July 3, 2006

Investigation Over 9/11 Teachings

Two months before the start of the fall semester, one syllabus at the University of Wisconsin at Madison is getting a very thorough review.

Looking for a job?

See all 272 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 2,719
Administrative: 2,095
Executive: 157
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

Patrick Farrell, Wisconsin’s provost, announced last week that he would review everything about the course “Islam: Religion and Culture,” in light of comments made on a radio show by the instructor, Kevin Barrett. In his remarks, Barrett said that the United States planned the 9/11 attacks as a way to start a war in the Middle East. Barrett also indicated that he planned to share his views during the course this fall.

Barrett, a temporary instructor, received his Ph.D. from Madison in 2004 in African languages, literature and folklore. He has taught one other course at Madison, but it was not about Islam. Barrett is a founder of a group called the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth. On that group’s Web site, he elaborates on the views that he discussed on the radio, writing, for example, about the “big lie” of 9/11 and of the “compelling evidence” that the attacks were “an inside job.”

The comments set off politicians throughout the state, many of whom are calling on the university to immediately fire Barrett. In a typical statement, Wisconsin Rep. Steve Nass, a Republican, said: “This case isn’t about academic freedom. I firmly believe this is a case of protecting students from the academic garbage that Mr. Barrett spews.” He added that Barrett is “free to stand on the street corner and advocate his nutty left-wing views. However, the taxpayers and tuition-paying families shouldn’t pay this man one cent to perform his voodoo in a UW classroom.”

On the radio show and in an interview with a Wisconsin newspaper, Barrett said that he would share his views in class (noting that he would also share what he considers the official, whitewashed version of the events). Madison officials and educators elsewhere typically have an easier job defending the right of professors to espouse views that are widely seen as lies if those views aren’t shared in class. Northwestern University, for example, has repeatedly resisted calls to fire Arthur R. Butz, an engineering professor who is a Holocaust denier, but who doesn’t discuss the Holocaust in class.

In his announcement that Barrett’s plans for the fall course would be reviewed, Farrell stressed the fact that Barrett had talked about views he would share in class. “Mr. Barrett is entitled to his own personal political views. But we also have an obligation to ensure that his course content is academically appropriate, of high quality, and that his personal views are not imposed on his students,” Farrell said.

The review will include the planned syllabus, the reading list, and past teaching evaluations. Farrell said this review was appropriate to deal with “legitimate concerns about the content and quality of instruction.”

Barrett did not respond to messages seeking his comment.

— Scott Jaschik

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

Academic Freedom?

I await the handwringing of the usual suspects that academic freedom and the world as we know it will end if UW pulls the plug on this course. After all, the instructor generously agreed to present “both sides” of the issue. Such fair and balanced analysis of 9/11 will surely “get students thinking.” And the instructor might be the next Galileo. Oops, I forgot; Ward Churchill has already been given that title by his attorney.

Capricorn One, at 6:10 am EDT on July 3, 2006

JFK Revisited

The difficulty with free speech is speaker often says things that are untrue.

Until controversial views are aired out, the listener does not have the opportunity to separate truth from fiction.

It took 98 years to take the protection of slavery out of the US Constitution. The use of free speech would have done it quicker. But the South had a gag order on teachings in all public schools, including the North. In my building in the North, Blacks were not allowed in to work. But they were allowed to sit on the bus where they chose. What’s worse?

The exercise of free speech got a sportscaster from Nevada thrown off the air because he said Blacks were genetically better qualified to play certain sports because their ancestors had to cope with jungles. Why they are better may still be in doubt, but one can’t go to a professional or college basketball game without noticing that Blacks play the game, on average, better than whites.

The South voted Republican before Lincoln freed the slaves and voted Democrat until Lyndon Johnson brought in the civil rights act. It is time to recognize that our tolerance for conceptual ideas is limited. Had Warren done a good job investigating the JFK murder, perhaps we would have more confidence in our government. In any event, the students can take care of themselves. If the government does not like the teaching, let them come forward to defend themselves.

As for Churchill, he was deemed to have failed in his defense by those that count.

Certainly, this professor should be given the same hearing and consideration as Churchill.

And, the school has a right to question what is taught. After all, how else could the system mold us all into shape? Where does truth begin and Fascism stop?

William Sumner Scott, J.D.

Judicial Equality Foundation, Inc.

wss@jefound.org

William Sumner Scott, at 7:40 am EDT on July 3, 2006

Here’s truth

” .. Where does truth begin and Fascism stop?”

Truth begins when yahoo’s like 9-11 nut-cases and Ward C. put their personal funds into the questionable dreck they spew to students, not public funds. They are free to use their funds any legal way they want — they are not entitled to public funds.

Fascism stops when students are given, pre-enrollment, full and fair course and instructor data — and the choice to opt out of courses they find personally repugnant.

As in: NEWSFLASH — some people actually believe in traditional family structures (e.g., Ward and June Clever) and more than 26% of GNP going to government as wasteful. And, last time I checked, they have constitutional rights, too.

L.L. Berry, at 8:00 am EDT on July 3, 2006

Working on a Ph.D. can cause one to “go off". Our Government and Universities are over flowing.

Russell Vitale, Instructor at CCC, at 9:10 am EDT on July 3, 2006

We Support You Kevin

If anyone were to take the time to research 9/11 on their own, they would see that the “Official Story” can not stand up to scrutiny. We were lied to. Those who lied to us benefitted the most from the attacks. The United States has a history of deceiving the public in order to start wars. Thank you Kevin for everything that you do.

Jon Gold, Rocket Scientist at NASA, at 9:10 am EDT on July 3, 2006

How?

” .. We were lied to. “

How? In what way? Engineering? Fire science? Teleportation from/to Capricorn One?

When you and Ward-o figure that out — please post. Good luck.

L.L. Berry, at 9:30 am EDT on July 3, 2006

The Constitution was ratified in 1788. The abolition of slavery was enacted with an amendment ratified in 1865. That amounts to 77 years.

The institution of slavery was a matter of controversy in the federal legislature from 1820 onward. There was also quite a run of newspapers of an abolitionist bent published by free negroes and others during the antebellum period.

No legislative body in the southern United States has ever had de facto or de jure authority over the curriculum of schools in the northern United States. The federal government had little influence over the content of primary and secondary education not merely during the antebellum period but any period prior to 1954.

