I've been avoiding writing about this person lately.

But I want to flag this current story.

Click the tag for old posts about him. I haven't been publicizing his run for Congress.

Fujita, grilled?

The other day I disparaged the pathetic Madison, Wisconsin newspaper, The Capital Times, for its inane letter publishing policy. I must continue the theme. On January 26, 2008, it published a long letter from area 9/11 conspiracy theorist Kevin Barrett. Excerpts, with my boldface:

I am out of a job because The Capital Times and other mainstream media outlets refuse to report the news....

Along with hundreds of other scholars, engineers, architects, and former high-level military, intelligence and executive branch officials..., I have pointed out that the official story of 9/11 is a ridiculous fairy tale....

Last week, the probable next prime minister of Japan, Yukihisa Fujita, grilled current prime minister Fukuda for half an hour about the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center and the staged events at the Pentagon and asked whether the Japanese police could arrest George W. Bush for his complicity in 9/11. Why wasn't that front page news?....

[M]y reputation has been ruined, at least in the eyes of the fewer and fewer people naive enough to believe the mainstream media...

Today, we see this hilarious response:

Dear Editor: I am Yukihisa Fujita, a Japanese MP who was mentioned in a Jan. 26 letter to the editor by Kevin Barrett. I wish to correct two points in his letter:

1. I can never be the probable next prime minister because the prime minister of Japan has to be elected among Lower House MPs, while I am an Upper House MP! I do not have any position in the shadow Cabinet in the Democratic Party of Japan.

2. I never asked the Japanese police to arrest President Bush.

Yukihisa Fujita,

Japan

Some things aren't in the news because — unexciting as it may be to the mind of the conspiracy buff — they didn't happen.

Area man believes inane theory.

Local newspaper defends inane letter publishing policy.

IN THE COMMENTS: Pogo summarizes:

So the Capital Times is concerned that Ann Althouse - who is "from their area"- ripped on (huh? What are they at CT, high schoolers?) Kevin Barrett who is also "from their area", so they "let people have their say"?

Baloney.

They are nutters, and support a fellow loon.

MORE IN THE COMMENTS: Quoting the letter at the link from the Capital Times opinion editor Judie Kleinmaier — "Are you suggesting that we should believe everything our government — the government of George Bush and Dick Cheney — tells us?" — Tibore writes:

(*Sigh*)... Judie, instead of making it all about "what the government tells us", how about you consider "what the evidence, science, and engineering" tells us? Then maybe you'd see why 9/11 conspiracy fantasy is so baseless.

Yet another person who'd probably say to me "Put aside the physics for a minute, consider what Bush..." yadda yadda... sheesh...

Palladian writes:

What will these people do when Bush and Cheney aren't running the government anymore, yet the "official" version of 9/11/01 doesn't change?

Henry responds:

That's spot on. The fact that Judie Kleinmaier thinks her argument is enhanced by qualifying who the "government" is reveals a profound level of ignorance about science and actual, unbiased, journalism...

ADDED: Area Woman Rips Area Opinion Editor.

"You may rest assured that I, and hundreds of supporters, will continue to contact you, by email, phone, and perhaps in-person requests...."

An excerpt from the most recent email received from a 9/11 conspiracy theorist.

UPDATE: Comments from a 9/11 conspiracy website (which I won't link to). They're reacting to my statement ("I don't know why the University of Wisconsin has not rehired 9/11 conspiracy believer Kevin Barrett to teach a course on the history of Islam. But if we know a person believes something truly nutty, are we not entitled to use that as evidence of his intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness?") and to my rejection of a proposal that I debate Barrett (to which I responded, by email, that I would no more debate a 9/11 truther than I would a Nazi or a Klansman).

It appears that Ann Althouse is deranged. How can UW employee her? She insults Kevin Barrett's position on 9/11, but refuses to debate him. This is not rational behavior....

Why does UW continue to employee the increasingly incoherent Ann Althouse? She obviously has some type of mental disorder. The evidence of 9/11 as an inside job by people high in this administration is overwhelming. It only takes a modicum of research to understand that.....

Anyone as incoherent as Ann Althouse has no business teaching at a state university.

***

As a Wisconsite [sic] who is proud of our tradition of fair playing regarding all points of view, I questioned her conduct and told her I thought we had left Joe McCarthy's way in the world in our past.

