JustOneMinute: Stanley Fish On Academic Freedom

Stanley Fish On Academic Freedom

Stanley Fish chimes in on the academic freedom controversy in Wisconsin:

KEVIN BARRETT, a lecturer at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, has now taken his place alongside Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado as a college teacher whose views on 9/11 have led politicians and ordinary citizens to demand that he be fired.

Mr. Barrett, who has a one-semester contract to teach a course titled “Islam: Religion and Culture,” acknowledged on a radio talk show that he has shared with students his strong conviction that the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job perpetrated by the American government. The predictable uproar ensued, and the equally predictable battle lines were drawn between those who disagree about what the doctrine of academic freedom does and does not allow.

Ann Althouse has been covering this and Prof. Fish even quotes a commenter her blog, so we will kick it over there.

That said, I can't trust Prof. Althouse to get distracted by this amusing irrelevancy, so I will. Here is Prof. Fish making a very reasonable point with astrology as his pivot:

In short, whether something is an appropriate object of academic study is a matter not of its content — a crackpot theory may have had a history of influence that well rewards scholarly scrutiny — but of its availability to serious analysis. This point was missed by the author of a comment posted to the blog of a University of Wisconsin law professor, Ann Althouse: “When is the University of Wisconsin hiring a professor of astrology?” The question is obviously sarcastic; its intention is to equate the 9/11-inside-job theory with believing in the predictive power of astrology, and to imply that since the university wouldn’t think of hiring someone to teach the one, it should have known better than to hire someone to teach the other.

But the truth is that it would not be at all outlandish for a university to hire someone to teach astrology — not to profess astrology and recommend it as the basis of decision-making (shades of Nancy Reagan), but to teach the history of its very long career. There is, after all, a good argument for saying that Shakespeare, Chaucer and Dante, among others, cannot be fully understood unless one understands astrology.

"Shades of Nancy Reagan"? C'mon, get with the 21st century - Armstrong's the One!

Posted by Tom Maguire on July 23, 2006 | Permalink

Comments

Hmmmm.

So. Academic freedom.

It's just for professors so you damn conservative students STFU!

Posted by: ed | July 23, 2006 at 11:55 AM

Fish (a clever man playing games and getting rich while doing so) knows that there is a major distinction between saying that we will study how the belief in astrology influenced the writings of Shakespeare, Chaucer et al. versus saying that we will study why Shakespeare, Chaucer et al. were right in allowing astrology to influence their worldviews.

Posted by: SteveMG | July 23, 2006 at 12:13 PM

Fish mistates the issue. He says that academic freedom means that "any body of material, however unpromising it might seem, [should be subject] to academic interrogation and analysis".

The problem isn't that Barrett is teaching a frivolous or controversial subject - he is adocating fraud as fact.

Barrett presents his 9/11 conspiracy theory as a part of his class "Islam: Religion and Culture” because, he says, many Muslims believe it. But he goes further - he attempts to prove that it is true.

Let's engage in a thought experiment. Many Muslim believe in 'blood libels' - that Jews kidnap and murder Muslim children to use their blood in religious ceremonies. Barrett would be just as justified in discussing those as he is his 9/11 theories. But what if he went further - offering 'conclusive evidence' via the Protocols of the elders of Zion and other tracts, that Jews really do kidnap and murder Muslim children for their blood.

Does anyone think that Stanley Fish would be writing an editorial stating "academic freedom has nothing to do with content" if Barrett were doing that?

Posted by: Jos Bleau | July 23, 2006 at 12:21 PM

Barrett is a nut; settting aside the content of his course for a second, it is worth questioning whether he's mentally stable enough to be teaching a course. Have you read his letter to John Kerry?

Posted by: Brainster | July 23, 2006 at 01:35 PM

Jos Bleau has pretty much preempted me entirely--Professor Fish has set up a straw man. No one is arguing that a course on "Islam: Religion and Culture" should not be taught; what is of concern is the utter nutball theory that this man is teaching as fact. Let us imagine that a professor teaching a course entitled "Evolution" was indoctrinating his students in the factual accuracy of Creationism. I somehow doubt that Professor Fish would be among the defenders of such a practice.

Posted by: Other Tom | July 23, 2006 at 02:28 PM

Let us imagine that a professor teaching a course entitled "Evolution" was indoctrinating his students in the factual accuracy of Creationism.

Or imagine that a prof was taking seriously the Bell Curve arguments about blacks, whites, and IQ. Or teaching something suggesting that women, or gays, were somehow not as capable as white hetero males.

