Will U-W administrators disclose fully and fairly?

After ENRON, corporations were required to more fully disclose data.

Will this be the case in this matter? Will U-W fully disclose to all students, prior to enrollment, the shout-fest on “Hannity & Colmes” about this?

If yes, great.

If not — why not? What would they be afraid of? The truth? The facts? Losing student enrollment? Losing their jobs?

Along that vein — if they are for “academic freedom” — have they had a “teach-in” about college charters? That is, requiring colleges to make themselves financially self-sustaining, rather than being a constant drain on already-burdened taxpayers?

If not — why not? Economic self-interest? How common.

“Freedom” isn’t about financially burdening those who do not directly benefit from taxation. It is about having the inner strength to stand on your own.

If Mr. Barrett really believes in his kooky theory — he should quit Madison and schlock it to the world, a la Michael Moore. Otherwise — his real purpose is known — easy-riding off loan-burdened students and taxpayers.

A.D., at 6:55 am EDT on July 12, 2006

No surprises

This story appears odd until you realize that it’s happening on the campus of the University of Wisconsin in Madison. Few people on the coasts know that Madison WI is a liberal island in the middle of the conservative Midwest. The administration of U of W did not seek to find a reason to prevent Farrell from teaching; they sought to find a reason to keep him.

T, McCool, at 8:05 am EDT on July 12, 2006

Academic Freedom and Prudence — U of W

Dear Scott,

Through the years I have found the sagacious advice of my mentor, Edwin Yamauchi, of much value: “. . . make decisions on principle and not personality, and in the process realize that academic freedom leads to the espousal of conflicting philosophies.” It’s our duty to proceed with civility and grace. I can only imagine the harsh critical area that the provost of UW has navigated, and I also assume that his decision comes from considerable anguish. My thoughts are with him during this crossroads.

When I led a private foundation my patron’s biggest criticism of the academy (to which he had given tens of millions) was this very situation—holding a principle so tight that you squeeze out an unrecognizable meaning. In short, one that appears to lack singular and corporate common sense in the face of the academe’s public purpose. It is also difficult to agree with what appears to be a rather counter-intuitive decision from an institution committed to teaching the opposite.

There are several aspects of Barrett’s case that foster discussion, from the boldness of a young professional still weaning from his exams to the concern that such suspect patriotic positions are held from a Madison alumnus who was hired by the very folks that mentored him. In a sense, it’s much larger than Barrett. When Acibiades was charged, Greece could not separate him from his teachers Socrates, and even Pericles. The issue of whether mentors choose to separate themselves is another matter—that is, endorsing or rejecting a student’s conclusions (though not the communicator).

When I was young in my career, about the same place Dr. Barrett finds himself, I came to a radically different conclusion on such matters. During an NEH trip to Isthmia via Ohio State, I wrote the following in an article: “These studies [of classical ruins near ancient Corinth] help to define the essence of a people – how they survived famines and catastrophes, how they treated one another, their approach to spiritual needs, and ultimately, how and why the society ceased to exist. The core of a liberal arts education is understanding how past civilizations thrived, responded to crises, and perished.” I had spent days excavating a site once home to thousands of spectators and Nero himself, but leveled by invaders and never to be restored. One local 8-foot trophy celebrating a local Isthmian Olympian was found face down and used as a paving stone.

Looking back through the lens of 9/11 I hold the same position. Perhaps the beauty and the fog in our educational system is that I can espouse such teachings from Marion while my colleague in Madison can seemingly tug at foundational pillars not only of the academe but of civility.

I can also recall sitting at a taverna in Athens listening to the recitation of Pericles’ Funeral Oration from a veteran Harvard classical alumnus and discussing this speech with a professor actually named Pericles, also with Harvard ties—both among the NEH team. The irony we found in Pericles’ eloquent statements on democracy is that he waived these notions before a retaining wall that separated his people from the Spartans, not given to education—which Pericles applauded as making Athenians superior. The education seemed to miss some common sense notions about the nature of humankind, the realities of differing worldviews, and the savage nature of war.

