be politically wacko, but there's not much question he's a genius and he essentially founded modern linguistics. As far as I know, Barrett has no redeeming educational value.; 10/11/06, 3:06 PM
Clayton Cramer said...: According to this news account, Barrett knows Hitler's IQ, and Bush's IQ:

Barrett said Tuesday he was comparing the attacks to the burning of the German parliament building, the Reichstag, in 1933, a key event in the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship.

"That's not comparing them as people, that's comparing the Reichstag fire to the demolition of the World Trade Center, and that's an accurate comparison that I would stand by," he said.

But he did say in an interview: "Hitler had a good 20 to 30 IQ points on Bush so comparing Bush to Hitler would in many ways be an insult to Hitler."; 10/11/06, 4:59 PM
Revenant said...: Chomsky may be politically wacko, but there's not much question he's a genius and he essentially founded modern linguistics.

Chomsky certainly stirred things up and spawned a wave of new thinking in linguistics. But the jury is still out on whether he's more of an Einstein (who revolutionized physics) or a Freud (who got people interested in studying the mind, but was wrong about practically everything). Chomsky's linguistic theories have for the most part not been confirmed, are often criticized for being unfalsifiable.; 10/11/06, 6:45 PM
Stephen said...: Stop being ignorant..If you are willing to trade your freedom for tempeorary safety than you don't deserve safety or freedom...Don't you ignorant people get it...look at the videos on youtube.com proving that the twin towers made of pure concrete were systematically demolished..Do you really think the steel melted by fire...Do you know about heat resistant steel...Wake up and fight for your rights...And if you believe in this president than you believe in the war...Go to the fronline than...Stop talking and leave..Rumsfeld needs you. For all those that are going to try to put me down or provide a rebuttal...Please just look at some videos on youtube about 9/11 or the so called conspiracy theories...there are short and long ones...C'mon do it for your country.

I like this video better

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561&q=Screw+Loose+Change&hl=en; 10/14/06, 9:01 PM
Stephen said...: RatMan,

I just want to take a second to congratulate you--I'm not sure this is the first time I've heard the term neoconservative used correctly in a couple years, but it's definitely one of the few.

I'm not sure what I should be outraged about re: the clip, though. It's well known by anybody who knows Irving Kristol that the guy was a communist in the 30s and that he moved to the right in the 50s/60s. He's never made a secret of it. What's the gist of this?; 10/15/06, 2:19 PM