I invited her to consider moving to another state where this kind of conduct in someone in her position would be seen as appropriate.

Maybe if she...and her boss...get a few more of these from those who pay their salaries, they will think twice about this.

***

Personally, I feel, it's time to push back--well past time!

Ms. Altman [sic] is a one-sided narrow-minded hippocrit [sic].

...and don't believe her!

Most recent email from a 9/11 "truther" —

You are the one defending the Fascist Nazi like regime we unfortunately call America these days. Turning a blind eye to the truth and calling people looking for the truth Nazis is truly the most deplorable position I know of. For those you defend will not a rats ass about you in the end. May you forever rot in the hell you have earned and rightly deserve.

AND: Another email:

I can't wait for you to debate the 'official' bullshit 9/11 lies, ass! I hope this gets you fired, you're obviously stupid. Do you read, books? There's plenty of proof 9/11 was an inside job. Try reading, if you know how.....lololol.

MORE:

there are only three choices for you girly..
1) You suffer from a severe case of cognizant dissonance (I hope);
2) you are an evil troll-shill for the perps who carried out the evil plan (most likely);
3) or you are just plain stupid(higly probabable), and you know absolutely nothing about controlled demolition, conservation of momentum(and the laws of physics in general), the effects of the transfer of heat though metal structures, load bearing, avionics, flight data recording interpretation....AND who really runs this world.

In any event you should not be permitted to teach anything to anyone...
those that carried out 9-11 will eventully be brought to the harshest form of acceptable legal justice, including their punk-ass neo-con supporters (like you). You think you know "law" now???...just wait. It will take a while to get to you lower level operatives but they will get to you. People like you are only ten minutes between this world and a better one.
YOU SUCK!

I'm assailed in the local paper for failing to take the 9/11 truthers seriously.

Oh, the pain! The pain that UW-Oshkosh emeritus biology professor Bill Willers imagines he's inflicting!

On Jan. 21, University of Wisconsin law professor Ann Althouse wrote on her blog, “I don’t know why the University of Wisconsin has not rehired 9/11 conspiracy believer Kevin Barrett to teach a course on the history of Islam. But if we know a person believes something truly nutty, are we not entitled to use that as evidence of his intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness?”

Here's the blog post in which I set aside the facts I don't know and raise a question designed to help readers work toward a general principle that would distinguish between the discrimination against a political viewpoint and the proper use of evidence of a person's qualities of mind.

This is an amazing statement coming from a professor of law — a position that presupposes a respect for carefully considered evidence.

Presumably, by "position" he means that the position of professor of law presupposes respect for evidence. But it could more aptly mean that the position I took in my statement is, in fact, a recommendation that we ascertain the value of the evidence that a job applicant creates through speaking and thus a position that entails respect for evidence.

Her assault on Mr. Barrett, in which she makes no effort to consider the countless facts backing the so-called Truth Movement, is shamefully flippant — her word choice of “truly nutty” — and unworthy of an academic intent on attacking another.

Professor Willers, calm down and reread. I put to the side the case of Kevin Barrett and said I did not know the facts. Moving to the level of abstraction, I asked a neutral question that was intended to facilitate thinking about what to do in the case of a job applicant who takes a truly nutty position. By the way, it's the work of a law professor to propose hypotheticals to assist students in thinking about legal problems outside of the context of a particular case.

Without going into details easily found on the Internet...

Oh, my! It's on the Internet!

....a considerable army of architects, engineers, physicists, logicians, commercial and military pilots, first responders, military figures all the way to general officer, and government personnel including FBI and CIA agents has amassed a solid case countering the official story. That army is all the greater for the addition of similar experts from countries all over the world.

So, apparently Willers is himself a 9/11 truther. Sigh.

Ms. Althouse has refused to debate the issue in public forum. That being so, how does the objective observer avoid a conclusion of moral cowardice on her part? As a professional, is she not obligated to present evidence rather than indulging in personal attack?

Why would I debate about physics when I'm a law professor? Being "a professional" doesn't mean you're an expert in everything.

And again, I didn't make a personal attack.

By the way, Professor Willers, aren't you making a personal attack? Do you think you had the obligation to read my post with basic understanding before writing a letter like this to the newspaper?

There is irony surrounding Ms. Althouse’s questioning of Mr. Barrett’s intelligence...

Oh, irony! That's really... ironic... because I was just pointing out the irony of your absurd little letter to the student newspaper.