I can only assume that Dr. Barrett is quite the lecturer, and a rather gifted communicator. Such giftedness makes it all the more difficult for provosts and colleges to make decisions on principle rather than personality. Although I’d have difficulty endorsing the decision to keep him on board, I would all the same enjoy having coffee with him one day to discuss his journey to this platform. We find ourselves with Spartans not just clamoring against our nation’s walls, but in the aorist active indicative sense, they’ve breeched them. I’m not ready for our monuments to become paving stones, or our academic speeches to be turned into the victor’s confetti. Ideas have consequence, and if teaching does not, then the enterprise is impotent.

Thanks for representing this incident, which reflects what we do have in common with Barrett and his provost—the right of free exchange.

Jerry Pattengale, AVP for Scholarship and Grants at Indiana Wesleyan University, at 8:20 am EDT on July 12, 2006

As an alumni of the University of Wisconsin, I appreciate the fact that the administration is continuing to allow the free exchange of ideas in a classroom setting. The most rewarding experiences I had in the classroom or elsewhere were those times when I was involved in a conversation with someone who held differing views from myself and others. As someone said, the city of Madison, and the University of Wisconsin tend to be very liberal minded, which for many of the students, provides them with many different views on topics.

Kim, at 9:10 am EDT on July 12, 2006

Response to Mr. Scott

Unfortunately for Mr. Barrett, Ward Churchill has already been annointed— by his attorney— as the next Galileo.

I am planning to include in my course on Music Theory a unit on my conviction that Elvis lives. I will, of course, allow arguments from the other side of this important issue. A quick Google search will show the substantial evidence adduced for my theory. No factual case has been presented proving Elvis is dead. Therefore, I trust that you will support my “academic freedom” to teach my course as I see fit. I assume Provost Farrell would as well.

Colonel Parker, at 9:10 am EDT on July 12, 2006

Kevin Barrett in his own words

Here is a particularly illuminating paragraph from Kevin Barrett’s comment on a previous article about his case.

“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

It is interesting to take not of his last sentence where he says that someone who accepts the 9/11 Commission version of events “is either a moron or a moonbat, and has no business training young minds in academia.”

Does that suggest Barrett respects academic freedom? If a student writes a paper suggesting that Barrett’s conspiracy theories sound like Hofstadter’s paranoid style in American life would such a paper recieve the grade of “moonbat or moron".

Hiring someone to teach a course outside his area of expertise, who advertises that he will use the classroom to promote his own conspiracy theories, and who regards people who believe otherwise to be morons, is not protecting academic freedom but is simply unprofessional administrative behavior.

The fact that a crackpot like Barrett is contracted to teach only confirms what critics like Horowitz have to say about the problems of academia.

Jonathan Cohen, at 9:45 am EDT on July 12, 2006

A Pleasant Surprise

Well, well, maybe the UW folks remembered that Senator Joe McCarthy hailed from Wisconsin.....

It’s very, very nice to see a lecturer treated to the same protections as a tenured faculty member. UW will take a lot of heat for this from those crazies who think college faculty are not entitled to make inflammatory (even stupid) statements in public about politics.

P.D. Lesko

P.D. Lesko, Executive Editor at Adjunct Advocate magazine, at 9:45 am EDT on July 12, 2006

Academic Freedom

Having been in higher ed for 25 years, I am convinced that crack pot theorists are a necessary part of the checks and balances system of teaching in this country. This professors’ theory allows students to more strongly evaluate fact versus fiction. Right brain vs left, etc.I for one will always enjoy these fabricate attempts at creating one’s own 15 minutes of fame.

Martin Kinard, at 10:10 am EDT on July 12, 2006

Publius is correct.

“These views are expected to take a small, but significant, role in the class.”

Huh?

As opposed to large but insignificant?

hb, at 10:10 am EDT on July 12, 2006

TODAY’S STUDENTS DESERVE THE TRUTH

As a concerned, tax paying citizen with a deep respect for higher ed, my greatest hope is that more academics like Dr. Barrett will get on board and help to expose the massive extent to which all of us are being lied to about 9/11 and, by extension, everything else by this bunch of self-serving hypocrites who have the gall to call themselves our “elected officials.”

