Conspiracy Theory
Writing in the New York Times, Stanley Fish addresses the Kevin Barrett issue at the University of Wisconsin - Madison.
Mr. Barrett, who has a one-semester contract to teach a course titled “Islam: Religion and Culture,” acknowledged on a radio talk show that he has shared with students his strong conviction that the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job perpetrated by the American government. The predictable uproar ensued, and the equally predictable battle lines were drawn between those who disagree about what the doctrine of academic freedom does and does not allow.
Mr. Barrett’s critics argue that academic freedom has limits and should not be invoked to justify the dissemination of lies and fantasies. Mr. Barrett’s supporters (most of whom are not partisans of his conspiracy theory) insist that it is the very point of an academic institution to entertain all points of view, however unpopular. (This was the position taken by the university’s provost, Patrick Farrell, when he ruled on July 10 that Mr. Barrett would be retained: “We cannot allow political pressure from critics of unpopular ideas to inhibit the free exchange of ideas.”)
Both sides get it wrong. The problem is that each assumes that academic freedom is about protecting the content of a professor’s speech; one side thinks that no content should be ruled out in advance; while the other would draw the line at propositions (like the denial of the Holocaust or the flatness of the world) considered by almost everyone to be crazy or dangerous.
But in fact, academic freedom has nothing to do with content. It is not a subset of the general freedom of Americans to say anything they like (so long as it is not an incitement to violence or is treasonous or libelous). Rather, academic freedom is the freedom of academics to study anything they like; the freedom, that is, to subject any body of material, however unpromising it might seem, to academic interrogation and analysis.
Academic freedom means that if I think that there may be an intellectual payoff to be had by turning an academic lens on material others consider trivial — golf tees, gourmet coffee, lingerie ads, convenience stores, street names, whatever — I should get a chance to try. If I manage to demonstrate to my peers and students that studying this material yields insights into matters of general intellectual interest, there is a new topic under the academic sun and a new subject for classroom discussion.
In short, whether something is an appropriate object of academic study is a matter not of its content — a crackpot theory may have had a history of influence that well rewards scholarly scrutiny — but of its availability to serious analysis. This point was missed by the author of a comment posted to the blog of a University of Wisconsin law professor, Ann Althouse: “When is the University of Wisconsin hiring a professor of astrology?” The question is obviously sarcastic; its intention is to equate the 9/11-inside-job theory with believing in the predictive power of astrology, and to imply that since the university wouldn’t think of hiring someone to teach the one, it should have known better than to hire someone to teach the other.
My take on this all along has been quite simple. This is not an academic freedom or free speech issue. It is an employment issue. Mr. Barrett was hired to teach a course on Islam. A 9/11 conspiracy theory has nothing whatsoever to do with the course at hand (other than as an aside that the supposed motive was to stir up a war with Islam, which still does not apply to the course). To the extent Barret takes time away from the actual subject of the course to preach his contemptible theory, he is failing to meet the requirements for employment as an instructor.
As to Barrett's and other people's theory, I can offer one thing to prove that they are all out of their minds. A government that cannot prevent publication of the details of a legal program to monitor terrorist money transfers is supposed to be able to keep a monstrous plot secret?
Sure.
The Ivory Tower | Gaius Sunday, 23 July , 2006
By achalle, Sunday, 23 July , 2006 @ 11:04 am
barret’s signifigance is less than nil.
There is a planet to be saved……
and the tribe are playing the twins.
Any questions?
By Glenzo, Sunday, 23 July , 2006 @ 11:23 am
I think that the world is flat. People would probably laugh at me and think that I was insane or a fool. That is what I think that guys is.
By Tom, Sunday, 23 July , 2006 @ 4:11 pm
A pointy-head professor on a flat world - since he’s the highest point around, lightning will be forthcoming at any moment (and none too soon!) That will solve the employment question!
By Curt, Sunday, 23 July , 2006 @ 6:46 pm
I heard the talk show and couldn’t believe that a man who spoke in complete sentences could think like this…
Anyhow, I emailed the link to this post to Uncle Jimbo (who writes on Black Five and is an editorialist for one of the papers in Madison……
Check out Jimbo’s pod casts….he’s a hoot!