However, although we all know the answer, in principle Fish would support all that:

The distinction I am making — between studying astrology and proselytizing for it — is crucial and can be generalized; it shows us where the line between the responsible and irresponsible practice of academic freedom should always be drawn. Any idea can be brought into the classroom if the point is to inquire into its structure, history, influence and so forth. But no idea belongs in the classroom if the point of introducing it is to recruit your students for the political agenda it may be thought to imply.
And this is where we come back to Mr. Barrett, who, in addition to being a college lecturer, is a member of a group calling itself Scholars for 9/11 Truth, an organization with the decidedly political agenda of persuading Americans that the Bush administration “not only permitted 9/11 to happen but may even have orchestrated these events.”

Is the fact of this group’s growing presence on the Internet a reason for studying it in a course on 9/11? Sure. Is the instructor who discusses the group’s arguments thereby endorsing them? Not at all. It is perfectly possible to teach a viewpoint without embracing it and urging it. But the moment a professor does embrace and urge it, academic study has ceased and been replaced by partisan advocacy. And that is a moment no college administration should allow to occur.

Posted by: Tom Maguire | July 23, 2006 at 03:59 PM

Tom: are you quoting from Prof. Fish? If so, did he make that statement in the course of this dispute? I can't imagine, based on what I have read and seen, that anyone could maintain that Barrett is not "embracing and urging" the nutball theory. I have seen him on television saying that 9/11 was an inside job "and I can prove it."

Posted by: Other Tom | July 23, 2006 at 07:18 PM

There is, in fact, ample evidence that the official 9/11 conspiracy theory put out by the government is a ridiculous fraud and that 9/11 had to be an inside job. Before dismissing it as a "crackpot theory", examine the evidence. Examine it very closely and critically, and you will find so many holes in the official theory that it will amaze you that anyone can believe it.

Posted by: Jared | July 24, 2006 at 10:58 AM

As soon as no evidence is the equivalent of ample evidence...

Some of us are amazed that anyone would post such peposterous nonsense.

Posted by: Forbes | July 24, 2006 at 11:28 AM

If you are saying there is no evidence for government complicity in 9/11, than you are either ignorant or a liar. Take a look at the scientific evidence listed on the scholars for 9/11 truth site and tell me where they are wrong.Then explain to me how WTC7, which was never hit by a plane, suddenly collapsed soon after its owner, Larry Silverstein said in a PBS documentary that the building had to be "pulled".

http://www.st911.org/

"Most people would rather die than think; most people do". G.B. Shaw.

Posted by: Jared | July 24, 2006 at 12:02 PM

Evidence requires more than assertions. Where they are wrong? Facts would be a start to making an argument. That they have none does not put the burden on others to "prove" the falsity of their "claims." You seem to have the premise of making an argument backwards.

WTC7? Apparently you are unfamiliar with its proximity to the North Tower. Apparently you're unfamiliar with the fact that it was on fire and burned for hours before collapsing.

If you're truely interested in some understanding regarding the 9/11 attacks, try Popular Mechanics discussion of these issues: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

Posted by: Forbes | July 24, 2006 at 01:15 PM

If you step aside from the subject (9/11) for a moment you might appreciate the argument that Prof Fish is making. He points out that ANY subject can be taught from any angle -including an unpopular one. Some of the most interesting academic discussions I ever participated in were ones based on a angle I hadn't thought of before. The point is that no-one teaching a class should use that class as a platform to indoctrinate a group of students into said ideas. Professors are powerful at the classroom level - and should not be able to cross the line between presenting or teaching an idea and propaganda. It is a tougher line to see - and easier to cross

Posted by: politwiz | July 24, 2006 at 01:46 PM

Popular Mechanics. Now there is a reputable source of scholarly information. This piece of disinformation by Benjamin Chertoff has no credibility among 9/11 researchers and contains many factual errors. Since you keep asking for "facts", here are some:

# In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?

# The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?

# Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?

# Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700°F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800°F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000°F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?

# Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?

# Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?

# Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?

# A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?

# A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible?

# The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?

Their own physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints.

Posted by: Jared | July 24, 2006 at 03:07 PM

Good god, those aren't facts, that's a list of assertions and questions.

Yes, dismiss Popular Mechanics with an ad hominem remark. I'm swayed by the power of your non-argument.

Posted by: Forbes | July 24, 2006 at 04:54 PM

Fine. You dismiss this list of "questions" with a glib remark. Whether you call them facts, assertions or questions, I note that you fail to address them. At the very list, these questions should have been looked into by the 9/11 question. Why weren't they?

Posted by: Jared | July 25, 2006 at 10:03 AM

This is my first visit but, on the one hand, it appears to me that the original object of discussion is the 'freedom' of professors to say or study anything they want in their classrooms. Not the 9/11-inside-job theory itself and its merits.