The South voted Republican before Lincoln freed the slaves and voted Democrat until Lyndon Johnson brought in the civil rights act.

The Republican Party that exists today was founded in Ripon, Wisconsin in 1854. It was a free soil party with an abolitionist minority, and for that reason had little support in the South. Abraham Lincoln received fewer than 30,000 votes in southern states in the 1860 federal elections. It was able to acquire a large corps of officeholders in the South during the period running from 1867 to 1877 when federal troops protected and promoted the enfranchisement of freed slaves, but was through various means (the poll taxes, rigged literacy tests, violence, and sundry chicanes that removed blacks from the voter rolls) electorally destroyed there over the next quarter century. The Republican Party prevailed among voting blacks up until about 1930, and remained competitive in that population until about 1960.

If the government does not like the teaching, let them come forward to defend themselves.

No one is entitled to a teaching job at the University of Wisconsin. If this instructor wishes to indulge his political fantasies, he can do so on his own time and his own dime.

As for Churchill, he was deemed to have failed in his defense by those that count.

I take it elected legislators, who are among those ultimately responsible for the superinendancy of the public agency known as the University of Wisconsin, do not count.

...

The difficulty with free speech is speaker often says things that are untrue.

Art Deco, garden gnome at Whatsamatta U., at 11:20 am EDT on July 3, 2006

Sounds like a good course!

Prof. Barrett’s planned course sounds perfectly OK.

I don’t share his view on 9/11. But it is completely plausible that the US government would be evil enough to engineer such an attack.

We know about “Operation Northwoods” — the Joint Chiefs’ proposal for a terrorist attack on the US _by_ the US military, to be blamed on Castro as an excuse to invade Cuba.

So there’s nothing impossible or even implausible about Bush & Co. staging 9/11.

The question then becomes: What’s the evidence? This is where the course would get interesting.

Naturally, “conservatives” will howl with rage over this. They howl whenever reality is discussed intelligently! “Conservatism” is basically _authoritarianism_ — “Believe Your Leaders, Repeat What We Say", that sort of stuff.

But a course like this — not with “both sides” taught, an illusion because there are always more than just two sides — but focused on the evidence, and the various hypotheses, including an “Operation Northwoods"-type scenario — would be fascinating.

And good for the students! It would help them to question what our political mis-leaders say.

THAT, of course, is why the “conservatives” oppose courses like this, and anything that smacks of criticial

When “Conservatives” talk about “freedom", “responsibility", etc., you can be sure of one thing: they are _taking away_ your freedom, and trying to force you to act irresponsibly.

Grover Furr, Assoc. Professor/English & Comp. Lit at Montclair SU, at 11:20 am EDT on July 3, 2006

Academic freedom

L.L. Berry,

I will attempt to explain academic freedom to you. Let’s suppose Company X is in trouble.Sales are off, profits are down. So, the Big Cheese decides to hold a brainstorming session. He invites a few people from different parts of the firm to a weekend retreat. He tells them that we need fresh ideas, that this company needs to think outside the box! He tells them not to worry if their idea sounds silly or is even contradictory. And of course most of the ideas generated are notso hot. Many are downright foolish. But, if come Sunday afternoon, one or two promising news ideas have emerged, the company may indeed be saved!

Universities are brainstorming centers for society. For good or bad, the public gets to watch the show and may indeed find the process of truth seeking very odd at times.Some professors spout some ideas that are foolish or even offensive. And, who can forget Cold Fusion? But, what would happen in the hypothetical example above if the Big Cheese had walked in and said banging his fist on the table: “We need ideas! Fresh thinking! But if you waste my time with foolish ideas your days at this company will be short. In fact, you’d best make sure I already agree with your ideas!”

If we ran our universities like this, it truly would be a waste of public funds.

Mike, Math Prof, at 11:20 am EDT on July 3, 2006

Important philosophical principle—all determination is negation

I’ve never seen a shred of credible evidence to suggest U.S. government complicity in 9/11. When this subject comes up in my classes, espcially where relevant to course content, I always say so. But, if things continue to develop regarding this issue the way they are going, I will soon have to add the following qualification, “but, of course, you cannot trust me to be honest about anything I say, since I know that people are being targeted,harrassed and even fired as a result of the opinions they express on this matter.” Why can’t those who want to monitor these things show some respect for students, who are, on the whole able to distinguish between the certain, the probable, the possible, the impossible, the credible and the incredible? Perhaps it’s because we know as a nation that we are failing to really teach critical thinking standards to our students at a young enough age? Good news: they can usually do it anyway. Bad news: it works better through constant reinforcement, which we lack in our educational system. We are failing at this, and failure at this, leads to additional failures, such as the argument that we have to protect students from their own ignorance through the curtailment of academic freedom. As the failures mount, education weakens. As education weakens, so does The Republic.

Paul Eckstein, Department of Philosophy and Religion at Bergen Community College, at 11:21 am EDT on July 3, 2006

Wouldn’t David Horowitz’s Academic Bill of Rights *require* that Barrett’s views be taught? Too bad for this instructor that Wisconsin hasn’t embraced that legislation yet.

cga, at 11:21 am EDT on July 3, 2006

Employment At Will

Barrett is an instructor at UW-Madison. Instructors are temporary employees with none of the status of permanent faculty. Instructor is a position that is hired for “at will” meaning that the university can dismiss him (at least before the course begins) for “. . . good reason, no reason, or reason bad will". There are no tenure issues at stake here. The university has a clear right to terminate him. The university is doing itself a disservice by conducting such a syllabus review. They should just let him go, period.

Mick, at 11:30 am EDT on July 3, 2006

If showing one side = balance, you’re probably imbalanced...

The widely blogged _Loose Change_ video suggests a multitude of ways in which the US populace may have been lied to, and offers evidence (and rhetorical-question arguments) for its assertions. As an example of both good and bad practices in construction of an argument, it’s worth viewing and analyzing, just as Richard Nixon’s “Checkers” speech has long been viewed and analyzed to demonstrate the techniques of propaganda.

The fellow says he intends to offer the official explanation as well. One wonders in what way Capricorn One believes that a more “fair and balanced” presentation can be achieved by offering only one explanation.

