ACTA's Must-Reads
« Dartmouth's arrogance goes national--again | Main | Academic freedom and conspiracy theories at UNH »
Theorizing Kevin Barrett
While University of Wisconsin-Madison lecturer Kevin Barrett theorizes that the U.S. government played a role in engineering the 9/11 attacks, the people at UW-Oshkosh are theorizing Kevin Barrett. Campus Greens, a student group, has invited Barrett to speak late next month, and the university is responding by framing the event as an opportunity to exercise the most elemental principles of free inquiry--to meet bad speech with more and better speech, to test ideas publicly through vigorous debate, and inquire why it is that some people, even some intellectuals, are so compelled by baseless and illogical ideas.
Here is the press release issued by Oshkosh chancellor Richard Wells:
Campus Greens, a recognized UW Oshkosh student organization, has invited Kevin Barrett to speak at a program it has scheduled for Oct. 26 in the theatre at Reeve Memorial Union, a student fee-funded building. No state or taxpayer dollars will be used for the program. Members of the campus community will decide on their own whether or not to attend.We will take all necessary steps to ensure a safe, civil and tolerant setting for the student-sponsored event, which also will include the showing of the controversial film, "Loose Change 2." We will work with members of Campus Greens to make sure they follow the necessary protocols. Failure to adhere to these protocols would require me to postpone the event, and it would not be rescheduled until I am
convinced we have ensured a civil environment.Many believe that the highly controversial views of Mr. Barrett, who has said the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were orchestrated by U.S. government officials to spark war in the Middle East, should not be protected by freedom of speech.
I do not in any way endorse the 9/11 ideas advocated by Mr. Barrett. In my opinion, his ideas are nonsensical. His visit, however, provides our students the opportunity to assess critically his views. Any analysis of the tragedy must conform to the most rigorous standards for scholarly analysis.
Mr. Barrett's visit offers us a chance to reaffirm our belief that with freedom comes responsibility. Members of a university community do not have absolute freedom of speech in their official capacities. They are free to pursue academic, artistic and research agendas essential to the university mission, but they must also contribute to an open and collegial environment that promotes reasoned inquiry, intellectual honesty, scholarly competence and the pursuit of new knowledge.
Wisconsin has a long-standing tradition of academic freedom. It was eloquently summarized by Helen White of UW Madison in 1957:
"There is today a good deal of dispute over the advantages of various types of bomb shelters for our bodies. But there is no dispute over one fact, and that is that there are no bomb shelters for our minds. Indeed, I know of no readier way to disarm ourselves than to try to hide from disturbing knowledge, and, conversely, I know of no surer way to steady our nerves and find the courage we need than to take arms against a sea of rumors and alarms and by understanding end them."
In addition, in order to provide a responsible campus environment and a rational, critical analysis of the ideas espoused by Mr. Barrett and the film "Loose Change 2," we have planned the following events:
* During October, panels of UW Oshkosh faculty, staff and students will discuss such questions as "Why Do People Believe Weird Things?", "What Social and Psychological Conditions Predispose People to Develop and Accept Conspiracy 'Theories'?" and "What is the Responsible Exercise of Academic Freedom?"
* On Nov. 7 or 8, we have tentatively scheduled a public talk and classroom lectures by nationally renowned author Michael Shermer, who wrote Why People Believe Weird Things. His topics will include "How thinking goes wrong: 25 fallacies that lead us to believe weird things" and "Why smart people believe weird things."
These events will supplement the critical thinking that takes place every day in hundreds of UW Oshkosh classes. I know that our students are entirely capable of judging the validity of Mr. Barrett's views.
Academic freedom is inextricably linked to the equally important need to exercise responsibly that "freedom." Anything less threatens and diminishes academic freedom. I hope members of the university community will take advantage of our faculty panel presentations and the talk by Mr. Shermer to help engage in the civil exchange of ideas guided by the best use of our critical thinking skills.
It seems clear enough that Barrett should never have been hired--but as long as UW is retaining him, it makes perfect sense to put him and his ideas under the microscope.
Note how Chancellor Wells has turned a scandalous embarrassment--Madison's hiring of Barrett to teach a course on Islam and the provost's subsequent misguided defense of Barrett's academic freedom--into what academics like to call a "teachable moment." Barrett is not being invited to Oshkosh to proselytize, but to be engaged in debate, and, frankly, to be scrutinized and even psychoanalyzed by the entire campus community. If it's a bit hard to see why Barrett would sign on for this, it's not at all hard to see why the Oshkosh campus would leap at the opportunity to assess Barrett's ideas--and the reasons why people have such ideas--first hand.
Note, too, how Chancellor Wells has couched his outline of the Barrett visit in a substantially different notion of academic freedom than the one that typically surrounds people such as Barrett. Academic freedom, Wells notes, is not freedom from accountability, not freedom from criticism, and not freedom to think irrationally. It is a privilege that entails responsibilities. Kudos to Chancellor Wells for understanding this, and for finding a way to make the Kevin Barret fiasco into an opportunity for members of the Oshkosh campus to deepen their understanding of what academic freedom is, what intellectual responsibility is, how the two fit together, and why they must both be upheld if higher education is to be taken seriously.
Posted by acta online at September 7, 2006 08:51 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.goactablog.org/blog/mt-tb.cgi/213
Comments
Bravo to ACTA for your above comments on the whole malodorous "l'affaire Kevin Barrett". KB's case demonstrates what comes of a miscreant student emeritus, now adjunct faculty member at the University of Wisconsin (peccato! e vergogna! to the U), who seems to me an inconcevable humbug, a veritable Bunberry, who could not live for a day outside the rarified (and mephitic) atmospheres of intellectual fever-swamps like Madison, Wisconsin and Berkeley, California. Allowing KB a civil forum for his worthless talking head tirades and ludicrous conspiracy "theories", however, guarantees his longed-for moment of infamy and his hallucinations of martrydom before an ovine "unenlightened" audience.
I too am a resident of a university town and am used to witnessing the "people" (read: "pseudo-intellectual racaille"--i.e., the one percent of the one percent of the population who frequent "co-op" groceries, "red" bookstores, seedy cafes, and college corner bars to argue radical politics and to aver fervently that Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao-Tse Tung and Castro are all "misunderstood"), who hang around streetcorners and college campuses. Or who claim that our CIA and FBI are at one moment fiendishly diabolical and the next stupidly errant. For advice on how to treat such prodigies (in the Latin sense) of the deep, we may turn to the ever-sagacious Dante: "Non ragiam' di lor, ma guarda e passa" ("Let's not dispute with them, but just look, and pass"). For KB and his devotees--sneers; for all others--cheers
Posted by: Jacques Albert at September 7, 2006 11:25 AM
No responses yet from politically intoxicated super-annuated hipsters? dommage!
Posted by: Jacques Albert at September 7, 2006 02:14 PM