On the other hand, Mr Fish fails to take a position on the controversy in UW@Madison, at least insofar as it can be perceived by its non-students or non-US residents (my case). But it is pretty obvious that for those who are familiar with Mr Barrett's membership to 'Scholars for 9/11 Truth' (among other things I am unfamiliar with), Mr Fish's opinion is quite unequivocal. And that is the one conveyed in the last sentence of his text:

"But no idea belongs in the classroom if the point of introducing it is to recruit your students for the political agenda it may be thought to imply."

Posted by: LH | July 25, 2006 at 11:12 AM

There is a big difference between "recruiting students for a political agenda" and seeking the truth about what happened on Sept.11, 2001. I hope we have not reached the point where a search for the truth has no place in the classroom. Many people cannot accept the official version of what happened, not because they are mentally unstable, but because of the logical twists in the government's version of events; this does not make them conspiracy nuts - it makes them critical thinkers in the mode of Socrates. You may recall that Socrates was also unpopular with the authorities.

Here is a list of key questions that call the official version into question:

1. Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?
2. Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?
3. Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?
4. Why hasn't a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?
5. Why haven't authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?
6. Why has Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who claims to have knowledge of advance warnings, been publicly silenced with a gag order requested by Attorney General Ashcroft and granted by a Bush-appointed judge?
7. How could Flight 77, which reportedly hit the Pentagon, have flown back towards Washington D.C. for 40 minutes without being detected by the FAA's radar or the even superior radar possessed by the US military?
8. How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of the alleged hijackers within hours, as well as to visit houses, restaurants, and flight schools they were known to frequent?
9. What happened to the over 20 documented warnings given our government by 14 foreign intelligence agencies or heads of state?
10. Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader of the hijackers?
11. Why did the 911 Commission fail to address most of the questions posed by the families of the victims, in addition to almost all of the questions posed here?
12. Why was Philip Zelikow chosen to be the Executive Director of the ostensibly independent 911 Commission although he had co-authored a book with Condoleezza Rice?

Far from banning a discussion of these questions, they should be required reading in every university class in the country.

Posted by: Jared | July 25, 2006 at 12:06 PM

Jared: That you've posed assertions followed by a demand for an explaination of the purported contradiction between those assertions and the events of 9/11 doesn't even add up to an alternative explanation of 9/11, much less a conspiracy theory.

In fact, all you've presented are a series of straw man arguments in an attempt to discredit the 9/11 Commission (and other) report(s) on the events of that day.

It is the epitome of dishonesty to act in such a manner.

But I'll indulge your dishonesty for a momment.

In the history of structural engineering--there have been multitudes of failures from exposures to risks well below design tolerance thresholds.

The fact that wide-body aircraft were flown into the Twin Towers at speeds approaching 500 miles per hour should change any preconcieved notion regarding baseline assumptions of structural integrity.

No fire supression operations were conducted on 9/11 at WTC I, II, and 7--only evacuation and rescue operations. In the absence of fire supression operations, steel structures can collapse.

Steel structures collapse when construction integrity is compromised--in this case by wide body jets crashing through multiple floors, and full loads of jet aviation fuel igniting a building contents fire across several floors simultaneously. Steel loses 50% of its strength at 1100 degrees--temperatures near-instantly achieved when the jet fuel exploded and ignited on collision with the Towers.

To suggest that the melting point temperature is relevent to the collapse of steel or the loss of its structural integrity is ample evidence of your ignorance of the subject matter and the dishonesty of your suppositions.

The rest of your drivel is a series of random out-takes and partial quotes--lacking any substance or coherence upon which to make an evidence-based argument--for any theory whatsoever.

But nice try.

Posted by: Forbes | July 25, 2006 at 01:25 PM

"In the history of structural engineering--there have been multitudes of failures from exposures to risks well below design tolerance thresholds." Please give me an example of a modern steel/concrete building that collapsed due to fire, as WTC7 did, or is this just a baseless assertion?

Were I to attempt to construct a comprehesive alternative theory of 9/11, I would require 400 pages and would also be duplicating the work of scholars for 9/11 truth and many other researchers throughout the world. My "random out-takes" are merely intended to provoke some questioning of the official conspiracy theory, which is, in many ways, the most absurd theory of all. If asking relevant questions that the 9/11 commission failed to ask is "dishonest", then I am proud to accept your label. What motive could I possible have for dishonesty? I do not own shares in Haliburton or Kellog, Brown, Root. If my post is "drivel", then why bother to reply to it? I seemed to have provoked a discussion after all. Why is this discussion confined to obscure internet sites instead of being openly debated on Fox and CNN? I have no interest in peddling any theory, but in questioning glaring inconsistencies. These questions show that it is the official theory that is incoherent, not me. I leave the list of questions to readers to consider, and ask if they really believe these were answered by the 9/11 commission and if not, why not.And I also ask readers, do you really think professors who ask these questions should be fired?