Besides, Republican administrations for a quarter century now have been using the “fair and balanced” argument to insist that the handful of crackpots who disclaim global warming should get equal time with the overwhelming scientific consensus that it is a real problem getting worse all the time. Similarly, this very site often comments on the “Non-science needs equal time with science in every science classroom!” argument from the antifactualists of the religious right. Unless one’s willing to muzzle and/or fire the political opportunists dumbing down the nation on science, I don’t see that one can have a leg to stand on in complaining about this fellow. (His evidence is almost certainly harder to explain away.)

Thane Doss, at 11:40 am EDT on July 3, 2006

“nutty left-wing views"???

I find it interesting that Representative Steve Nass considers any view that he does not agree with to be a “nutty left-wing” one. I find Barrett’s views rather bizarre and, to my knowledge, unsupported by the facts of the case as we know them. I consider myself to be to the left of middle, and I doubt that many of my left-wing buddies would support Barrett’s assertions or his apparent attitude that it is appropriate to stuff it down the throats of college students who have signed up for his course. Thus, I would be interested in hearing Nass’s rationale for naming this reactionary religious, fanatic a “left-wing ” nut. In my view, Barrett’s preaching seems more like Jerry Fallwell’s than Ted Kennedy’s.

Is it now “left-wing” to follow the Constitution of the United States of America? If so, what is the “right-wing” view?

Marv Paule, Professor at Colorado State University, at 12:05 pm EDT on July 3, 2006

Where to start

Faked moon landings, Area 51, the grassy knoll, the many tales of 9/11, the Ohio election, the plot to cover up Professor Furr’s discovery that Stalin was a model of enlightened democratic statesmanship— so many conspiracies, so little time.

Capricorn One, at 12:05 pm EDT on July 3, 2006

Course Review

Courses are offered by departments and not be instructors. Usually there is a vetting process that requires some kind of university authorization before a course can be added to the catalog. Instructors are then found or assigned to teach the course when the department decides to offer it. There is no way that an adjunct would simply be asked to offer anything he wants to teach.

It sounds like the provost, Patrick Farrell is doing the responsible thing. Look at the syllabus a d reading list to ascertain whether the instructor is going to do what the department has hired him to do. If the instructor intends to make the course a lobbying effort to teach the students that 9/11 was a government planned mass murder of Americans then the instructor should be dismissed unless the department and the university has authorized such a course.

If a teacher is hired to give a course in electricity and magnetism and instead gives lectures in stamp collecting, he should be fired whether the students like the course or not. In addition to academic freedom, instructors also have contractual obligations.

Jonathan Cohen, at 12:05 pm EDT on July 3, 2006

Gnosticism and 9/11

Did Jesus really have a thing for Mary Magdalene? Who really burned the Reichstag, and why? How many moons, if any, can Jupiter possibly have? Who fired upon whom in the Gulf of Tonkin? Why does God permit Satan to muddy the record of creation with dubious dating methods and the implantation of clever “fossils?” Did April Glaspie actually pimp Saddam Hussein into invading Kuwait? These and countless other convoluted questions are best left to the management of some central authority a majority of us can trust. Otherwise, nattering nabobs of negativity will waste our time and our resources.

John C. Bonnell, Professor of English at Macomb Community College, at 12:05 pm EDT on July 3, 2006

Dissing what you don’t believe won’t make you understand it

Of course, one can also examine the non-sequitur commentary at this site (say, that of Capricorn One and John Bonnell) to demonstrate illegitimate argument.

Whether Barrett believes 9/11 was a US government plot or not (and whether he has more than the PNAC report to base his argument on or not), there are a good number of Muslims on this Earth who do believe it. One might recall that Osama bin Laden himself claimed as much in a tape shortly after 9/11. Explanations of this sort appeared in Egyptian newspapers within a week of 9/11.

Given a hot war or two involving numbers of people willing to kill other people over beliefs of this sort, it seems irresponsible to dismiss the argument and anyone who buys it as insignificant. Do those of you who are afraid of having more than one explanation present in the classroom truly believe that the way to understand others is to dismiss what they believe and to tell them you just don’t want to hear it?

I read too much stuff that suggests that if Iraqis won’t just stop what they’re doing and start behaving like Republican-voting, suburban-living soccer moms and dads, that just goes to show that they’re crazy and that we just need to keep killing ‘em until they come their senses.

You’re all obviously free to disagree with me, but personally I think we’re more likely to make some progress toward a world we can all live together in if we try to understand the resentments angry Muslims feel, the things they believe and the things they’re willing to believe, and even the lapses of logic they might be prone too. The arguments Mr. Barrett wishes to present are a part of the belief system of an important part of the Muslim world—the part that feels justified in attacking the US. Even the furthest-right-wingers should see some value in Barrett’s arguments as part of understanding an enemy.

Thane Doss, at 1:20 pm EDT on July 3, 2006

One of Jefferson’s many quotations is: “We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” Unfortunately, most people don’t make the effort to enter into such “combat". We generally listen to people talk and accept what is said as “truth” or “not true” based on what we “think that we know", and/or our perception of the truthfulness of the speaker (e.g. look at how jury’s decide court cases where there is no physical evidence of a crime). Most people don’t do their own independent research in order to “check the facts". Thus, in academia, particularly in the non-science disciplines, professors are able to present their “opinion” as “fact” and often go unchallenged. Students won’t generally confront their professors, since they will be getting a grade from them. It has to be up to the professor’s bosses (dept. chair, dean, university administration) to “reel in” those faculty members that are really “going off the deep-end".

Paul, Staff at UVA, at 1:20 pm EDT on July 3, 2006

Question for Doss

Does the logic of your argument lead you to support paying true believers to “teach” the Protocols of Zion, which is orthodoxy in parts of the world?

Capricorn One, at 2:30 pm EDT on July 3, 2006

Math linear, charters not

” .. you’d best make sure I already agree with your ideas!” “

Government-subsidized employees think they are constitutionally-entitled to feed at the public trough.

WRONG! Paying taxes is done voluntarily, not via government thuggery (Stalin, anyone?). So is the setting of those tax rates. Let’s get that straight, first.

Next, if a group of loonies want a college to study the moon-god — fine. They’re free to — under their efforts and resources. (Stalin would never allow that, would he, Mr. Furr?)

