ACTA's Must-Reads
« Strike three | Main | Teaching history: open thread »
UW digs a deeper hole
As University of Wisconsin provost Peter Farrell warns adjunct lecturer and conspiracy theorist Kevin Barrett to stop publicly associating himself with the university, UW law professor Ann Althouse parses the self-discrediting logic on display by UW higher-ups:
"Control your interest in publicity for your ideas," UW-Madison Provost Patrick Farrell told Kevin Barrett, the part-time instructor who believes the U.S. government is behind the 9/11 attacks. Barrett is planning to teach students about the factual truth of this theory in a course called "Islam: Religion and Culture." Citing our university's tradition of academic freedom, Farrell rejected demands that Barrett be fired. But the political uproar has continued, and Barrett -- unsurprisingly -- has gotten numerous invitations to appear in the media. And now, we see that 10 days after Farrell made his decision to retain Barrett, he warned him about all that media activity:"[I]f you continue to identify yourself with UW-Madison in your personal political messages or illustrate an inability to control your interest in publicity for your ideas, I would lose confidence ... ,"...
Announcing his decision on July 10, Farrell declared, "We cannot allow political pressure from critics of unpopular ideas to inhibit the free exchange of ideas."
Farrell said he wanted Barrett to know that he could reconsider his decision if he did not meet expectations. He said Barrett has "modestly made some efforts" to cut down on publicity.
"I was trying to be fairly careful to not inhibit his privilege of speaking freely," he said. "My point was that he should be aware as he exercises those rights there may be a time when I have to rethink the assurances he has given me about his ability to separate his opinions from what happens in the classroom."...
Farrell scolded Barrett for identifying himself as a UW-Madison instructor in e-mails in which he challenged others to debate his theories. The provost said the challenges suggest "that you speak for the university -- precisely what I told you was inappropriate in that context."
Barrett, for his part, says that he isn't seeking this publicity. It's seeking him. And what, exactly, is wrong with his speaking publicly? His reprehensible conspiracy theory is fine to inflict on students, but please stop showing your face to the general public because it's making trouble for the university? That Barrett is teaching at the university is -- unlike his crazy theory -- a plain fact. It's an embarrassing fact, and we can easily understand Farrell's interest in suppressing it. But the public is entitled to know this fact and to react to it. This too is part of free speech. Why are we so keen on airing all sorts of ideas within the university but averse to letting the general public have access to those facts?
When I go on radio or TV, I am introduced as a professor at the University of Wisconsin, whether I'm talking about law or politics or culture or some other topic I presume to blab about. It's never even occurred to me that stating this true fact -- where I work -- means that I "speak for the university" or that listeners might be confused into thinking that I do. You'd have to think ordinary people are idiots to believe that they think Kevin Barrett is speaking for the university when he spews his offensive theory. The problem is not confusion about whom he speaks for, but the embarrassment to the university that he thinks what he thinks and he teaches here. How can you justify suppressing this factual information of great public interest?
And why should Barrett have to refrain from publicizing his ideas in order to keep his job? It's acceptable for him to teach here, but please, be very quiet about it? And this is held out as an attempt "to be fairly careful to not inhibit his privilege of speaking freely"? The letter makes a connection between speaking out publicly and being able to "separate his opinions from what happens in the classroom." But what is that connection? And would we use that reasoning on other teachers? Promoting a strong political position in the public arena raises a suspicion that you can't fairly present material in the classroom anymore? All politically active academics would feel threatened if we thought the university would apply that reasoning across the board. And if Farrell is not going to apply that reasoning across the board, why is he inflicting it on Barrett?
Althouse has caught UW on the horns of its own dilemma--not least because Farrell, with his warnings and his threats to fire Barrett after all if he continues to voice his views iin public, is coming perilously close to violating the academic freedom he claimed, in keeping Barrett on, to want to uphold.
The AAUP's statement on extramural utterances makes it clear that merely voicing one's views publicly does not disqualify a college teacher from teaching: "a faculty member's expression of opinion as a citizen cannot constitute grounds for dismissal unless it clearly demonstrates the faculty member's unfitness for his or her position. Extramural utterances rarely bear upon the faculty member's fitness for the position. Moreover, a final decision should take into account the faculty member's entire record as a teacher and scholar."
