Lots of people have contacted me privately via email, phone call, and in-person discussion to ask what I think of the UW Oshkosh Campus Greens' effort to bring the controversial Kevin Barrett to campus in October. Because I am swamped preparing for classes that start on Wednesday (note to the Oshkosh Northwestern: I'm teaching 13 credits worth of classes this semester), I can only be brief here. However, I will be writing the cover story for the October Valley Scene newspaper on the topic of academic freedom, a story in which the Barrett affair will figure prominently.
First of all, I want to applaud the Campus Greens, a group I have served as advisor for (I cannot serve as advisor this year because my schedule doesn't allow me to make the meeting times), for having the courage to stand up for academic freedom on our campuses. They understand that the effort to terminate Mr. Barrett from his teaching position at UW Madison had to do not with the quality of his teaching (the UW Madison administration examined his syllabus and course materials and concluded that what he is doing is completely acceptable), but with the views that he holds as a private citizen. They understand that the forces driving the move to terminate Barrett were not UW Madison students or his faculty and academic staff colleagues, but right wing talk radio and UW haters in the state legislature.
Reasonable people can disagree over whether the concept of academic freedom allows for professors to state unpopular views in the classroom (I think it does allow for that), BUT THAT IS NOT EVEN WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AS REGARDS BARRETT, as he does not teach his 911 views in the classroom. The Barrett situation deals with whether academic freedom allows for professors to state unpopular views OUTSIDE the classroom without fear of losing their jobs. I find it unfortunate that UW Oshkosh Chancellor Wells chose to avoid the substantive issues raised by the Barrett visit in his apparent attempt to assure the UW haters in the legislature that we are all very responsible subordinates here at Oshkosh.
It's interesting that when the city of Oshkosh last year agreed to give a key to the city to a man who has two fake "degrees" from a diploma mill, we heard not a peep from the UW Oshkosh administration or the faculty most critical of the Barrett visit.
More later.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
"as he does not teach his 911 views in the classroom."
From Wikipedia - "in which he plans to spend one week or two weeks of the 16-week class teaching about the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack and the War on Terrorism. Controversy erupted when it became known he was planning to incorporate his conspiracy theories into the lectures."
Did something change?
Barrett discussed what he is going to teach in the class in response to an email from a Milwaukee radio host. Here's his answer (which strikes me as completely reasonable):
What specifically are you going to teach students about 9/11?
BARRETT: As one small part of the introduction to Islam course, I will expose them to the debates about the facts and meaning of 9/11 and "Islamic terrorism" in general, and try to encourage them to think critically and independently, challenge authority (including my own) and make up their own minds. One such debate is occurring in the academic community, both here and abroad, and there are several defensible positions, including:
* extremist attack by a very dangerous foe--this means war
* extremist attack by a wildly over-rated foe that got incredibly
lucky--the 9/11 death toll was the equivalent of a month or two's
traffic fatalities, and you're more likely to get hit by lightning than
get killed by these terrorists
* "blowback" hypothesis -- this is the natural result of American
imperialism
* "inside job" or "complicity" hypothesis
Another is the implicit debate between the dominant American
interpretation (9/11 was an attack on America by Muslim extremists) and the dominant Muslim interpretation (9/11 was an inside job designed to legitimize American wars of aggression). Students need to know what Muslims think about 9/11 and the "war on terror" even if they don't agree -- ESPECIALLY if they don't agree.
The students will be reading a whole book and several articles, adding up to over 300 pages, supporting "extremist attack by a very dangerous foe--this means war." The "got lucky" and "blowback" hypotheses will
be presented briefly, and students will be steered toward sources if
they wish to learn more about these. The "complicity" hypothesis will be represented by the Nafeez Ahmed and Enver Masud essays, which add up to maybe 70 pages. Ahmed's scholarship is impeccable, and Masud represents the majority Muslim opinion. I will encourage students to think critically and come to their own conclusions, not parrot what they think my views are.
I could give you many more sites if you'd like. Wiki is just the easiest.
Post a Comment