And if they get enough public support — that is, they get off their butts and gather that support — they could form a chartered and/or privatized college for moon-god study.

They get the votes, I could care less; stupidity is not a felony (yet). And until they do — not a penny of tax funds.

No one is entitled to spew unadulterated dreck in taxpayer-owned colleges, blathering crap from outside their supposed area of expertise. No one.

L.L. Berry, at 3:00 pm EDT on July 3, 2006

Reconsider and Withdraw Academic “Review” of Dr. Kevin Barrett

My views are stated in this message which I have sent to: Dr. Patrick V. Farrell, Provost, University of Wisconsin — Madison

Dear Dr. Farrell:

As an attorney and McCarthy era UW Madison graduate, I am deeply disturbed about the politically instigated “review” of Dr. Kevin Barrett, which you announced on June 29. When teachers are intimidated against seeking and speaking truth on a campus renowned for its liberal and progressive traditions, we are in trouble.

It has been reported that UW System Board of Regents President, David G. Walsh, thinks Dr. Barrett should be able to share his views in the classroom, observing: “Unless he’s yelling fire in a crowded theater, we need to be careful to protect his academic freedom".

Mr. Walsh, a skilled attorney, is absolutely right. Academic freedom is essential for maintaining democracy. As Albert Einstein observed: “It is evident that any restriction on academic freedom acts in such a way as to hamper the dissemination of knowledge among the people and thereby impedes national judgment and action.”

Universities are for inquiries, not inquisitions. The Provost’s review of Dr. Barrett will intimidate the entire academic community against seeking or discussing 9/11 truth. Accordingly, I urge immediate reconsideration and withdrawal of plans for an academic “review” of Dr. Kevin Barrett.

To remain a great academic institution, UW must operate in the tradition of La Follette, not McCarthy.

Respectfully,

Ron Rattner 1998 Broadway #1204San Francisco, CA 94109

Ron Rattner, Retired attorney at JD U of Chicago, 1958, at 9:05 pm EDT on July 3, 2006

Scientific evidence falsifying the official account

Surprising as it may seem, the official account of 9/11 depends upon a set of physical impossibilities. The Twin Towers were constructed to withstand the impact of the largest available airplanes, which were Boeing 707s, very similar to the planes that hit the building. The project manager said that, because of the sophisticated load-redistribution capabilities, their impact on the towers would be like “sticking a pencil through mosquito netting".

If the planes didn’t cause them to crash, maybe it was the associated fires. It turns out that the highest temperature that can be produced by a jet fuel fire is about 1,800*F, but the melting point of steel is around 2,800*F. So that makes the temperature about 1,000*F short of causing them to melt. If they didn’t melt, maybe they weakened enough to collapse? But UL certified the steel in the buildings to 2,000*F for at least six hours before they would even significantly weaken. One building fell after only an hour, the other after little more than an hour and a half. So that was impossible.

The buildings also fell in about 10 seconds apiece, which is the same rate of fall as a grand piano would have taken if it had been released from their top at the same time they started to fall. Indeed, if we factor in air resistence, they fell even faster! That is only possible if there was no resistance from floor to floor. Something would have had to take out the lower floors BEFORE the upper floors impacted with them. But in fact the floors appear to have been completely blown apart from scratch.

The buildings were blown to pieces from the top down. Judy Wood, a professor of mechanical engineering, has likened them to enromous trees turning to sawdust from the top down. So how do buildings that are 110 stories tall explode from the top down? There had to have been a massive force that caused the concrete to turn into very fine dust and that blew steel support columns outward and even upward. It pulverized the concrete floors, office furnishings, and everything else, converting them to micro-particles.

Our best guess is that it was done with a very sophisticated form of thermite that combined with sulfur to creat thermate. It may have been enhanced with nano-technology. That could also account for pools of molten metal found in the subbasements three, four, and five weeks later. This is a phenomenon for which the official theory of a “pancake” collapse offers no plausible explanation.

A 47-story building, known as WTC7, fell later that afternoon after Larry Silverstein, who had leased the World Trade Center, suggested to fire officials that perhaps they should “pull it". They pulled it, which means they brought it down using controlled demolitions. That would have been possible only if explosives had been prepositioned in the building. If they were in WTC7, why not in WTC1 and WTC2 as well? Indeed, there were odd security lapses in those buildings during the two weeks before 9/11.

NIST has admitted it has found surfur on the steel that it cannot explain. Steven Jones, a professor of physics from BYU, has now confirmed thirmite. What I am telling you is that the government, once again, has been lying to our face about one of the great tragedies of our time. If you want supporting evidence from experts and scholars who are studying this case, visit st911.org on line and check us out. The studies that support what I am saying here are archived there.

James H. Fetzer, McKnight Professor Emeritus at University of Minnesota, Duluth, at 9:05 pm EDT on July 3, 2006

Food for thought

After more than forty years, Richard Hofstadter’s words still ring true: “One of the impressive things about paranoid literature is the contrast between its fantasied conclusions and the almost touching concern with factuality that it invariably shows. It produces heroic strivings for evidence to prove that the unbelievable is the only thing that can be believed.”

Jerry Fletcher, at 8:25 am EDT on July 4, 2006

The Problem With Conspiracies

Professor Fetzer,

Conspiracies, of course, do happen. Watergate was a conspiracy. So was al Qaeda’s attack on 9/11. The first was nearly successful at avoiding detection, but not quite, while the second remained secret until their terrible crime was committed nearly five years ago.

But it seems reasonable to assume that the more people who are involved in a conspiracy, the harder it is to maintain secrecy. And that’s the problem with the alleged 9/11 conspiracy. It would have to go well beyond the Bush administration to include the people who set up the explosives in each of the buildings, which is obviously not a one-man job.

Plus, it assumes everyone in the loop was fully supportive of the operation. Now, I am no fan of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld (and their clumsy “conspiracy” to convince the American people and the U.N. to support the Iraq War was, in my view, reprehensible), but I cannot believe that any of them would have signed off on a project to slaughter thousands of innocent Americans just to further their political and international ambitions. But even if you disagree, what about the technicians who would have had to plant the detonators? Do you really think it would be easy to find people who would be told of a plan to destroy the World Trade Center and would simply reply “Yes, sir"? Remember, that all it would take is one conscientious objector and the entire project would be jeopardized, if not publicly revealed.