Farrell has already covered this ground, investigating Barrett's fitness to teach on the basis of his extramural utterances, and determining that he is indeed fit. To suggest now that continuing to make the same kinds of utterances that led to the initial investigation is itself potential grounds for dismissal is to tread very thin ice indeed.
Farrell's warning letter to Barrett is posted on a UW page archiving materials related to Barrett's case. Included on that page is ACTA's press release summarizing its letter to UW about how it can avoid future versions of the embarrassments it has invited by hiring Barrett. Provost Farrell might want to have a closer look at that. There are more constructive and less potentially scandalous ways for UW administrators to deal with the Kevin Barrett fallout right now, and ACTA outlines a number of them.
UPDATE 8/9: David French has a searing post on UW's extraordinary hypocrisy--while defending Kevin Barrett's so-called academic freedom (which French notes does not cover the right to teach crackpot theories as true), UW has also been hard at work serially violating the rights of religious students, despite a recent Seventh Circuit ruling clarifying exactly the points upon which US displays confusion:
At the exact same time that [UW is] enduring a public relations beating for the sake of protecting Barrett's non-existent right to teach his theories, it has been violating the actual rights of Christian students on a large scale basis. On July 10, the Seventh Circuit issued a hugely important decision holding that universities could not use their expansive nondiscrimination policies to prevent religious student groups from using religious principles when selecting members and leaders. In other words, Christian groups could take steps to ensure that they remain Christian. Wisconsin is in the Seventh Circuit and is bound by this decision.
So what does Wisconsin do? It immediately derecognizes the Knights of Columbus (a Catholic student group that has been a recognized student organization at the University of Wisconsin-Madison for 30 years), it refuses to recognize InterVarsity Christian Fellowship at the University of Wisconsin-Superior, and it continues to apply its expansive nondiscrimination policy to other Christian student groups at UW. We have written a letter to the UW system president (among others) demanding that the university protect the fundamental First Amendment rights of its students. He has until August 10 to respond.
How typical. Universities will go the extra mile to protect the non-existent "right" of radical professors to teach theories that are not germane to the subject of a course but then deny real rights to Christian students. Where is the marketplace of ideas?
Where, indeed?
Posted by acta online at August 7, 2006 03:17 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.goactablog.org/blog/mt-tb.cgi/199
Comments
Poor Farrell: The truth about is coming out. Finally, but inevitably.
Posted by: Federal Dog at August 7, 2006 07:51 AM
INCONVENIENT FACT
" .. Farrell scolded Barrett for identifying himself as a UW-Madison instructor in e-mails .."
This may be a technical issue. Mr. Barrett appears not to be an officially-appointed Instructor, over the signature of the provost.
Rather, he appears to be some sort of adjunct (Instructor or Assistant Professor). That may not directly involve the provost.
Thus, it would appear that Mr. Barrett is doing a fine job in imitating Al Haig, running into chat rooms yelling "I'm UW-Madison faculty."
That is not technically correct. He is not a regular faculty member. He is on a very limited contract.
Mr. Barrett's inability to tell the truth and perform appropriately, brings into serious question, the original decision to allow him to use material that he is clearly not expert in, nor authoritative with.
Mr. Barrett is not a construction engineer. He is not a fire engineer. He is not a metals engineer. He is not a jet pilot, nor a training pilot. He is not an expert on Pentagon-area security.
He wrote a dissertation about music.
Like most educational institutions, UW-Madison has tried to conserve funds by hiring local. Unfortunately, this has wound up costing 10,000 times more, in damaged reputation, than the would-be savings.
Posted by: A.D. at August 7, 2006 07:57 AM
Art: Baloney! He was not chastised for falsely stating that he is an instructor! He was (falsely) chastised for supposedly representing himself as someone who "speaks for the university" by virtue of his instructor position.
It is not false for him to claim that he is instructor, if in fact he has a contract to be an instructor. It doesn't matter if he's an adjunct or not. Look at any university registrar website. You'll find the "instructor" for each course listed.
