Temporarily Sane

In a startling display of good sense, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel actually disagreed with UW-Madison Provost Patrick Farrell's decision to allow wacko Kevin Barrett to teach his 9/11 conspiracy fantasies as fact to students in his class, "Islam: Religion and Culture."

From "Fiction and fact at UW":

Kevin Barrett should not be allowed to teach at the University of Wisconsin-Madison - and it's not because a large swath of the population finds his contention on who authored the 9-11 terrorist attacks odious.

He should be barred because academic freedom doesn't mean teachers get to teach fiction as fact - even in a university.

This sounds so sane, not the JS editorial board's usual fare.

Has anyone checked the temperature in Hell recently?

For that, please see the blogosphere or subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Monthly. In a classroom, particularly one funded with tax dollars, the public should have a reasonable expectation that what's taught has fact and truth as foundation.

I don't take that comment as an attack on bloggers in general.

I think the reference pertains to the goofy ramblings of certifiable nuts using the Internet to promote their bizarre theories.

Personally, I would put Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand, and a number of bloggers on The Huffington Post in that category.

The board is right to note that it's reasonable for us to expect the government to use our tax dollars to establish and maintain a decent educational system -- not use our money to give a forum for an off-the-wall loon to teach that the U.S. government blew up the World Trade Center to lay the groundwork for a war against Islam.

...Farrell said, "We cannot allow political pressure from critics of unpopular ideas to inhibit the free exchange of ideas."

Agreed. But Farrell apparently failed to recognize the fundamental issue: standards - for what's taught and who's teaching.

Wacky ideas at universities abound. If they are taught in the context of theories among many and that some are demonstrably false, they might have some utility. We aren't convinced by anyone's assurances to date - Barrett's or the university's - that this will be the context in which this 9-11-as-American-plot will be taught.

The editorial board is being remarkably tough on Barrett and UW-Madison.

Why?

I'm guessing it may have something to do with the national attention that the controversy is getting.

All eyes are on the state.

It's not in the self-interest of the JS to be viewed as a Leftist fringe propaganda tabloid rag when the national spotlight is being directed at Wisconsin.

It would be self-defeating to choose marginalization by taking the position that public funds should be used to teach that the U.S. government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks.

Of course, that's precisely what the university has done.

By standing up for someone like Barrett and campaigning for his right to spread his slander and lies about 9/11 being a Bush administration "inside job," Farrell and the Board of Regents have brought shame to the university and diminished its stature in the eyes of millions of Americans.

Not only should Barrett, after review, have not been allowed to teach this course, he shouldn't have been hired to do it in the first place. No freedom, including academic freedom, is absolute. There are limits.

Yes.

With freedom comes responsibility.

The decision to back Barrett is not an example of upholding academic freedom. It's an illustration of the university's betrayal of academic standards.

We have many problems with how President Bush led this nation to war in Iraq, but making the leap that his administration murdered on 9-11 crosses a line.

I suppose the JS editorial board will come under harsh criticism from the rabid Left because of its position.

The Lefties will insist that the New McCarthyism is rearing its ugly head again and that the editorial board is succumbing to the chill wind of censorship by not supporting Farrell's decision.

Those vocal, loud loons on the Left aren't a very tolerant bunch. It's their way or the highway. No dissent allowed among the ranks.

Nevertheless, at least for the time being, the Journal Sentinel is distancing itself from the Lefty extremists. The JS won't provide Barrett any justification for his right to espouse his 9/11 fantasies in a taxpayer-supported state university.

Is it principle and sound reasoning that's driving the editorial board to come out against Farrell's decision?

I think it probably has more to do with not wanting to drive away anymore of its dwindling readership than anything else.

Whatever the motivation, the JS won't buy into the notion that it's appropriate for Barrett to teach that the Bush administration brought the World Trade Center down in a planned demolition.

That would be self-destructive.