I know nothing of the science you cite. But I do know that Occam’s Razor usually applies quite well to most situations. Thus, I would choose the small conspiracy (a handful of al Qaeda operatives) over the broad one (the Bush administration, the NSA, and whoever else). Al Qaeda had conducted missions against U.S. interests before (and remember that the first WTC bombing and several other acts took place under Clinton—or was he in on the conspiracy, too?).

If you’re still unconvinced, consider this: if you were part of this conspiracy, would you really risk an operation this complicated, with multiple buildings being detonated, several airplanes being hijacked, and an attack on the Pentagon thrown in as well? Couldn’t the same effect (i.e., public outrage) have been accomplished much more easily, and with far fewer people involved, via a bomb or two (or even a lethal gas attack) in a crowded subway station?

In the end, it just doesn’t add up.

Unapologertically Tenured, at 10:55 am EDT on July 4, 2006

Schools that permit the teaching of fringe theories should consider a few points:

First, the school should consider how extreme the theory is. Theories about US knowledge prior to Pearl Harbor range from some intelligence indicators to FDR calling Hirohito to confirm the date. Some point of the conspiracy scale should be taught in any class, beyong that point it can waste valuble time. Where the line is... well, that is the question of course. In this case I wonder what 9/11 conspiracies this person believes in. Coming from the NYC area I may be more up on some of the ‘fringe’ claims such as no plane hit the Pentagon, all the jews at the WTC were warned by the Mossad prior to the attack and were all saved and a whole collection of claims about explosives smuggled into the building, robot planes, missiles and the like.

Second, are there alternatives for the students? If the only class offered on space exploration is taught by a professor who wants to spend most of the time on how the moon landing was faked then the school may want to offer others that are more...er, um, mainstream.

Third, what is the context of the course? The Wisc Legislator is correct in that the students need to be protected. I would not want my child to take a freshmen theology course at at Catholic college I was paying top dollar for by someone advocating the theory that Jesue married Mary M. and ran off to Britan with the Holy Grail. (A typical Catholic child gets ’sunday school’ not theology up to college) Let the ‘fringe’ course be taught at the school but at a higher level. In my view the university is not a free for all of ideas but a learning institution. Make sure the student is able to digest and evaluate these claims.

Fourth, in the more extreme cases, is the professor rational? Given the tight market for professors, should a school keep someone on their staff who honestly believes in the proticols of zion, or that ‘negros’ are the children of Cain or that Atlantis will rise soon?

Fifth, how many such courses are being taught at the school? It is nice to give each professor a chance to advance a pet ‘flat earth’ theory but too many such courses at one time can damage the reputation of the school. Having a school endow an “Art Bell Chair of Conspiracy” may not be what a school wants to be known for.

A final note is that I find it interesting to read the two ‘wings’ of politics clash in these cases. The ‘left’ wants to freedom to teach fringe ideas while the ‘right’ wants govt money kept in the center. When the matter of creationism, the same voices reverse totally. Gotta admit it gives me a chuckle.

MTS, UConn, at 11:00 am EDT on July 4, 2006

Where are his facts ?

Higher education costs too much time and money to indulge in conspiracy theories that can’t be tested with facts.Ultimately the student needs to get some value out this course. I agree with the other post that any university can’t be a free for all.There are appropriate forums for opinion, speculation, and a good conspiracy theory, but a university classroom ought not to be one of them.

selena, instructor at Milwaukee Area Technical College, at 5:15 am EDT on July 5, 2006

A response from the lecturer

As the Lecturer whose prospective firing for 9/11 activism has caused a stir, I would like to respond to your article and the comments posted beneath it.

I find it astounding that people who have never examined the revisionist 9/11 case (Ahmed, Thompson, Griffin, and Jones for starters) feel so confident about dismissing it a priori, and demanding that anyone supporting this case be hounded out of academia.

At the very least, I would hope that some intelligent, fair-minded skeptic would take the time to carefully examine and attempt to refute these arguments. In particular, I challenge anyone with critical thinking skills to read The 9/11 Commission Report alongside David Griffin’s The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. Griffin’s critique carefully documents an astounding number of baldfaced lies about key aspects of the most important historical event of the 21st century, and proves beyond any reasonable doubt that “inadequate” does not begin to describe just how bad this sham “investigation” really was.

We now know that PNAC called for a “New Pearl Harbor” in September 2000, that the Iraq invasion was basically set in stone in January, 2001 (Paul O’Neill), that the massive illegal surveillance program that is now making waves was begun months before 9/11, that the Afghan war’s start-date (October) was set in July 2001, and that the Patriot Act was written before 9/11 (and rammed through Congress after US military anthrax from Ft. Detrick was mailed to the two key congressional leaders who were resisting it). In short, the entire post-9/11 agenda, the “new world” we are now living in, was completely set up before the event that supposedly made these changes necessary! Additionally, the Bush administration furiously resisted any investigation of 9/11 for over 400 days, and funded the eventual investigation with a small fraction of the budget that had been devoted to investigating Clinton’s sex life, whereas every previous major disaster (Pearl Harbor, JFK, the Space Shuttle) merited an immediate, well-funded investigation.

So to those of you who have been questioning my judgment and/or sanity, I would like to say that anyone who is willing to live with the manifestly ludicrous “whitewash” (Harpers magazine) known as the 9/11 Commission Report as the official record of the most important historical event of the century is either a moron or a moonbat, and has no business training young minds in academia.

Sincerely,

Kevin Barrett

Kevin Barrett, at 8:45 am EDT on July 5, 2006

9/11 victim wonders

I was in Chinatown when the Towers fell. I had to walk 60 blocks, and wait 12 hours, to catch a bus out of Manhattan (bad leg).

I’ve seen all the video of the planes hitting the towers.

Pray tell — what have I and 300 million Americans missed?

Someone wants to play with himself about this, with his own money, fine.

We, who endured this first-hand, know what we know. Nothing by the anti-Bush, anti-whatever crowd will change our memories.

L.L. Berry, at 9:50 am EDT on July 5, 2006

Why Silence From So Many

We have yet to form an opinion on the cause of 9/11 but we do wish to respond to those who claim that silence from the number of people who would have been involved proves it could not happen.

