Part-time lecturer’s controversial 9/11 views kick up a hornet’s nest

The concept of academic freedom, though a matter of importance to higher education, typically isn’t fodder for water-cooler conversations or chatty morning talk shows.

But when a part-time instructor of a course on Islam is discovered to have incendiary personal theories about government complicity in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks — and those personal theories briefly intersect with his teaching — you have the ingredients for an emotional and remarkably widespread national debate about the merits, the limitations and the very definition of academic freedom.

UW–Madison was under near-constant scrutiny this summer for its decision to allow part-time lecturer Kevin Barrett to teach an introductory course on Islam history and culture. Thousands of e-mails and calls from citizens have poured into the university, frequently triggered by the steady drumbeat of national news reports: The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Washington Post, the Christian Science Monitor and many others weighed in with byline stories. The Fox News Network booked Barrett three times on different talk programs.

The decision also triggered a legislative resolution, signed by 61 state lawmakers, that UW–Madison fire Barrett for his “academically dishonest views.” State Rep. Steve Nass, R-Whitewater, led the legislative resolution and warned that the university’s decision would have budget implications.

At issue are Barrett’s highly controversial personal views on the Sept. 11 attacks on America, in which he asserts the attacks were an “inside job” orchestrated to justify a long-term war in the Middle East.

When the controversy first erupted in late June, Provost Patrick Farrell rigorously examined Barrett’s plans for teaching the course, his prior teaching record and his academic credentials. Following a 10-day review, Farrell agreed to allow Barrett to teach, based on the course’s merits, evaluations of his teaching and Barrett’s insistence that he intends to separate his personal convictions from his professional responsibilities and not seek to impose his views on students. Post-Sept. 11 issues are expected to comprise about a week of the 17-week course.

“We cannot allow political pressure from critics of unpopular ideas to inhibit the free exchange of ideas,” Farrell wrote. “That classroom interaction is central to this university’s mission and to the expansion of knowledge. Silencing that exchange now would only open the door to more onerous and sweeping restrictions.”

A Web link off the UW–Madison home page is providing regular updates on the controversy, links to news reports, public feedback and opportunities to post views. The following is a sampling of the range of commentary on the decision:

• “Wacky ideas at universities abound. If they are taught in the context of theories among many and that some are demonstrably false, they might have some utility. We aren’t convinced by anyone’s assurances to date — Barrett’s or the university’s — that this will be the context in which this 9-11-as-American-plot will be taught. Not only should Barrett, after review, have not been allowed to teach this course, he shouldn’t have been hired to do it in the first place. No freedom, including academic freedom, is absolute.”
  — Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, July 12 editorial

• “Beyond the short-term damage it would do to the open inquiry that is essential to education, the forced removal of Barrett by state politicians could pose a risk of backfiring in the long-term. Few students today would fall for Barrett’s rhetoric after examining the facts closely. However, allowing politicians to systematically force universities to fire faculty with unpopular opinions would further homogenize the educational system and deprive students of an opportunity to learn to think creatively and critically. If this happens, perhaps one day a wave of students could come through UW–Madison that would accept views like Barrett’s without much resistance because they hadn’t learned to evaluate controversial claims.”
  — Charlotte Observer, Aug. 16, Aaron White

• “We wish Barrett well. But we can’t help but think he’s selling himself short. The university is paying him about $8,000 for the fall semester. What a waste of talent. With his imagination, he could be making big money in Hollywood, writing scripts for ‘24.’”
  — Chicago Tribune editorial, July 27

• “In the history of the UW, the Kevin Barrett controversy will rank as just one of many fights over academic freedom. It will not be the most dramatic or the most consequential. But the UW’s legacy is only as strong as the willingness of campus leaders to boldly reaffirm the school’s commitment to the sifting and winnowing of ideas whenever it is challenged. That legacy has been defended, ably, by Patrick Farrell. Thus, while his task was virtually thankless, it should not be entirely so. Those of us who cherish the UW’s rich history and its bright future thank Farrell for remaining true to his school — and to its deepest values.”
  — Capital Times editorial, July 13