ACTA's Must-Reads

You have ignored the fact that UNH has looked into the allegations and has found them wanting.

But the controversy did lead to a review of Woodward's performance. ``I am assured that he has exercised appropriate restraint and adhered to professional standards in the classroom," said[Bruce L.] Mallory[,provost and executive vice president of the University of New Hampshire,]. ``He has only discussed the matter of Sept. 11 in the context of a course on political psychology, an appropriate venue for exposing students to conflicting ideas about the American political context and how it is understood and interpreted. Unlike other cases around the country, Dr. Woodward has not sought public audiences to discuss his views."

From this passage it is clear that UNH found that his conduct falls within the broad protection of Academic Freedom.

It is very telling that the only ones up in arms about the Scholars for 911 Truth are on the right of political spectrum. There is no danger that this fringe group's ideas will enter the mainstream. The reason for the faux outrage on the right is that these academics are easy targets for those who want to take over the only institution left in our country which are not dominated by the corporations and the right. You admit as much in your post.

The Barrett and Woodward cases pose a fascinating and important limit case for debates about academic freedom. How far will higher ed administrators go in their hands-off approach to pedagogical integrity? And how far will they be able to stretch the concept of academic freedom--which actually places quite clear limits on what teachers and scholars may do--before the public revolts?

Veblen,

Can you examine this site (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/) and explain how its contents render it an organ of the 'political right'?

Art, I would suggest that you look at the other blogs run by by the proprietors of Screw Loose Change. James B. runs a blog called the Chief Brief and Pat runs a blog called B.R.A.I.N.S.T.E.R.. After you have read those blogs, you can get back to me with an explanation of how those two aren't right wing.

veblen: "You have ignored the fact that UNH has looked into the allegations and has found them wanting."

So -- can we take it that you generally support self-regulation, and would feel comfortable leaving the oil companies and other capitalist corporations free to regulate themselves?

Or is self-regulation a power that you would reserve only for academia, and perhaps the UN?

veblen: "It is very telling that the only ones up in arms about the Scholars for 911 Truth are on the right of political spectrum."

It is no less telling that the only ones up in arms about the academy being criticized are on the left of the political spectrum.

veblen: "Thank goodness no one is paying attention to you."

Except you.

And the AP.

And, of course, there's always the Boston Globe.

Clawmute

Clawmute, You have addressed three points. I in turn will address them in order.

• I did not address the question of self-regulation. Do not put words in my mouth. The point which I made was that ACTA had ignored, in this post, the fact that an investigation did take place. Further, the investigation found that Woodward had not violated any rules. It is also interesting that this finding was in part based on a 2004 post-tenure review of Woodward. Post-tenure review is part of ACTA's program to "ensure integrity in classrooms." I would also suggest that you read the other points in the ACTA program. You would find that ACTA recommends self-regulation of the university. I am sure you will soon be writing posts critical of ACTA.


• I am progressive and very critical of universities. Click on my name below and read my blog.


• I'll concede your third point.

While I am on the topic of putting words in peoples mouths, would someone please give me a reference in which a person in a position of power at a university has said that academic freedom means "anything goes". If you can't then the quotes should be removed.

Veblen, I asked you what about the content of the site itself rendered it an organ of the 'right-wing', not about the content of any other site with which they may be associated. People have various facets to them, which would include political identities, religious identities, professional identities, and personal idiosyncracies, among other things. I fail to see how an affection for (say) economics of the rational-expectations school would logically drive an exasperation with Prof. Fetzer & co.

Prof. Fetzer is infected with a particular understanding of history and political life that does not correllate particularly well with conventional political taxonomies. Robert Welch (of the John Birch Society) and Walter Karp (late of Lewis Lapham's stable at Harper's) were addled with the same understanding. It is doubtful that either had much in common as regards what they thought the proper goals of public policy ought to be.

I have not done a more than cursory inspection of the content of their other blogs, but they (or at least James B .) look to be common-and-garden Republicans, not manifestations of the 'right-wing', and their supportive commenters are not identifiable at all as regards their views on social policy or what-have-you.

One might suggest that complaints about the infection of liberal arts faculties with Prof. Fetzer's imagination are more likely to fix on examples of faculty with otherwise left-of-center orientations because faculty who do not have such orientations are less than one tenth of the total. The moderators of "Screw Loose Change" have not given a pass to Prof. Morgan Reynolds, emeritus of Texas A & M and one of the atypical libertarians on this nation's faculties.

Art, I stated that the people who are up in arms about Scholars for 911 Truth are from the right of the political spectrum. Therefore it is perfectly valid for me to point out that the other blogs run by the proprietors of Screw Loose Change show that they are from the right of the political spectrum. We can quibble about how right wing they are, but we can both agree they are not left of center.

The fact that some of the Scholars for 911 Truth are themselves on the right of the political spectrum does not negate my point. ACTA is not interested in this case because these people are left wing. ACTA wants to establish precedents which can be used to move the academy to the right. That these people have crackpot ideas which few will defend makes them the perfect target for this purpose. And the fact that some are to the right of center helps ACTA maintain that this is not about the dominance of the academy by the left.

This is not the appropriate forum to discuss the motivations of others on the right.