Visualize participation because you were told that the police and firemen had been told to evacuate the buildings before demolition. And, you had no advance knowledge of the deaths in the airplanes.

But now that all those people have died, the threat of admission is indictment for murder. Would you keep your mouth shut?

William Sumner Scott, J.D.

Judicial Equality Foundation, Inc.

william sumner scott, at 9:50 am EDT on July 5, 2006

A response to the lecturer

Madness! Madness!

Major Clipton, at 3:15 pm EDT on July 5, 2006

(1) The 9/11 conspiracy theorists are wrong.

They claim since jet burns at 1800 F it cannot melt steel which melts at 2700 F. However, in a confined space the heat generated by a 1800 F fire can build up to much higher temperatures; you do not need to melt the steel beams, they merely need to be weakened; and many beams were likely knocked out by the impact of the jets.

They claim that gravity alone could not cause the South Tower to collapse in ten seconds. To get this they assume the terminal velocity of a gigantic slabs of steel and concrete is about the same as a human. But, this is false. Further, the use of preset explosives would not remove the alleged paradox.

(2) I have seen no evidence that Kevin Barrett planned to discuss 9/11 theories in one sided way or that they would be a major part of the course. I assume the course was approved by his department. His department may wish to review Kevin’s course if his radio remarks lead them to believe he might use inappropriate teaching methods. (I bet one of one of Kevin’s students will convince Kevin that the 9/11 conspiracy theories are bunk. This can only be a good thing.)

(3) Response to LL Berry: Your theory that “Paying taxes is done voluntarily, not via government thuggery” about as loony as any conspiracy theory. But as a opened minded person, I’ll try and use that on my next IRS return. No, on second thought, why don’t you try it and let us know how that works out.

You and others (understandably) seem not to know how new courses and departments are formed at universities. For a special topics course it is enough to submit a syllabus to the faculty in your department. For a new regular course it goes up to a college level committee and then it gets listed in the next catalog. For a new department the process is more involved and will likely include getting approval from a faculty senate and the governing board (who represent the public interest). We do not normally go to the general public and ask if they think the proposal is loony.

You state: “Government-subsidized employees think they are constitutionally-entitled to feed at the public trough.” For tenured faculty this is basically true, at least according to several Supreme Court decisions. But, if you don’t agree why don’t you and your friends set up a charter country where loony folks are expelled and you get to decide who is loony! (4) The big issue we are not discussing is why UW needs to rely so much on non-tenure track faculty. America will lose the benefit stemming from granting highly trained experts a forum to kick around ideas freely. I find it ironic that the right-wing business elite is playing on public resentment of elitism to undermine their opportunity to learn from our intellectual elite. All elites are not created equal. If you do not fertilize the field, you won’t have as much food to eat.If you do not grant intellectuals broad academic freedom, you won’t get as many new ideas. But, this is ultimately up to the public.

Mike, Math Prof who studies nonlinear dynamics, at 8:30 pm EDT on July 5, 2006

Attorny Scott argues that no one would come further and risk arrest. I for one, however, would run as fast as possible to the Feds to try to get an early deal! Especially in the scenrio set out where I was not aware of the consequeneces of my act.

Kevin, at 8:30 pm EDT on July 5, 2006

Critical Thinking

Quite frankly, I think we’re doing a disservice by NOT discussing all the different possibilities or at least allowing students the freedom and giving them the encouragement to critically think about various issues. It does not mean that they will believe it. Businesses want people who “think outside the box” to solve a problem. Laboratories want scientists and researchers who can find the “impossible” cure/vaccine/medicine that will work to fight whatever ails us. AND the public demands it! Where are our future scientists, business leaders, government leaders going to learn to think critically when it isn’t demanded at home or our PK-12 system isn’t requiring anything more than “memorization” because they need to meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act? That’s right, it’s left up to the facutly of the universities and colleges around the country to do this job. I see it every day. I don’t know about anyone else’s parents, but I do know that mine wanted me to look at ALL potential possibilites for a situation before making a decision whether it was in religion or politics or spending money. Critical thinking should be done in business, government, home......People don’t get to be the success stories that we hear by not having done at least some critical thinking. Honestly, our elected officials usually don’t know what is best for us. They PRESUME to know what is best based on their PERCEPTIONS of what is going on in each government entity or “what the polls say” when it comes to the public. Perceptions are often not truths. I urge you to look at the data and make your own judgments using critical thinking to determine your own truths. What you see as the truth doesn’t need to agree with anyone else’s. That is your right. Being open to new thoughts and ideas has served me well. I get to ask questions to understand the opposing viewpoint and it gets the faculty that I work with to clarify their position or at the very least, it gets them to think about another point of view.

Julie, Student/Staff, at 11:55 am EDT on July 6, 2006

Just the facts

Let’s hope the controversy encourages Professor Barrett to review the facts surrounding 9/11 conspiracy claims; if he can remain relatively open-minded, he may find he wants to rethink his position. (I would encourage Professor Fetzer to do the same).

For starters, Barrett might want to look at the Popular Mechanics investigation of the 16 most popular 9/11 conspiracy claims: “9/11: Debunking the Myths.” PM talked to more than 300 scientists and experts and found the facts just didn’t support theories of rigged demolitions and phantom aircraft. (You can find the PM report here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html.)

If you want a more technical discussion, the National Institute of Standards and Technology produced two reports on the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 and will release its report on WTC 7 this fall. (You can find the reports here: http://wtc.nist.gov/)

David Corn of the Nation magazine, no admirer of the Bush Administration (author of “The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception"), has also debunked many of the popular 9/11 theories floating around. (You can find his thoughts here: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/our_spook_speaks.php)

Finally, Jerry Fletcher’s citation of Richard Hofstadter reminds us that conspiracy theories often sprout when (to quote Hofstader) “the representatives of a particular social interest–perhaps because of the very unrealistic and unrealizable nature of its demand–are shut out of the political process."(I’ve further considered some of those undercurrents in a brief essay, “Conspiracies, bunkum and the Paranoid Style in American Politics” which can be found here: “http://jeffersonflanders.wordpres...aranoid-style-in-american-politics/)

Jefferson Flanders, at 6:45 pm EDT on July 6, 2006

What happened to the spirit of Meiklejohn????