Posted by: Michael Kellman at August 7, 2006 12:05 PM
" .. It is not false for him to claim that he is instructor, if in fact he has a contract to be an instructor .."
Pally, get a grip. I don't know how many years, you've been around colleges, but it doesn't seem like many.
If you had, you'd know the faculty hiararchy -- e.g., full professor, associate professor with/without tenure, assistant professor on/not on the tenure-track, instructor on/not on the tenure-track (usually not).
Anything on the tenure-track involves the provost, at most colleges.
Mr. Barrett is NOT on the tenure-track at UW-Madison. He's not even near it. Get a grip, buddy.
Posted by: A.D. at August 7, 2006 03:39 PM
Art: In contrast to yourself, anyone can easily find out who I am and my history in academia by using a search engine for about 10 seconds.
Now, I don't know if you need to get a grip, but you should at least learn to read your own writing. Or maybe you deconstruct. Anyhow, I'll help you out.
"the faculty hiararchy ... "instructor on/not on the tenure-track (usually not)"
Exactly!
Posted by: Michael Kellman at August 7, 2006 08:46 PM
SIMPLE MINDS
Hey, Kid Einstein .. perhaps you are too busy, teaching remedial Freshman English .. as there are dozens of "Michael Kallman" listings in *.edu
Anyway, genius, once posted, small typo's in a posting can't be corrected .. I'd do it myself, if I could .. but then simple minds like yours wouldn't have anything to do ..
Looking forward to chartering your college, so you have to put in a real day's work. Good luck, trying to cope.
Posted by: A.D. at August 8, 2006 08:41 AM
HERE'S MR. BARRETT'S EVIDENCE!
This news is now uncensored.
Also: how interesting that this uncensored news-source is an "adjunct." Just like Mr. Barrett.
Posted by: Bart J. at August 8, 2006 09:02 AM
Art: Well, if I were teaching remedial English, and you were in my class, I'd first teach you how to read my name correctly, and then how to spell it correctly when using google. You would then easily find out my background.
Good luck, kid, I know you can do it!
Posted by: Michael Kellman at August 8, 2006 11:24 AM
" .. I'd first teach you how to read my name correctly .."
Dear Dr. Genius at U. of Oregon (if you are, who you claim to be): would you also have goactablog.org increase the type size from 6 pt to 10 pt? As in readability? You so smart ..
And BTW: how much time have you spent in academic administration? You don't seem to know much about the management and administation of full-time and contingent faculty (an oxymoron, if there ever was). I'm sure, you'd be way over your head, but prove me wrong by doing so.
Having worked with public and private colleges, I'd estimate the amount of B.S. (meetings, taskforces, middle-management, group therapy, deadwood, relatives on the payroll) is at least 25% higher in public colleges.
That is why public colleges should be chartered and required to show their actual value in the world.
For example, for all he knows (??), Dr. Genius could make 200% more via charter. He deserves -- and should be required to -- a chance to try. (Or possibly fail; that's up to him, not anyone else.)
The University of Oregon would be a fine place to charter and unburden the tax-plagued residents of Orygun.
Posted by: A.D. at August 9, 2006 08:48 AM
Art: You would be a lot more credible if you revealed your identity, and also if you'd cut down on the gratuitous sarcasm.
FYI: I've never been especially interested in academic administration, but I do have some first had temporary part-time experience.
I, too, have worked with public and private colleges, both as student and employee, as anyone can ascertain.
My experience is that the amount of wasted time varies from institution to institution, as one would expect.
My experience is also that public universities offer more for the money.
Why this would be true is an interesting topic.
Posted by: Michael Kellman at August 9, 2006 12:41 PM
Dr. Genius:
Here's my proof-sheet on why there is more waste in public colleges --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss
Where's your counter-proof? Good luck finding it -- the USSR fell in 1989. Did you hear?
Hope the voters of Oregon get rid of their deadweight losses.
Posted by: A.D. at August 9, 2006 03:33 PM
Art: A paragraph of econ 101 from Wikipedia is your idea of proving something?