....judgment and trustworthiness, because it leads one to the question, “If we know that a law professor is willing to attack someone for no reason that she could defend in a courtroom situation, would we not be entitled to question her intelligence, judgment and trustworthiness?” And there is little doubt that in a courtroom, in which she would face that army of experts and their facts, she would be reduced to dust on the floor.

In answer to your hypothetical, of course you could take into account that the law professor attacked someone for no reason. I didn't do that, however, so that doesn't refer to me.

Nevertheless, I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness.

If you reject a teaching job applicant because he believes a crazy conspiracy theory...

... have you discriminated against him because of his political viewpoint?

I'm not saying that's what happened in this case. I don't know why the University of Wisconsin has not rehired 9/11 conspiracy believer Kevin Barrett to teach a course on the history of Islam. But if we know a person believes something truly nutty, are we not entitled to use that as evidence of his intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness?

Wisconsin students may hate the speaker — David Horowitz — but they gave him a respectful hearing.

I'm writing up the good news. I thought there might be disruption — and David Horowitz seems almost to want to bait the students into causing a publicity-getting scene when he calls his event "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week." He did get some attention, but the students showed a solid commitment to free-speech values by assembling before the lecture and chanting — the chant was "Racist, fascist, anti-gay, right-wing bigot go away" — and then listening respectfully to what Horowitz had to say.

But there was one man....

Former UW lecturer Kevin Barrett — who attracted national media attention to the university for promoting his belief that the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon were an inside military job — was in attendance and voiced opposition, disrupting Horowitz’s talk near the beginning of the lecture.

Horowitz may be a publicity whore, but he wasn't the biggest publicity whore in the room.

Barrett, who was booed by the crowd after he interrupted the speech, left the Memorial Union Theater shortly thereafter in the midst of a popular UW football tradition — the “asshole” chant.

Ha ha ha. Wisconsin students rule.

HOLD EVERYTHING: Uncle Jimbo was there! With video:



And text. Jimbo — who was "predisposed" to agree with Horowitz — thinks the reason the crowd didn't disrupt him was that he was too dull and uninspiring. He also says the students "maintained more decorum" than Horowitz, who said rude things like "Well I guess you just aren't able to read" and "I don't know what to do if you can't add two and two and get four."

It would have been a total bomb, but Ebo decided we needed a pitcher of Optimator in the Rathskeller and we spent about an hour talking with a couple of groups of folks who came in opposition to Horowitz. It was enagaging [sic], entertaining and so completely superior to the waste of time that was the theater in the theater [sic], that we resolved to attend the Muslim dialogue tomorrow night. I truly enjoyed the discussion with some folks who, although we disagreed on much, came with much more open minds and helpful attitudes than the headliner.

Ha ha. The marketplace — the tavern — of ideas.

"I usually wear the 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB t-shirt Alex Jones gave me when I go through airport security."

9/11 conspiracy theorist Kevin Barrett finally gets the security confrontation he'd longed for, and not that much happens.

Then the lead agent pulled himself together. “Is this your?” he said, brandishing a beat-up spiral notebook. I admitted that it was.

“Do you know where we got it?”

“I must have forgotten it on the plane when I got off last Friday.”

“Why is there Arabic writing in it?”

I explained that I had grabbed an old notebook as I left the house with the intention of writing my New York speech on the plane. The old notebook happened to be one I had used during Arabic classes a decade ago....

I sheepishly remembered that it included some bizarre little cartoons I had drawn, along with a draft of an unfinished play about the death of Vincent Van Gogh, A Murder of Crows. An extract.....

[Extract excised for your comfort.]

After remarking on the suspicious stuff in the notebook, the agent changed tack. Gruffly, he announced that he was disturbed by some of my internet essays. I explained that I was just doing my patriotic duty to expose the 9/11 coup d'etat and re-establish constitutional rule. He asked whether I flew around the country saying these things. I said yes. He asked if anyone accompanied me on my travels. I said no, I usually travel alone to speaking engagements. He asked me where I had been staying in New York. I told him I stayed with fellow 9/11 activists. He said “We know you were at St. Mark's church.” Then he asked me point-blank: “Are you a terrorist?”

My response: “To answer that, we have to agree first on what terrorism is.....”