The University of Wisconsin at Madison pioneered experimentation in Higher Educationwith Alexander Meiklejohn’s Experimental College, 1927-32 (see book by Meiklejohn with this same title). I thought that UW Madison was known to support ACADEMIC FREEDOM, not to suppress it. I am so disappointed in the current university administration! Once approved by his department, no one should have the right to tell Prof. Barrett how to conduct his course.

Barb H., graduate at Shimer College, at 9:35 pm EDT on July 6, 2006

My Letter to Rep Steve Nass

6 July 2006

Representative Stephen L. Nass State Capitol — Room 12 West P.O. Box 8953 Madison, WS 53708

Subject: Your Issuance of a Muzzle Order Against AcademiaReference: Professor Kevin Barrett (UW‑Madison)

Dear Representative Nass:

On March 20, 1775 the Second Virginia Convention met in secret and at a secret location. The specific reason for the secrecy involved a British overlord Lieutenant‑Governor Dunmore and the Royal Marines. The general reason for the secrecy involved what was/has recently been defined as fascism (The latter was codified by Benito Mussolini.). During this convention, the patriot Patrick Henry gave a speech which concluded with:

AIs life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!@

For your information, it was this form of patriotism that eventually led to historical documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

However, in December 2005 the republican George Bush is reported to have thrown an adolescent temper tantrum while demanding re-issuance of a traitorous document entitled Athe USA PATRIOT Act.@ During a meeting at our White House this Bush was reminded of the treasonous effects this fascist document has had on the Constitution. Regarding the latter Bush declared:

“I don’t give a goddamn. I’m the President and the Commander‑in‑Chief. Do it my way ... (it=s just) a goddamned piece of paper.@

By the patriotism of the Founding Fathers (and the women that brought them into the world) we are blessed with the First Amendment. This amendment allows this Bush character to say anything he wants (except the yelling of AFire!@ in a movie theater wherein, say, the film Who Killed John O=Neill is featured.).

Us taxpayers and citizens, have the right to strongly disagree with Bush and his claim that the Constitution is just Aa goddamned piece of paper.@ We even have the right to demand that he be censured, admonished and severely criticized for making such a statement while he places our military men and women in harms-way defending an Iraqi Constitution.

BUT. . . the taxpayers do NOT have the legal or moral right to muzzle your fellow republican Bush. . . even Bush is protected by the United States Constitution. Indeed, you and Bush have the right to burn a copy of that precious document, if that=s what your conscience dictates.

I, for one, have absolutely no intention of supporting or engaging in any activity the threatens the political and moral sanctity of the United States Constitution. However, I also have no intention of letting you or Bush trample on our rights. Your recent diatribe regarding Professor Kevin Barrett does just that, and in that context I intend to expose your lack of patriotism, your abject ignorance, and your blatant duplicity/hypocrisy at every opportunity. Your recent attack on the United States Constitution may be justification for your removal from public office.

The issue of academic freedom is vital to the survival of America as a constitutional republic, and I will fight your traitorous vitriolic to the point of your political demise if necessary. Recently a particular dolt, while accepting his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, referred to our nation as a Aconstitutional democracy,@ which is absurdly ignorant. . . or was it? Promoting the lie that the United States is a Aconstitutional democracy@ indicated a purposeful plan to subvert the genius of the Founding Fathers. As a constitutional republic we are a nation of laws; laws that protect the rights of both individuals and institutions, such as the University of Wisconsin. For your information, these laws protect Professor Barrett and his proposed course lectures from your personal opinions, no matter how ignorant the latter may be. The law also protects your right to challenge the veracity and accuracy of his material, but NOT your yelling of AFire!@ in the movie theater, as you have essentially done. A few constitutionally protected, and specific examples:

If Professor Barrett were to lecture that as many as ten of the alleged 19 Asuicide hijackers@ are known to be alive by the Bush Administration, you have a right to challenge his lecture but you do not have the right to muzzle him.

If Professor Barrett were to lecture that the U.S. has absolutely Ano hard evidence@ that Osama bin Laden had any connection to the murders of 9/11, you have a right to challenge his lecture but you do not have the right to muzzle him.

If Professor Barrett were to lecture that World Trade Center Building Seven was NOT struck by an aircraft on 9/11 but collapsed symmetrically without U. S. Government explanation, you have a right to challenge his lecture but you do not have the right to muzzle him.

If Professor Barrett were to lecture that a structural steel building has NEVER collapsed due to fire, in human history, you have a right to challenge his lecture but you do not have the right to muzzle him.

If Professor Barrett were to lecture that both World Trade Center Building One and Two collapsed at >free fall speed= in complete contradiction to the government=s fairy tale about Apancake theory,@ you have a right to challenge his lecture but you do not have the right to muzzle him.

If Professor Barrett were to lecture that Ms. Edna Cintron was essentially murdered on 9/11, you have a right to challenge his lecture but you do not have the right to muzzle him.

If Professor Barrett were to lecture that the U.S. corporate media purposely misquoted eyewitness accounts of what the latter stated about the events at the Pentagon on 9/11, you have a right to challenge his lecture but you do not have the right to muzzle him.

If Professor Barrett were to lecture that the lead Osama bin Laden counter-terrorist expert, FBI agent John O=Neill, was murdered prior to 9/11, you have a right to challenge his lecture but you do not have the right to muzzle him.

If Professor Barrett were to lecture that Marvin Bush (younger brother of George Bush) was a director at the company that ran security under a contract that expired on September 13, 2001 at the World Trade Center, you have a right to challenge his lecture but you do not have the right to muzzle him.

If the Professor Barrett lectures include review of the many papers written by Dr. David Ray Griffin who claims that the >911 Commission Report= is filled with lies, omissions and distortions, you have a right to challenge those papers but you do not have the right censor the review or muzzle Professor Barrett.

If Professor Barrett were to lecture that Hani Hanjour=s head could not possibly have penetrated all the way through to the inner wall of the Pentagon C-ring on 9/11, you have a right to challenge his lecture but you do not have the right to muzzle him.

If Professor Barrett were to lecture that World Trade Center leaseholder and real estate developer Larry Silverstein admitted that a decision was made, late in the afternoon on 9/11, to Apull it@ regarding WTC-7, you have a right to challenge his lecture but you do not have the right to muzzle him.

