ACTA's Must-Reads

Mitchell's editorial hinges on a total logical failure. He begins by acknowledging that UW-Madison *has* investigated Barrett's teaching and has found it fair.

But somehow, that leads to the assertion that UW-Madison must do more to reassure taxpayers that classrooms aren't politicized. The logic doesn't add up. If a highly publicized instance of alleged politicization fails to pan out, how does it logically follow that the university needs to do more? When the ACTA types reveal an accusation of racism on campus to be a fake, they tend to conclude that less, not more, needs to be done about racism on campus. But when an accusation about left-wing brainwashing turns out to be false, they conclude that the university needs to do more about brainwashing.

Of course, the real events look like this:
a) conservative critics have created a pseudo-controversy over brainwashing in the university
b) the public has been taken in by it
c) the fact that the public *thinks* there's a problem leads to the demand by conservative critics that universities do something to placate the public

And while we're at it, let's look at Mitchell's closing examples of politicized pedagogy. First is a Vassar class on domestic violence. Mitchell seems to take issue with the course description's claim that "our culture" condones such violence. And yet, there's a vast body of evidence proving that law enforcement and courts in America have historically treated domestic violence as a private matter outside of public, legal redress. That's a fact. That a college course investigates what parts of American culture contributed to this seems a wholly valid intellectual exercise.

Next on Mitchell's list of examples is a Penn State prof who promotes "un-learning." Mitchell provides no reasoned argument against this notion of "un-learning." Instead, we have pure sophistry. His intention is simply to have his reader think, "My son should be learning in college, not un-learning. Them professors is dumb." Now, I can't defend "un-learning," either, because Mitchell provides no context for his example, no details. But what if "un-learning" meant "to challenge one's assumptions"? How is that a priori politicized? A class on evolution would have weeks of "un-learning" to accomplish, given most people's total misunderstanding of the science.

Then the final example of politicization: a course that requires students to perform a skit on either the demonization of ethnic minorities or different forms of whiteness. Again, Mitchell provides no reasoned objections to these assignments. To what political party are students being converted by these assignments? Does anyone deny that ethnic minorities have been demonized, that blacks have been misrepresented as criminal, that Jews have been misrepresented as Media Conspirators, that Muslims have been misrepresented as terrorists, that Latinos have been misrepresented as illegal immigrants? That Irish need not apply? So if ethnic demonization is a historical fact, what's wrong with asking students to demonstrate a familiarity with the strategies that have been used to accomplish such demonization and to present them as a skit to the class?

And what about whiteness? Again, it's a proven historical and social fact that Americans -- white, black, brown, yellow, etc. -- have had simplistic and uniform notions of what it meant to be white. (See "the one drop rule.") To teach students that there was a time in America when someone could look white, "act" white, and pass as white while not "actually" being white is to teach a historical fact. Which is to say, objectively, there have been multiple forms of whiteness. (Even if race is, objectively speaking, a non-existant thing -- as Walter Benn Micheals writes, race is like phlogiston.) That isn't a political perspective. It is historical fact. To have students investigate that fact is not indoctrination.

I'm not arguing that there's no political indoctrination in universities (even if it takes place in economics departments as much as English departments). But Mitchell's press release is poorly constructed.

This op-ed misses a large part of the objection. Barrett states that he will be teaching his conspiracy theory about 9/11 in the Fall. To do this, he needs serious training and professional experience in such fields as chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, and aviation. He pointedly has no training or understanding of any of these fields. Not even one.

The question is why UW hires people (on the taxpayers' dime) to teach subjects in which they have no training or professional experience at all. The administration there apparently has no problem with the fact he is completely uneducated in the fields he proclaims he will be teaching, which leads to the serious concern raised by this matter.

Barrett is not isolated: Garbage like this is but the tip of the iceberg. What percentage of the Wisconsin faculty teach subjects in which they have no training or professional experience? What percentage of faculty nationwide do the same thing? Why is there even one faculty member paid to teach what he pointedly doesn't understand himself?