If he really thought the government was so evil that it committed the 9/11 attacks, would he play the smartass during a security check? Here's my conspiracy theory: the 9/11 conspiracy theory is a conspiracy to gain publicity.

ADDED: You have to suspect that he purposely chose that particular notebook and deliberately left it on the earlier flight so he could get the government to pay more attention to him. What do you have to do around here to get the government to oppress you? He must be so jealous of Andrew Meyer. That's all you have to do to be the center of attention?

"As the example of Nuremberg suggests, journalists who act as propagandists for war crimes may one day find themselves on the scaffold."

"You would be well advised to strive for more balanced and accurate coverage in the future," writes 9/11 conspiracy theorist -- and erstwhile UW part-timer -- Kevin Barrett. He's displeased with the way a journalist covered the recent 9/11 "Truth" conference here in Madison.

The reporter's aim in offering such a wildly distorted view of the conference can only have been to libel 9/11 truth seekers as paranoid -- a task that Isthmus already accomplished last summer, to its eternal shame and perhaps its eventual prosecution.

This libel, like the 9/11 blood libel against Muslims, dehumanizes its victims and makes its author, editor and publisher complicit in the holocaust of the 9/11 wars -- a holocaust that has already killed more than 650,000 people in Iraq alone and destroyed the lives of more than 6 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan by making them refugees.

Paranoid about being considered paranoid, the paranoid want you to be paranoid too.

By the way, the last time I wrote about Barrett, he emailed me asking me to come on his radio show. I said, "No thanks. Sorry." Which I thought was pretty nice, considering. He comes back with: "Guess I'll have to update the Cowards List." With that is a link to a website with "a long list of gutless wonders who have publicly insulted him but chickened out of debate proposals." There, I'm listed as "chatter-blogger Ann Althouse."

My response to that email was one word: "Whatever." Which, again, I think is damned nice, considering. He responds with an insult: "didn't realize you were capable of brevity ; )."

And then I start getting cc'd on email between him and some other character:

I heard UW Law professor Ann Althouse has declined your invitation to be on your radio show.

That's pretty lame. She has been bashing you on her blog for over a year now, with childish comments. And this is a person supposedly qualified to teach UW students?

My ex-girlfriend had her for a professor a few years ago, and her controversial political views showed through according to my ex.

Republicans have some twisted views on the Constitution.

Most republican voters still think Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, which gives you some idea of their lack of intelligence.

Talk about a wacked out view! The hijackers were linked to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, not Iraq. Only a racist would think that Iraqi's were behind it.

Good luck on your radio show.

Note the "you, a law professor" theme. I wonder what my "controversial political views" were. That the states might serve as laboratories of democracy? That Scalia is actually not the devil incarnate? That Al Gore in fact lost the election in 2000, quite aside from anything the Supreme Court did. I mean, what, really?

Barrett responds to his emailer:

You would think that if I were so crazy and my views were so baseless, a law professor of all people would be capable of publicly dismantling me and my views, and would jump at the opportunity.

The fact that nobody on the other side is willing to debate, and their ever-increasing hysteria when discussing the issue, suggests that they know they're wrong, which means that at some level they know they're complicit in covering up mass murder and high treason. No wonder they just ram their heads further and further up their...I mean, in the sand.

Again with the you-a-law-professor.

Funny how he can't think of some other reason(s) why I might not want to go on his show.

I do have some curiosity about how he could still -- after what's gone on in Iraq -- cling to a theory that requires bizarre hyper-competence from the government.

The other emailer responds:

I doubt Ann knows much about 9/11 so she is not going to debate you.

All she knows is that the Arabs did it, which I find a bit racist.

Both the airplane stewardesses on Flight 11 who called in said there were FOUR hijackers on board.

Yet people like Ann insist there were five hijackers.

How does she know this?

Because there were FIVE Arabs on the flight manifest.

Sounds pretty racist to me.

And the stewardesses gave the seat numbers of the hijackers, many of which were non-Arab passengers.

People like Ann presume to know more about went on board Flight 11 than the airplane stewardesses themselves.

Interesting to see the conspiracy mind at work, isn't it? I've never written or even thought about the number of Arabs on Flight 11. Yet somehow I'm insisting. And racist.

Barrett responds:

well if she admits her relative ignorance on 9/11 and apologizes for her ignorant insults we could always skip 9/11 and talk about things we're both interested in, like the Beatles and the Kinks ; )

Again with the emoticon. Are conspiracy theorists always winking at each other. And what's with this pathetic desire to get friendly with me? Yeesh.