Posted by: Jared | July 25, 2006 at 02:02 PM

I believe that the problem is whether or not truth is being sought. You can even recruit your students to a political agenda, if you have broadly and openly discussed it and have, in common agreement, reached the conclusion that it is the one best for the country (or whatever administration you are talking about). So, recruiting to a political agenda and seeking the truth are completely different things, not only because they imply different approaches but mainly beacause they can coexist.

What seems to be going on is that there are people who reject one opinion without previous debate or dispute, without showing convincing arguments or counterarguments. It's those people who should be fired, for they lack foundation to what they say or think. Those who have an evidence-based opinion on something or simply RAISE A DEBATE on an issue POORLY DISCUSSED, truth is we can't afford to let them go...

Posted by: LH | July 25, 2006 at 02:45 PM

And, Jared, Fox News sucks...

Posted by: LH | July 25, 2006 at 02:48 PM

I completely agree with you, LH. Phrases such as "nut-case conspiracy theories" are designed to close out debate when it threatens to move into sensitive (ie. threatening to power structures) and psychologically disturbing areas. I was frankly surprised early in this debate at how everyone seemed to agree that conspiracy theories were "nutty" - the only question was whether these crazy theories should be allowed into university classrooms. At one time it was "nutty" to believe the earth revolved around the sun, and you could be persecuted for it. I believe the scholars for 9/11 truth are, in fact, motivated by a search for the truth; they are not just a bunch of irrational Bush haters. And I think various researchers have uncovered a great deal of evidence to suggest that there are many questions that the 9/11 commission not only failed to answer - it even failed to ask. I would just like to see a thorough and independent investigation of 9/11 that looks into every possiblity, including the possiblity of high level complicity.

Posted by: Jared | July 25, 2006 at 03:11 PM

Good god, Jared, I repeat again, you need to make your case based on presenting a coherent and logical argument--not by altering statements and asking others to provide answers to any list of questions you can think up.

If your conspiracy (or some alternative) "theory" requires 400 pages in order to make it, I would suggest you need another hobby, as Occum's Razor should have occurred to you by now.

You haven't proked a discussion--I've merely indulged your dishonesty for a minute or two.

A discussion of "alternative" explanations of the events of 9/11 are limited to obscure web sites because such discussions entertain no serious or credible questions, nor do they involve serious or credible people.

Again, all you've provided are straw man arguments.

Posted by: Forbes | July 25, 2006 at 03:40 PM

Seems like I can't win! First I have no evidence. Then 400 pages would be too much evidence. How many books have you written? David Ray Griffin is a highly respected author of over 20 peer reviewed books. A former defense minister of Germany is not "serious or credible"? I find your assertion incredible. I will leave it to others to decide which of us is honest and credible.

Posted by: Jared | July 25, 2006 at 04:50 PM

Jared: but the original discussion drawn from Mr Fish's article was really whether or not alleged 'conspiracy theories' should be allowed into universities classrooms - and to what extent they could be permitted. (When the author concluded that only to the extent where there wouldn't be 'recruiting' or inducement - by what I suppose he meant fascism).

As for the dispute supra, we cannot let ourselves be misled by official paper or supposedly independent comissions. We ought to bring light not only to the answers being given but to the very questions being made. We ought to be skeptical without being naïve. Practical without being foolish.

The country where I live (in South America) has recently taught its dwellers an useful lesson: always suspect your government, never underestimate its eagerness to remain in power.

Now, it's up to really independent organisms (national or not); it's up to the prosecuting people to dismantle such an orchestration, whether it really existed. Or it's up to people like you, Jared, if you have time, willingness, evidence and, more important, means to divulge your virtual breakthrough.

Posted by: LH | July 25, 2006 at 05:38 PM

Jared, you don't have any evidence--as you would have to provide some, first. You haven't. You have a bunch of questions. And then some more extremely trivial questions. A 400 page soliloquy of your (or someone else's) theory is not evidence, either. Name dropping isn't evidence of anything. And all of your responses have been pedantic, trivial, evasive, and non-responsive.

Enjoy your summer vacation.

Posted by: Forbes | July 25, 2006 at 07:05 PM

Thanks. You too.

Posted by: Jared | July 26, 2006 at 10:00 AM