Back in July, when Jessica McBride introduced 9/11 conspiracy theorist and UW-Madison lecturer Kevin Barrett to the public, there was controversy.
Another academia nut was going to receive tax dollars to spew anti-American falsehoods at a taxpayer subsidized university.
To calm the uproar, Provost Patrick Farrell and others reviewed Barrett's teaching plans.
The public was assured that Barrett would keep his wacko anti-Bush administration theories out of the classroom for the vast majority of the semester.
UW-Madison's statement, July 10, 2006
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.
...Farrell says that Barrett told him that the semester-long course will spend a week examining current issues, including a brief discussion of various views on the war on terror. Barrett told Farrell that he plans to base the discussion on readings from authors representing a variety of viewpoints.
"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 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.
Does Madison's long tradition of "classroom expression" include hate speech?
I suppose to a certain extent it does, at least since the Vietnam era.
"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.
..."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."
It looks like Farrell and the others involved in the decision to hire Barrett exercised exceedingly poor judgment.
Barrett has failed to live up to his promises to the university.
Rather than keeping a low profile, self-promoter Barrett has used his affiliation with UW-Madison to lend credence to his loony views when sucking up the national media's attention. He is also gaining international prominence via the taping one of his lectures by the BBC.
Barrett's association with Madison disgraces the university and the entire UW system.
ABC's Madison affiliate, WKOW 27, gives a glimpse into required reading for Barrett's students.
A textbook required of students in UW-Madison instructor Kevin Barrett's introductory class on Islam features Barrett's 9/11 conspiracy theory, comparisons of President Bush to Adolf Hitler, and harsh criticism of Israel.
A proof of the book, "9/11 and American Empire: Muslims, Jews, and Christians Speak Out," was obtained by 27 News.
The 325 page textbook draws on essays from fifteen authors, including Barrett. Barrett's contribution is entitled, "Interpreting the Unspeakable: The Myth of 9/11."
Barrett's writing makes a case for the mainstream account of what happened on 9/11 to be consistent with other myths throughout history.
On the events of 9/11:
* "The major television networks, largely owned by defense contractors that would be lapping up 9/11's trillion dollar windfall, made absolutely sure we couldn't forget it, by running the same footage over...and over...and over."
* "The obviously false 'let's roll' heroic mini-myth of Flight 93."
I wonder if Barrett will encourage his students to read David Beamer's take on what his son Todd experienced aboard Flight 93 before he was killed.
On the Bush administration's alleged orchestration of the destruction:
* "Like Bush and the neocons, Hitler and the Nazis inaugurated their new era by destroying an architectural monument and blaming its destruction on their designated enemies."
* "It was intended to set the American empire in stone for at least a hundred years, perhaps even to found a new, imperial 1000-year Reich like the ones the Nazis dreamed of."
On response to the Bush administration's alleged complicity:
* "We have erected a wall of repression around 9/11 because deep down inside, we experienced a powerful wave of forbidden pleasure at the destructive spectacle."
On Israel:
* "The architects of the 9/11 myth were trying to preserve the very empire they so efficiently destroyed. The US empire, and especially its Iraeli outpost, were doomed in the medium-term anyway, with or without 9/11."
* "The European Union was already bigger, both in population and GNP, than the United States, and Israel was losing its demographic race with the Palestinians it had always needed to expel as a precondition for an aparheid 'Jewish state.' "
"I'm going to reserve judgement on whether it's anti-Semitic," Madison Jewish Community Council Executive Director Steve Morrison told 27 News. "I find it clearly to be anti-Israel."
What garbage!
...While the book dismisses mainstream accounts of Muslim hijackers costing lives and causing damage by piloting airplanes into buildings, Barrett has said other, required class reading will represent mainstream views on 9/11's destruction.
The problem is Barrett is a spokesman for the "out of the mainstream" views of the 9/11 attacks.
The man has said, "I think President Bush very well may have signed an authorization for the 9/11 attacks."
He's a kook.
I agree with Mark Green that he should not be receiving taxpayer dollars to teach his absurd and hateful theories.
Jim Doyle, on the other hand, deferred the decision on Barrett's fate at UW-Madison to the "wise" Provost Farrell. He says that he doesn't want to get involved.
Big mistake. Doyle could apply pressure if he cincerely believed that telling Barrett to hit the road would be the right course of action. He doesn't.
Instead, Doyle chooses to be Farrell's enabler who in turn is Barrett's enabler.
The course syllabus indicates the book will be discussed by students next month.
...In response to criticism from Doyle, Green and several Republican lawmakers, UW-Madison Provost Patrick Farrell reviewed Barrett's syllabus and teaching plans before allowing Barrett to teach the course.
In other words, Provost Patrick Farrell is fine with what Barrett is teaching. He agreed to give Barrett a forum to teach his fantasies.
I'm not saying that Farrell agrees with Barrett's belief that 9/11 was an inside job, but he certainly supports Barrett in his teaching as truth that the U.S. government was behind the attacks.
And Doyle is more concerned with sucking up to his Lefty base than maintaining the integrity of the UW system.
Bottom line:
Barrett is a liar and a loon.
Farrell is a chump.
Doyle is a crook.
No comments:
Post a Comment