I don't feel safe in this world no more.

"There are folks out there who will try and discredit you...."

"... and if anybody in this room thinks we don't have infiltrators, well you are probably still waiting for the Easter bunny.... As a matter of fact I know for certain... that one of them is in this room right now."

Oh, lord, I would have been in the room too if I'd known the 9/11 "truthers" were doing a conference here in Madison.

This conference was organized by the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, or at least one version of them. The Madison event at the Radisson hotel was orchestrated by James Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer with a Ph.D. in the philosophy of science.

Six months ago, Fetzer parted ways with Steven Jones, the man Fetzer asked to co-chair the organization, who accused Fetzer of allowing the group to wander into the realm of science fiction. Jones now maintains his own group, which vehemently denies any association with Fetzer's methods.

"I consider myself to be in the mold of Sherlock Holmes," Fetzer told the crowd. "When you've eliminated the impossible, whatever is left, no matter now improbable, is the truth."

One of the participants trying to keep things calm was Kevin Barrett, whose inclusion of 9/11 in his curriculum on Islam in a course he taught at UW-Madison caused quite a controversy.

Barrett, who no longer teaches the course, took the stage to try and express his concerns about the public image of the movement.

"I think we need to focus on conviviality in this movement," he declared. "We 're not the miserable paranoids people think."

Barrett was the voice of reason. Conspiracy conviviality -- that's what's needed.

Saturday's lunch included a free sandwich bar...

There's no such thing as a free sandwich.

Saturday focused on many of the more popular theories, beginning with inconsistencies at the site of the Pentagon crash and moving on to a controlled demolition of the towers. By Sunday the conference had covered weather control, weapons from space, and the idea that the planes that struck the towers never existed at all.

Fetzer, in his closing remarks before lunch, declared the conference a sterling example of open scientific discourse. "I feel as though we 're right back at JFK," said Fetzer. "We're down the rabbit hole again."

Yes, yes, now go get your sandwich. Eat, drink, and be merry. Merry and paranoid.

"He is the custodian of truth that can save the world—he is the 9/11 key master—the key to unlocking the truth."

So says 9/11 conspiracy theorist Kevin Barrett about William Rodriguez, who spoke at the University of Wisconsin yesterday. Rodriguez was a janitor at the World Trade Center, who, because he held one of the few master keys, helped save many people on 9/11. They say he was the last individual to make it out of one of the collapsing buildings alive.

At 8:46 a.m. he heard an explosion. “Boom!” Rodriguez imitated. He heard a man screaming “Explosion! Explosion!” from underneath. “I wanted to say a generator blew up. I thought it was a bomb.”

This piece of evidence may show explosives were used in accompaniment to the hijacked planes, he said. When the plane hit, “the walls cracked and the building shook.”...

Barrett said Rodriguez wrote to him, and wanted to visit to “set the record straight,” after the College Republicans hosted a 9/11 survivor in March and much of the talk surrounded Barrett’s conspiracy theories.

More here:

[He spoke of] his belief that explosives were detonated in the basement of the building, where he was that morning.

At 8:46 a.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, Rodriguez, who was two levels below ground, said he felt a large explosion that “pushed him upward into the air” seven seconds before the plane hit the building.

I'm sorry to see this heroic man become caught up in the conspiracy theory.

Simulblogging: "Political Correctness, Academic Speech, and Free Speech on Campus."

I'm at this debate, which I mentioned the other day, between Greg Lukianoff of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and UW polisci prof Howard Schweber, here at the University of Wisconsin Law School. I'll just jot down some notes as the spirit moves me.

1. Lukianoff. He's going to talk fast. Keep up. Some people think PC is a relic of the 80s, but really universities do repress what makes them uncomfortable. Not so much political speech, but speech that offends liberal values about diversity. He reels out a lot of examples of campus speech codes and the way they've been applied. PC is alive and well, and it harms the "atmosphere for debate."

2. Schweber. Is there a right to be offensive at the university? You wouldn't get away with this sort of thing in the workplace. (For example, posting a flyer saying overweight women should take the stairs for your convenience.) Academic freedom doesn't mean you have a right to be obnoxious, only that you can choose your viewpoint. The real threat comes from the right, suppressing speech because of ideology.