If Professor Barrett were to lecture that the public stock of United Airlines and American Airlines were the subject of unprecedented Aput options@ mere days prior to the murders of 9/11, you have a right to challenge his lecture but you do not have the right to muzzle him.

If Professor Barrett were to lecture that five Mossad agents were seen early on the morning of 9/11 on the New Jersey coast preparing to film the horror across the Hudson River, and were later arrested but then mysteriously sent home to Israel by the Bush Administration, you have a right to challenge his lecture but you do not have the right to muzzle him.

If Professor Barrett were to lecture that the 1962 Operation Northwoods document was frighteningly familiar to the murders that occurred on 9/11, you have a right to challenge his lecture but you do not have the right to muzzle him.

If Professor Barrett were to lecture that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld refuses to confirm that American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, crashed into the Pentagon and has instead publically stated that a Amissile@ was used, you have a right to challenge his lecture but you do not have the right to muzzle him.

If the Professor Barrett lectures include the showing of documentary films such as Loose Change — Second Edition, or In Plane Sight, you have a right to challenge the content of those documentaries but you do not have the right censor the showing or muzzle Professor Barrett.

If the Professor Barrett lectures include review of the paper written by BYU physicist Professor Steven Jones entitled, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?, you have a right to challenge the content of that paper but you do not have the right censor the review or muzzle Professor Barrett.

If the Professor Barrett lectures include review of the numerous 9/11 related internet postings by Alex Jones, you have a right to challenge the content of the Alex Jones sites but you do not have the right censor the review or muzzle Professor Barrett.

If the Professor Barrett lectures include review of the many papers written by former Bush Administration official Professor Morgan Reynolds, you have a right to challenge the content of those papers but you do not have the right censor the review or muzzle Professor Barrett.

I could go on, but I wanted to drive into your subjective head the legal fact that you also cannot in any way threaten the fiscal well-being of a public institution such as the University of Wisconsin through use of your political position. You cannot use your political position Ato add credibility to your outlandish claims@ of knowledge about the events of September 11, 2001, which is what you have ostensibly done. Your proposed censoring of a fine institution such as the University of Wisconsin Ais an unacceptable embarrassment to the people of Wisconsin and the UW system.@ Specifically, you sir are a hypocrite.

Admittedly, I am deeply concerned with the leit motiv that involves government funding of the American universities, and all the corrupting influence that comes with those all-too-often politically premised decisions. I am also concerned about administrators who grab at short-term financial issues, and in so-doing denigrate the fundamental purpose of their own position in higher education. In this respect, in some instances, they remind me of the U.S. Congress.

In my opinion, based on the foresight and genius of what Bush calls Aa goddamned piece of paper,@ it is rare indeed that the powers-that-be seek to muzzle the liars; Of what harm to the social station of the former do these liars pose? It is always those that seek and disseminate the truth that are the subject of tyranny. Always.

Specifically, if Professor Kevin Barrett is a total crackpot, then a decision by the University to allow his course will expose his incompetence, and your brilliance. If, on the other hand, the course proposed by the professor leads to the inculcation of critical thinking in his students (rather than mindless political blather), and furthers the exposure of truth and justice, then we all win. In the former scenario the students walk away by virtue of an informed choice and learning experiences that will be shared with other students. In the latter scenario the students are encouraged and gather to learn more, again by virtue of an informed choice and learning experiences that will be shared with other students. I am assuming that you would guard such a choice for your children/relatives as well.

Frankly, I am very confident that if the professor had an opinion of 9/11 which mirrored yours, then we would not have heard from you. In any case, I am hopeful that the University administration does not shirk its social responsibilities. I am also hopeful that the University will not ignore you or muzzle you, but will allow the course as proposed.

Cordially,

Paul V. Sheridan

P.S. Give me liberty or give me death. . . understood?

Attachments

Courtesy Copy List (As of July 6, 2006)

Mr. Patrick Farrell Mr. Gary Sandefur Mr. W. Lee Hansen Mr. Robert Kreiser Ms. Ellen Rafferty Mr. Brian Mattmiller Mr. Robert Kreiser Mr. Donald Downs Ms. Sandy Cullen Mr. Dylan Avery Professor Morgan Reynolds Professor Steven Jones Professor Kevin Barrett Mr. Alex Jones Mr. David VonKleist Ms. Debbie Lewis Ms. Danielle CorcoranDr. David Ray Griffin

Paul V. Sheridan, at 5:50 am EDT on July 8, 2006

This reminds me of the chief tenet of Moonbat Theology: Upon reaching the furthest depths of thine hole, keep thee digging.

evil-right-wing-extremist, The Right-wing Nuthouse, at 8:55 pm EDT on July 11, 2006

Earlier post — corrected URLs

ere: http://wtc.nist.gov/)

David Corn of the Nation magazine, no admirer of the Bush Administration (author of “The Three of the links in my earlier post are not working (apparently due to extraneous parens):

Here they are:

http://wtc.nist.gov/

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/our_spook_speaks.php

http://jeffersonflanders.wordpres...paranoid-style-in-american-politics/

Jefferson Flanders, at 3:10 pm EDT on July 12, 2006

Jobs Related to Investigation Over 9/11 Teachings

or search for jobs directly.

Technology Marketing & Sales Manager — Sensing and Electronics
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job

Adjunct Faculty, English/World Languages: Composition, Developmental Reading, Developmental Writing
Joliet Junior College

Joliet Junior College is located in the Chicagoland area. JJC offers over 100 degree and certificate programs in the arts and ... see job

Assistant or Associate Professor of Information Technology and Computer Science
American University of Afghanistan

The American University of Afghanistan (AUAF) offers a unique opportunity to teach and work with a dedicated international ... see job

Adjunct Faculty Credit — Biology
Harper College

Job Description: This posting will be used to obtain a pool of qualified candidates for Biology. As teaching ... see job

Mathematics Faculty Vacancies
Darton College

Darton College is accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools to award ... see job

Women’s PE/Athletics Assistant
San Joaquin Delta College

SAN JOAQUIN DELTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE P.E./Athletics Assistant Class specifications are intended to present a descriptive list ... see job

Executive Director for University Communications and Marketing
Ohio University

Ohio University seeks applications and nominations for the position of Executive Director for University Communications and ... see job

Post-Doctoral Associate-Pharmaceutics
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities