Mad City

Kevin Barrett WILL receive taxpayer dollars to teach that the U.S. government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks.

Statement

Following a thorough review, University of Wisconsin-Madison Provost Patrick Farrell today announced that lecturer Kevin Barrett will teach, as scheduled, a class titled "Islam: Religion and Culture."

Barrett's remarks regarding his theories on the events of Sept. 11 recently drew widespread attention and criticism.

As a result, Farrell, along with Gary Sandefur, dean of the College of Letters and Science, and Ellen Rafferty, chair of the department of languages and cultures of Asia, met with Barrett. They reviewed his course syllabus and reading materials and examined his past teaching evaluations.

..."I am satisfied that Mr. Barrett appreciates his responsibility as an instructor. I also believe that he will attempt to provide students with a classroom experience that respects and welcomes open dialogue on all topics," Farrell says. "And I fully expect that the vast majority of his teaching will involve aspects of Islamic culture and religion wholly unrelated to his controversial views of the events of 9/11, which we know had a profound impact on the world and many members of our campus community."

Farrell is creating a false impression of the dynamics of the classroom experience.

He speaks as if the instructor and the students are peers. They aren't.

Barrett will run the show, not the undergrads in his class. He'll determine how much "open dialogue" to allow. More importantly, he'll be handing out the grades.

Simply put, Barrett is the authority. He has the power.

Moreover, how can Barrett possibly present an accurate and complete portrayal of Islamic culture when he refuses to acknowledge the existence of militant, murderous Muslims?

Obviously, Farrell is confused about the instructor/student relationship. He also has extremely low standards in terms of what he expects from instructors if he thinks that Barrett is competent in the role.

Farrell notes that a broader issue at play in the Barrett case is the UW-Madison's long tradition of protecting classroom expression and encouraging students' critical thinking by allowing analysis of even the most controversial ideas.

"We cannot allow political pressure from critics of unpopular ideas to inhibit the free exchange of ideas. That classroom interaction is central to this university's mission and to the expansion of knowledge. Silencing that exchange now would only open the door to more onerous and sweeping restrictions," he says.

What a load of crap!

They restrict speech all the time.

Does the university tolerate racist views?

Is anti-Semitism considered acceptable in the classroom?

Can an instructor promote the banning of same-sex marriage because of the destructive impact it would have on the social order?

Can the theory that homosexuality is a mental illness be taught?

Is an instructor allowed to open each class with a prayer, participation optional of course?

How about reciting the Pledge of Allegiance? Would that be too controversial?

Are any of those instances of silenced free expression labeled "onerous and sweeping restrictions" on academic freedom?

Let's be honest. Some "critical thinking" is limited.

"It is in cases like this - difficult cases involving unconventional ideas - that we define our principles and determine our future," Farrell adds. "Instead of restricting politically unpopular speech, we will take our cue from the bronze plaque in front of Bascom Hall that calls for the 'continual and fearless sifting and winnowing' of ideas."

UW-Madison students, Farrell says, are fully capable of analyzing new, controversial and even unwelcome ideas.

In that case, UW-Madison should welcome and encourage the hiring of instructors to teach that Hitler and Pol Pot were heroes -- Ethnic Cleansing 101.

"Our students are not blank slates. They are capable of exercising good judgment, critical analysis and speaking their minds," Farrell says. "Instructors do not hand over knowledge wrapped up in neat packages. Knowledge grows from challenging ideas in a setting that encourages dialogue and disagreement. That's what builds the kind of sophisticated, critical thinking we expect from our graduates."

Campus officials also reviewed Barrett's teaching record at UW-Madison.

"Although the university does not endorse Mr. Barrett's political views or his theories regarding the events of 9/11, our review showed that he has a record of quality teaching, including as a teaching assistant in this class," Farrell says. "His plan for the course appears to offer a sound learning experience for students interested in gaining a better understanding of Islam."

With all due respect, Farrell is nuts.

Does "quality teaching" include the dissemination of flat-out false information?

How can a "sound learning experience" possibly include the promotion of the theory that the U.S. government blew up the World Trade Center to lay the groundwork for a war against Islam?

So what if Barrett has received positive teaching evaluations in the past?

I'd like more information about those evaluations. Specifically, what aspects of Barrett's teaching ability were rated and by whom?

It really doesn't matter. That's not relevant to the issue of the content of what he's teaching now -- LIES.

Barrett's "controversial views" about 9/11 are so over the top that they don't deserve protection under the guise of academic freedom.

Lies and slander cannot be considered appropriate classroom material.

Barrett's views aren't controversial. They're floating outside of reality.

By permitting Barrett to teach his wacky theories, UW-Madison is, essentially, endorsing their validity.

The university claims to not endorse Barrett's views, but it's impossible to pretend that endorsement is not implied.

Has the university issued any disclaimers? Something like -- "Warning: This course is BS."

The decision has been made to allow Barrett to tell undergraduate students that the 9/11 attacks were a plot by our own government, the current administration.

There's no historical distance. Barrett is charging that the sitting American president and vice president schemed to kill 3000 innocents.

What will Barrett teach his students about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda? Are they also victims of the neocons? He must think that they're getting a bad rap.

It boggles the mind.

Although Madison's stamp of approval for Barrett is a dreadful mistake, I suppose it can be seen as beneficial.

This episode is an eye-opener.

It's enlightening for Wisconsin taxpayers to learn how their money is being spent.

Now we know just how insanely liberal, politically-driven, and extreme the faculty and administration of UW-Madison can be.