These are the questions that taxpayers need to ask and keep asking. There is no academic freedom to "teach" what an instructor himself cannot minimally understand. Any public college that does this must be defunded until its adminstration conducts itself in a professional, responsible way when making faculty appointments.

I'm so sick and tired of hearing about the poor, abused "taxpayers." You know what? I wish my taxes didn't go to support no-bid contracts to corporations. I wish my taxes didn't go to subsize a moronic energy industry. I wish I wasn't paying for the deaths of Iraqi civilians. I wish my tax money didn't pay for rich kids' school vouchers -- or for FEMA to rebuild rich kids' homes that get sucked down by Malibu mudslides or wild fires.

And as Michael Berube so often points out, let's look at how much ACTUAL taxpayer money goes to UW. Tuitions at state colleges certainly aren't going up because schools are receiving more money from the states or fed.

Many people in the academy are "sick and tired" of the idea of being accountable for their work product. I don't blame them. Very often, it's impossible to defend, and attempting to do so must be very tiring indeed.

There is a simple remedy to this sickness though: Refuse tax moneys. If there is so little involved, that should be easy. That is a much more constructive and principled solution than going on and on and on about how "sick and tired" people are about basic accountability.

By the way, I was just speaking with a member of an outcome assessment committee the other day. If you are "sick and tired" of accountability now, you have no idea what's coming.

Great idea, Federal Dog. You redirect your tax monies away from state universities. I'll redirect my tax monies away from the military and corporate welfare and to the state universities. (I'll also redirect the portion of my tax money going to fund Nebraska's Homeland Security budget to the fire fighters laid off in New York City. But that's another story.) I think, if we go one-to-one on this, the state universities will wind up with far more funding than they have today.

"state universities will wind up with far more funding than they have today."

Thanks for the belly laugh. What are you waiting for then? Stop complaining already, take adult action on your proclamation, and get that increased funding.

You need to exit your secluded little classroom cocoon once in a while. You apparently have deluded yourself into the false belief that wherever you are, you cannot be touched by terrorism or crime. We both know full well that the first thing you would do if your personal comfort or safety were in jeopardy would be to demand military and police protection. You would demand in a heartbeat that others risk their lives for you, and all you do here is whine and abuse those you count on to safeguard your protected little existence.

INCONVENIENT FACT -- ELECTIONS

" .. I think, if we go one-to-one on this, the state universities will wind up with far more funding .. "

Pardon me, madam. There are these little things in the U.S. called elections. Your side has lost a lot of them, recently. It is because people are frightened to death that the U.S. could become financially and morally bankrupt under "leaders" such as Generalissma Hiliary.

Your side just doesn't get it -- people don't vote FOR someone, they vote AGAINST someone. And Generalissma Hiliary, Howard Dean, et al., frighten the common-sense attitudes of a lot of U.S. citizens.

50% CHANCE HE NEVER MAKES TO CLASS

" .. Barrett states that he will be teaching his conspiracy theory about 9/11 in the Fall. To do this, he needs serious training and professional experience in such fields as chemistry .. he pointedly has no training or understanding of any of these fields .."

After this ..

http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/08/04/qt

I'd say the odds are 50-50 that Mr. Barrett doesn't make to the classroom. UW will have UW-Madison pay him, NOT to teach, for financial reasons.

Anyone who has seen Mr. Barrett on TV knows he is a fervant Bush-hating clone of Michael Moore without Moore's ability to grovel for money.

He's the university's PR disaster waiting to happen. UW knows, Mr. Barrett starts teaching, UW's state appropriation drops at least 4%.

It would be one thing, if he just shut up and taught.

No, like nearly every politician that you've ever met, he's addicted to TV camera lights. If the TV lights are on, the mouth is running, spewing weird theories and anti-Bush bile. He's UW's worst nightmare.