3. Schweber makes the distinction between crude drunken "conduct" and real academic freedom, which is justified by the positive goal of enabling people to oppose "the current regime."

4. Though Lukianoff -- lucky enough? -- said he was going to talk fast and did, but Schweber talked much faster.

5. The first question from the audience is about Kevin Barrett teaching the 9/11 conspiracy theory in his class here on Islam. Schweber says it's an easy case because he was teaching an unpopular idea critical of the government. The important line is between "Fuck you" and "Fuck the draft."

6. Lukianoff says the UW got everything wrong on Barrett. They objected to his speaking on his ideas outside of the classroom, and inside the classroom, they felt unable to dictate the scope of what subjects can be covered in the class. By allowing him to teach what didn't belong in a course on Islam, they got him the attention of mainstream media, and then they tried to stop him from taking advantage of these opportunities to promote his ideas outside of the classroom. That's exactly backwards.

7. Schweber agrees.

8. Alan Weisbard has the next question. "We're living in a time of blogs... AutoAdmit... Googling." People are afraid of being identified in public speech. His question is about preserving the right to anonymous speech.

9. I realize what bothers me so much about what Schweber is saying. He doesn't value the form of expression, only the content. He thinks what people have to say can be reframed in more polite terms. But I think the form matters, that there is value in the very sound of disrespect, mockery, contempt, and offensiveness.

UPDATE: The Badger Herald covers the debate.

"We have to be very careful. We want professors to speak with what they see as their truths."

Says UW Professor Donald Downs, who is a strong voice for free speech here on campus. "We're here to push the envelope. … Academic freedom has to be very strong and vibrant."

ADDED: Speaking of context, consider the academic freedom case of Kevin Barrett, whom the university supported last fall, as he turned part of his course on Islam into a study of the theory -- which he believes -- that the U.S. government perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.

A new phase in the university-legislature relationship.

The Wisconsin State Journal reports that that Rep. Stephen Nass, R-Whitewater, will be the new head of the Assembly Colleges and Universities Committee. Nass was the most conspicuous critic of the UW's decision to hire (and not fire) 9/11 conspiracy theorist Kevin Barrett. Nass admits he's been critical of the University:

"But when I go to the taxpayers who are funding the university to the tune of a billion dollars a year . . . with issues of accountability, double-dipping, backup jobs, felons in the classroom - these are all legitimate issues that taxpayers expect me to deal with."

Still, Nass said, he was hopeful the Legislature and the university could work together....

The System's Board of Regents delayed action last week on a proposal that would change admissions policy to give greater emphasis to nonacademic factors such as race and income. Nass had asked for the delay, threatening a constitutional amendment to ban race from being considered in the admissions process without changes to the policy. The issue could be the first test of the relationship.

I hope we can get along!

ADDED: Nass has also talked about amending the Wisconsin constitution to ban affirmative action, and today's Cap Times has an opinion piece on the subject by UW emeritus econ prof W. Lee Hansen:

A statewide poll several years ago showed 84 percent of respondents opposed "the use of race and ethnic preferences in determining who should be admitted to the University of Wisconsin." The opposition ran deep, with 77 percent of minority respondents and 76 percent of Democrats opposing race and ethnic preferences....

Increasingly desperate actions have fueled public skepticism of efforts to increase diversity here in Wisconsin. The latest include adopting a "holistic" approach to campus admissions decisions for the avowed purpose of increasing minority enrollment and launching the Orwellian Think Respect program at UW-Madison to make the campus climate more welcoming to minorities.

Hansen ends on what I consider an ugly note, and perhaps the Cap Times published this precisely because it might be offputting enough to increase support for affirmative action. My main point with this post is to flag the fact that Nass is in and the amendment may be in the offing.

"Your tax dollars are paying for the killing of American soldiers in Iraq. The CIA is paying for resistance in Iraq."

So said UW lecturer Kevin Barrett, ending his last lecture in the part of his course on Islam that deals with the 9/11 attacks:

The part-time teacher vowed to teach the official version of the attacks alongside the Sept. 11 theory to which he subscribes. He said he would neither tell his students what his view was nor penalize them for not buying the theory....

Andrea Bromley, a sophomore, came away saying Barrett had failed to be impartial.

"It's become much more opinionated now that we're doing 9-11," Bromley said, referring to the tone and progress of the course. "He's trying to explain both views, but he's biased. I don't feel like he's presented enough info on the other side."