Except for those of you who- A) have been too distracted to pay attention, B) wish to remain comfortably disconnected from reality, or C) by virtue of your scurrilous attacks on Dr. Barrett betray your primary objective to conceal the truth and cover up for the perpeTRAITORS— it is now clear as that very day that 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB.

For the hopefully many of your who are objectively minded enough to go beyond the official myth of 9/11, I recommend taking the mysterious case of WTC 7 as a starting point, http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html Unlike the demolition of WTC 1 and 2, the demolition of WTC 7 was never repeatedly broadcast for the public to see, nor was the building even mentioned in the official lie known as the 911 Commission Report.

WTC 7 is a pandora’s box issue which makes it clear that 9/11 was, in the words of esteemed professor emeritus at Texas A&M University, Dr. Morgan Reynolds, “a colossal hoax, an egregious example of false-flag terrorism.” http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes

WTC DEMOLITION IS TRUTH INVOLATE!!!!

Thus, if PART of the official version is so obviously a lie ("fires” caused WTC 1, 2 and 7 to collapse), then it MUST be assumed that the ENTIRE version is obviously a lie. To the great extent that excellent research has already been done, even more remains. I applaud Dr. Barrett for his efforts in support of this essential research.

The mass murders responsible for 9/11 must be brought to justice, and today’s students have an essential role to play in this process. Congratulations to U of W Madison!!!

RK, at 11:20 am EDT on July 12, 2006

This Isn’t Hard

Few of these postings respond, either positively or negatively, to what the provost actually said about this situation: (1) That for a major doctoral university to give in to the demands of right-wing talk radio might, at the very least, set a bad precedent; (2) That those who insist the instructor be fired seem to be assuming that higher education is no different from the education of children.

The right has yet to demonstrate that it understands the distinction between higher education and grade school. When the classroom population is made up of people who are—let’s not forget—adults, we proceed from the assumption that being exposed to unpopular or strange ideas will not harm them; that in fact, learning how to argue productively with such ideas will make them better able to distinguish legitimate from invalid arguments. (This is the very point made at the end of a recent book by a conservative student at UCLA, I believe, who after a lengthy rant about how liberal the faculty were, acknowledges that all of his encounters with ideas Horowitz would consider “dangerous” had the effect of refining his argumentation skills.)

Right-wing friends, here, for what it’s worth, is how post-Enlightenment education works: When we encounter a hypothesis that seems doubtful, we don’t threaten the person advancing it with the loss of his or her job or otherwise demand that they be silenced. We respond to their arguments. Failing to do this, and resorting to bullying tactics instead, implies that are own minds (or the minds of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh) are infallible. I would suggest that this isn’t always the case.

Yes, this individual’s ideas probably tend toward the crackpot. But let’s not forget that Horowitz, in his book, also considers it equally outrageous that Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, for example, insists on teaching Proust as a gay author, which is kind of like becoming enraged at the suggestion that Mark Twain was an anti-imperialist. Call me crazy, but I’ll trust the judgment of the Wisconsin provost over Horowitz (who lately has been advancing his own crackpot theory that the authors of the New York Times travel section are acting on behalf of Osama).

Anonymous, at 12:05 pm EDT on July 12, 2006

Beliefs Worthy of Debate?

I have to agree with Colonel Parker. I would not want a person who holds the belief that Elvis still lives to teach such a bizarre idea in a course on Music Theory. I would also not want a person who believes the earth is flat to teach such a ludicrous idea in a college level course on geography. Obviously people with such beliefs are way beyond the fringe. I’m astounded that some people are saying that Barret’s ideas are worthy of debate. So the pilots and others involved in the 9/11 plane crashes and all their well documented connections and training with Al Qaeda, and Osama Bin Ladens statements about his involvement are somehow to be discounted- or is Barret’s idea that Osama Bin Laden was in cahoots with the US Govt. These are valid ideas to be taught and debated in what I use to believe was one of the top public universities in the United States? Is that the theme for the Twilight Zone I hear ringing in my ears?

