Thursday, July 13, 2006

Oh no! Not another free speech case at UW!

Yea, oh my sisters and my brothers, ye shall always have them with you!

Pasted in below is a statement published as part of a press release by the University. I signed it, along with six or seven other people, but it was written by Donald Downs.

Anyway, here it is:

The Barrett Case and Academic Freedom at Wisconsin

By now, many people have heard about the recent academic freedom conflict at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. On July 11, Provost Patrick Farrell refused to fire Kevin Barrett, who is contracted to teach a course in the fall on Islam, Religion and Culture. Farrell’s decision has caused uproar because Barrett is a proponent of a bizarre conspiracy theory: that the attacks on America on September 11, 2001 were perpetrated not by jihadist terrorists, but rather by the government of the United States. That’s right: we did it to ourselves. When Barrett’s dedication to this theory became known, numerous people, including some state politicians, issued strident calls for Barrett’s immediate termination.
The main argument against retaining Barrett is that anyone who believes in this conspiracy lacks the competence to teach a class at a major university. But when the dust settles, some fundamental principles of academic freedom support the Provost’s decision.
First, Farrell’s investigation of Barrett’s course and previous lecturing experience indicated that Barrett, regardless of his beliefs concerning 9/11, would teach the course responsibly, and that students had rated him a decent teacher. If the relevant department (in this case, Languages and Cultures of Asia) had decided against offering Barrett the one course contract in the first place because of its assessment of his scholarship and teaching, that would have been the department’s choice to make, based on its own academic judgment. But that is not the situation that we confront.
Second, firing Barrett from his one course contract for this fall in the face of political pressure would set a bad precedent. Indeed, it would constitute the first time in anyone’s memory that the University fired an instructor—hired by a department through the normal channels—before the termination of his contract because of political pressures exerted on account of the instructor’s views. Even those who agree with Barrett’s strongest critics on substantive grounds should pause before opening this Pandora’s Box. Not allowing Barrett to teach according to the limited terms of his contract would mean that members of the media and legislature could dictate who teaches and who gets fired based upon these outsiders’ agreement or disagreement with the conclusions certain teachers reach. Though universities are hardly infallible in making their hiring decisions, such a precedent would seriously compromise the wide open pursuit of truth for which the University properly stands.
Conservatives in the legislature need to remember that the principle of academic freedom protects the right as well as the left. And for most of the last fifteen years, it is the right that has needed protection. During the 1990s, Wisconsin and many other schools enacted speech codes and related policies that they applied almost exclusively against conservatives who expressed ideas that conflicted with the agendas of political correctness. In reaction to these threats to academic freedom and free speech, several faculty members and students at Wisconsin forged a movement that has aggressively and successfully defended academic freedom across the board. Our movement (based on the independent Committee for Academic Freedom and Rights) was instrumental in causing the demise of the faculty speech code in 1999, and in defending the rights of several individuals who had run afoul of the dictates of political correctness. We have also aggressively supported the conservative Badger Herald several times when that paper came under attack for publishing cartoons deemed politically incorrect. Last spring, for example, we took a strong stand defending the Herald’s right to publish one of the notorious cartoons of Mohammed that had generated such controversy in Europe—a stance backed up by Chancellor John Wiley, who has striven to defend academic freedom and free speech of both the right and the left since he became Chancellor in 2000.
In thinking about Provost Farrell’s decision, we should keep in mind the words of Alexander Meiklejohn, the famous philosopher of free speech, citizenship, and education who founded the Integrated Liberal Studies program at Wisconsin. “To be afraid of an idea—any idea—is to be unfit for self-government.” In the long run, defending Barrett’s right to teach this one course is necessary if we want to defend something that is a lot more important than this one conspiracy theorist.

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Independence Day Message

The following essay was circulating the internet this July Fourth.

I cannot vouch for the scholarship in it, but it does pack a whollop, so I'm entering it below:


Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence?

Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died.

Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.

Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured.

Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War. They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

What kind of men were they?

Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists.Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated, but they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, sa! w his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.

Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.

Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.

At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.

John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished.

Some of us take these liberties so much for granted, but we shouldn't. So, take a few minutes while enjoying your 4th of July holiday and silently thank these patriots. It's not much to ask for the price they paid.

Remember: freedom is never free!