Freshman Jesse Moya disagreed, saying Barrett had been "very objective."

Moya, who said his uncle died in the World Trade Center attacks, said he had entered the course believing the attacks were the work of Islamic terrorists. He now believes otherwise.

"It seems like a more logical explanation that it was the U.S. government," he said.

How interesting that the student who did not perceive bias is the one who became convinced of the truth of the conspiracy theory. It's not surprising. Trying not to show bias -- as Barrett was told he needed to do -- doesn't necessarily produce neutrality. It is more likely that it will package the message in a more palatable form.

Here's an earlier post on the subject of Barrett's class and the required neutrality pose, with much discussion of a Stanley Fish's op-ed about it.

The right to silently protest a speaker.

On Friday, I wrote about the UW-Oshkosh police throwing students out of a lecture for standing and turning their backs to a speaker -- who happened to be UW's own 9/11 conspiracy theorist, Kevin Barrett. I also raised this question with the Committee for Academic Freedom and Rights, and UW polisci prof Donald Downs -- president of the group -- wrote this (and wanted me to copy it here):

The key point is to balance the rights of the protesters with the rights of the speaker and the audience. Protesters have a right to make their views known, but they must not infringe the rights of the speaker and the audiences. So the following questions are relevant:

1) Were the protesteros actually disrupting others' views?

2) If so, HOW LONG did they obstruct the view? A symbolic gesture to turn the back that prevented people in the audience from seeing the speaker is fine, so long as the act is short and does not block views for a meaningful period of time (a couple of minutes, max, it would seem to me);

3) how did the police react? Did they make an attempt to talk with the protesters, and did the protesters make any attempt to make it clear that they were not trying to disrupt the audience's view? This is a factual call about which we lack evidence;

4) how have similar speech actions been treated by authorities in the past? This is Ann's key question. Ann's question has validity because in my entire time at Madison, I have never witnessed a conservative group attempting to disrupt a speaker, only leftist groups opposed to the speaker. In no case has the leftist group ever been punished or even spoken to by the administration. In some cases, it was evident who was doing the disruption, as in the Ward Connerly disruption in 1998. But we still need to know the facts in the case at hand. What we want in these encounters is even-handedness (viewpoint neutrality) on the part of authorities, plain and simple.

Spot the free speech issue.

Kevin Barrett, the UW's part-time lecturer who thinks the U.S. government perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, spoke at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh yesterday (at the invitation of the College Greens):

Members of the UWO branch of College Republicans picketed outside the union, and several made their way to the lecture as well. Shortly after Barrett took the podium, UWO Police were forced to take action when dissenting students stood up and turned their backs to Barrett mid-lecture. The officers received applause as they escorted students out of the room.

One of the student demonstrators outside was UWO fifth-year senior Erin Kisley, who said that while she believes in academic freedom, Barrett is stepping over a thin red line.

“I don’t want my student activity fees to be funding him to come here,” Kisley said. “I think his teaching is wrong. I believe in freedom of speech, but as an education major, I also believe that you should be teaching facts instead of your own opinions.”

Andrew Sabais, Chair of College Greens and UWO senior said many people view Barrett’s presence at the university as an “embarrassment,” but disagrees with Kisley.

“Tonight there is a big embarrassment for this university, and that is the College Republicans demonstrating outside against free speech,” Sabais said.

Hmmm... Were they demonstrating against free speech or exercising free speech? The opinion that Barrett doesn't deserve to be a featured speaker at UWO is a perfectly good one. The only serious free speech question here is whether the students who stood up and turned their backs on the speaker should have been thrown out!

The student journalist who wrote the linked article says "UWO Police were forced to take action when dissenting students stood up and turned their backs to Barrett mid-lecture." What "forced" the police to "take action" against the students, who had chosen a peaceful, quiet form of protest?

ADDED: If Barrett had been a little sharper, he would have called on the police to leave the students alone. After all, he presents himself as very skeptical of government authority and concerned about free speech.

"It is deeply troubling that a prestigious public university would choose to offer a class that provides fodder to extremists."