As I said, my observation is based on experience in both private and public higher education institutions.
And my experience is that for the money they spend, public institutions offer more value.
And as I said, why this should be the case is an interesting question.
As for the state of Oregon privatizing its public institutions, a good many faculty would welcome that.
But there's not a snowball's chance that the voters would EVER approve that.
Wanna know why? Because they know they're getting a good deal as things stand.
As I said, public institutions offer more for the money.
Posted by: Michael Kellman at August 9, 2006 09:50 PM
PROVE IT
" .. public institutions offer more for the money."
Well, sir, if they are so great and good, why don't they allow *voluntary* public support of their mission? Versus mandatory taxation? Like UVa did?
That would be belief in the mission. That would be courage. That would be real "academic freedom" and allow for the operating freedom to hire any alleged academic (e.g., Kevin Barrett, Ward Churchill, Bernadine Dohrn, et al.).
Sir, talk is c-h-e-a-p and useless. Claiming public support is not the same as actually forcing taxation on 50% of the public that does *not* support 40:1 political bias in soft-side academia.
Not 1:1. Not even 2:1 or 3:1 -- 40:1.
What a lovely echo chamber. What a grand display of "diversity" and foundation for "critical thinking."
How laughable, ridiculous, and absurd. What an easy target -- no wonder "The Nation" is so defensive about academia, the target of so much late-night comedy. No wonder "National Review" is having a field day with academia.
http://phibetacons.nationalreview.com/
As for any alleged faculty interested in making more coin -- they are free to go, anytime they want, aren't they? You're not suggesting, they're being held in Oregonian academic slavery, are you? That would be ridiculous and absurd, wouldn't it?
Sir, no one is forcing anyone to stay in academia. Anyone who doesn't like academic working conditions should either leave or "suck it up" and quit whining.
This would be as opposed to forced taxation on non-Democrats for the Kevin Barrett/Ward Churchill teaching model.
Barrett has freedom of speech -- he can go to any public park, babble about alleged 9/11 conspiracies, and raise funds. But he is not constitutionally entitled to lifetime public financial subsidization of his unproductive and questionable teaching and research.
Posted by: A.D. at August 10, 2006 08:16 AM
Hey, A.D., maybe our state and federal tax forms should just come with a giant check list, and every citizen should be able to pick and choose exactly what programs s/he wishes to. Great idea!
Then, maybe, despite Republican control of our government, overwhelmingly popular programs like national health care might get tax support. (And I could stop supporting those poor corporations on national welfare.)
Posted by: Al Stewart at August 12, 2006 11:18 PM
AD -- Voluntary taxation is so deeply wrong for so many reasons. I mean, if we hold back our FEMA money, how can rich Republicans in Southern California get federal money to rebuild their mansions after wild fire and flood cycles naturally lay waste to them?
The purpose of a state university is not to reflect the political interests of the majority in that state. The purpose of a state university is to offer a more affordable education to residents of that state. Its secondary purpose is to generate civic pride through these state centers of learning and to generate community cohesion through interactions between the university and larger public of the state.
So just because you think books by black people or women shouldn't be taught in a literature course doesn't give you the right to withhold taxes from the school. Any more than my belief that the military is being run by total idiots gives me the right to pull my tax money out of the nation's military budget.
Posted by: Karen Eliot at August 17, 2006 01:32 AM
Art: Aren't you getting a bit hysterical? I didn't say anything about feeling enslaved, or anything at all except:
".. public institutions offer more for the money".
And I'll stand by that. Dollar for dollar, the public institution that educates students for $10,000/yr, or $15,000, or $6,000 (taking into account the state subsidy) is doing more for people than the private college that spends $40,000.
As for the public institutions forcing the taxpayers to support them: hey, it's the taxpayers who set up these arrangements. We faculty members just work here. Plenty of faculty members at public universities would be very happy to see these places operate as private institutions. But it's not up to them, it's up to the people they work for.
If you want to start a campaign to privatize the public university system of some state, try Oregon, there's a strong state initiative tradition here.
Good luck!
Posted by: Michael Kellman at August 19, 2006 12:39 PM