- October 3: Faculty panel discussion of "Why People Believe Weird Things" (6:30 p.m. Foundation Center)
- October 17: Faculty panel on "Academic Freedom as a Form of Free Speech" (6:30 p.m. Foundation Center)
- November 6: "Memories of 9/11 Panel" (7 - 9 p.m. Reeve Union Ballroom). This panel features former UW Oshkosh Religious Studies faculty member Ed Linenthal, Jeff Kaplan of Religious Studies, Iraq War veteran Matthew Young, Simon Sibelman of Foreign Languages and Literatures, and Salman Aziz of the Fox Valley Islamic Society. According to the University press release: " . . . the UW-Oshkosh student winner of the first $1,000 Chancellor’s 9/11 Memorial Prize will be announced at the event." The entries for this award are due in the Provost's office by November 3rd by 4:30 p.m., and apparently will be judged over the weekend by a panel of faculty, students, and administrators.
- November 7: Speech by author Michael Shermer on "Why People Believe Weird Things" (8 p.m. Reeve Union Ballroom).
The aforementioned events feature some thought provoking individuals and, because the chancellor has organized them, they will be well attended. If all it takes is a Barrett visit to produce well attended academic panels, maybe the campus Greens should ask him to make more than one visit.
I think all that's missing for these events is a theme song to be played at the beginning of each. I nominate Motorhead's "Overkill."
10/2 Update: Barrett spoke at UW Madison on Sunday and, in what must be a surprise to UW administrators, there were no protestors and the world didn't end!
5 comments:
The actions of the "American Council of Trustees and Alumni" with regard to Dr. Barrett's case deserve closer scrutiny:
http://gaelicstarover.blogspot.com/2006/10/kevin-barrett-takes-on-acta.html
-
Tony,
I agree on the overkill - however I am compelled to ask:
Have you ever seen the movie "Eat the Rich"?
Babs,
I did not see Eat the Rich but I know that Motorhead did the soundtrack.
The people on the "Weird Things" panel should be embarassed to participate. Yet I suspect they are bursting with self-importance at being at the controversy's center.
Clearly the lowest common denominator has taken over what should be a center of higher thought. Will a concomitant lessening of tuition occur as a result?
There was a time when such blatantly judgmental subjectivity and condescending enthocentrism would have no place in a university setting.
What is higher thought?
Obviously the context I was using it in was relatively narrow. "Higher thought" could refer to a variety of mental processes couldn't it? Processes that could be measured therefore by a variety of standards. For example, in a medical context the differences between higher and lower forms of thought can be determined by the specific brain centers involved in a particular process, and so on depending upon the context the phrase "higher thought" is used in .
In the context I have used it "higher thought" would, at the very least, require a semblance of self-awareness, a respect for others and their viewpoints, and a genuine desire to discover and explore one's culture and environment, rather than just having preconceived notions and comfortable prejudices validated in kangaroo courts and other bodies set up for the purpose of mock-inquiry.
Who determines between higher and lower thought?
Surely a wide variety of people in a wide variety of settings. However it is safe to assume that our current legislators are not among the possible groups. Self-serving, manipulative, fear-based and defensive/aggressive behaviors are generally considered to be base functions, ergo those individuals who rely heavily on those behaviors are generally not perceived to be human beings at their best. I think you will have difficulty arguing otherwise.
Is higher thought based on similar accepted assumptions?
Only if the similarly accepted assumption is that similarly accepted assumptions are to be avoided if the truth is to be obtained. Even if truth can only be the cataloging of a series of subjective realities.
Is lower thought based on unacceptable assumptions?
See above. Acceptable v. unacceptable asumptions would come from ethnocentric or egocentric subjective judgments which cannot be supported unless a society or an individual adheres to strict hierarchical thinking and applies their own assumptions broadly whether justified by actual data or not.
A case in point: early missionaries applied Christian assumptions over a broad range of cultures and continents in an ethnocentric manner, believing their own way was universally the best way, that non-adherents were heathens and that the cultures and people that they were decimating were actually being "saved". Today the unilateralism of the Bush administration illustrates the same principles, the same negation of viewpoints other than their own. As does the educator who determines what is "weird" and sets up a panel of "experts" to circle jerk themselves and their audience into aself-congratulatory pseudo-intellectual state. So in a very real sense lower thought is not based on unacceptable assumptions, but is the assumption that views other than "our own" are unacceptable.
Post a Comment