The Anti-Defamation League on UW teacher Kevin Barrett:

"While we respect academic freedom, ADL is deeply concerned that the students in Barrett's class are receiving a taxpayer-funded indoctrination into the instructor's personal political views that the U.S. government perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, that America is equivalent to Nazi Germany and that Israel is a racist state," said Lonnie Nasatir, Regional Director of ADL's Upper Midwest office and a University of Wisconsin alumnus. "Students who have signed up for a class purportedly about Islam are being ill-served by this content, which has little to do with that great religion."...

"These 9/11 conspiracies are used to demonize Jews, Israel and America, and have become part of the core belief systems of anti-Semites and millions of others around the world," said Nasatir. "It is deeply troubling that a prestigious public university would choose to offer a class that provides fodder to extremists, rather than seek to debunk these myths."

"Wisconsin’s latest speech code, the 'Think. Respect.' program."

Here's an opinion piece in the Badger Herald by Robert Phansalkar, a UW student (majoring in political science and languages and cultures of Asia):

The [“Think. Respect.”] program calls for university students to search for forms of discrimination and harassment on campus, and when present, to download a “bias incident report form” to be submitted to the Student Advocacy and Judicial Affairs unit of the Dean of Students for a potential investigation. Implicit in this reporting scheme is that students who harass will be punished or reprimanded in some way....

Ironically enough, the university’s protection of students against bias includes political affiliation...

Here's a letter in response to that article by UW polisci prof Donald Downs (who wrote this book about campus speech codes):

It was good to finally see that a student journalist has grasped the fact that the program, as presently conceived, poses a threat to honest discourse and privacy on campus. The program encourages campus citizens to report not only acts of harassment or discrimination that constitute official misconduct, but all forms of “bias,” verbal and non-verbal, without that term being defined in a manner that is consistent with First Amendment principles. In other words, the present policy amounts to a speech code, as it encourages people to file reports on other people’s attitudes and speech that informants deem insufficiently senstive.

Here's the University's announcement of the "Think. Respect." program, explaining the logo, which looks like this:

[IN THE COMMENTS: Pastor Jeff says: "It would look great on an armband. "]

Included in that announcement;

Chancellor John D. Wiley says the campus has seen improvements in climate during the past few years. However, an anti-gay incident in University Housing last spring — one of the driving factors behind the campaign — demonstrated that the campus community still has more work to do.

"We are committed to creating and sustaining a campus community that is open, diverse and inclusive," Wiley says. "We want a campus that embraces difference and where respect is rampant. We will not tolerate bias, racism, disrespect or hate."

To counter racism in any of its forms, Berquam is launching a bias reporting mechanism through the Offices of the Dean of Students Web site.

Here's that website:

A bias incident is a threat or act of bigotry, harassment or intimidation - verbal, written or physical - that is personally directed against or targets a University of Wisconsin-Madison student because of that student's race, age, gender identity or expression, disability, national or ethnic origin, political affiliation, religion, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, veteran status, or other actual or perceived characteristic.

What is a verbal "act of bigotry, harassment or intimidation" aimed at someone's "political affiliation"? What does "other actual or perceived characteristic" refer to? Students who "have witnessed or experienced a bias-related incident" are told to click to this form (PDF) to submit a report. Back to the website:

Students can report anything, from a hate crime to graffiti to verbal harassment. SAJA will attempt to follow up in every instance, contingent on the information provided, to investigate possible misconduct and to provide resources to the victim.

Berquam says that many hate or bias incidents are relayed anecdotally to ODOS staff. The reporting form is one way to quantify how many incidents take place on campus and provide a method for following up.

Students can report anything? And remember Wiley's statement: "We will not tolerate bias, racism, disrespect or hate." We will not tolerate disrespect? You know, I want students to feel good about campus life, but isn't part of campus life having rowdy debates and vigorous arguments? I know from running this blog that there are people who firmly believe that opposition to gay marriage is bigotry. This program should make students worry that anything other than bland pleasantries is going to get them in trouble with the administration. I wonder if you can report feeling threatened if someone made you feel threatened that they were going to report you for making them feel threatened. And what's the good of encouraging students feel entitled to a cushioned speech environment? How does this equip them to live in the real world?

Why doesn't the university have a program that promotes debate about tough issues and teaches students how to express themselves forcefully? No, no, when someone mocks your political ideas, you ought to slink away and go back to your little room and download a report form.

(And, yes, it's incredibly ironic that the university also went to the wall for free speech values when it dealt with Kevin Barrett.)

AND: Don't miss the new post, with the new logo!

"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.