Vigilance, Core Teacher 11-12th Grades at Developing Virtue Boys High School, at 12:35 pm EDT on July 12, 2006

bad science again

It is truly amazing that in one breath the critics of this current administration will state the George Bush and his cronies are as intelligent as an ameba on Saturn, but then will claim that these same fools are responsible for one of the greatest conspiracies of the 21st century! Which is it? Are they fools or certified geniuses?

While no expert on all the ins and outs of 9/11 I can comfortably say that I know individuals close to the events in NYC. Two of my fraternity brothers are NYC police officers who were fully involved in the rescue attempts of civilians from the towers. Additionally, my chair of my dissertation committee is an active NYC police captain (and Ph.D) and was highly involved in 9/11 from start to finish. All three of these individuals who I am close with and were intimately involved in 9/11 have stated that the issues in NYC were not due to the involvement of the federal government.

So in response to the kool aid drinkers out there that feel that 9/11 was a conspiracy concocted by the federal government I hate to tell you the following by its all true. 1). Jews did not get advanced warning about the attacks, 2). Those were two plans that hit the towers. No they were not cruise missiles, 3). Unfortunately all the passengers of those air plains dies when the terrorist crashed them. No they were not taken away by the federal government and executed, or made Canadian citizens, or what ever, 4). And like it or not 9/11 was the result of terrorists and not by the federal government.

The true issue here is if this university adjunct has the right to teach this dribble in a classroom setting as possible fact (like he asserts). The answer is no, and I will tell you why. Bad science. The supportive evidence and logic does not support his justifications of a grand conspiracy. As a result, academics everywhere should be concerned that an individual is teach a course with subject matter with highly questionable scientific backing.

Now for those of you who are ready to state that I am some neo-con who wants to trample academic freedom let me challenge you with this thought. Would you be equally okay with an instructor teaching a biology course based of intelligent design? Remember, with ID theory comes the position that man lived with dinosaurs, that the earth is only 4000 years old, and that the theory of evolution and natural selection are false. If you can honestly say to yourself that I, as an academic am equally fine with an intelligent design course as well as a course that teaches this theory that 9/11 was a conspiracy, we can say your consistent and fair with your position. However, if you are fine with both courses than you are drinking more kool aid than you should be. So stop.

Also, ask your self this if I would be fine with this 9/11 course and an intelligent design course maybe you would be fine with these courses being taught at the university level:

1). Aerospace conspiracy- this course would examine the actual events that involved that faking of the moon landing, alien abduction, and the true nature of Area 51.

2). Introduction to Crypto zoology- this course would explore the factual existence of Big Foot, the Lockness Monster, and the Skunk Ape. 3). Lost Civilizations: An exploration- this course could examine the truth behind the City of Gold and Atlantis

4). The Holocaust and its Myth- Would exam how the holocaust never happened and was a fabrication of the U.S and her allies to make Germany look bad.

Hey we can teach courses on the fact that Elvis and Jim Morrison are still alive also!

Finally, I will concede that we all have the right to believe what ever we want. We don’t however have the right to express unsubstantiated beliefs to impressionable minds as such. Remember, students look up to Ph.D’s and college instructors. They are going to look at what we present as factual because they perceive us to be all knowing. I have seen this in my own classes. Students do not refute much, because they take the stance that if it were not true why would we present it (graduate students are a little different in this regard).

So, for all our sakes, we need to remember that we have a scientific duty to present the facts, and to dispute half-truths and poor science. I feel this recent decision has further hampered this ideal and academic freedom in the years to come.

VG, at 1:35 pm EDT on July 12, 2006

Tenure

Micheal Behe is a biochemist at Leigh University and a leading advicate of Intelligent Design. In 2005 the LA Times interviewed him:

http://www.latimes.com/news/natio...78321,full.story?coll=la-home-nation

Here is a quote:

If he hadn’t had tenure, Behe said, it would have been “extremely unlikely” that he could have taken such a contrarian stand and survived in the academic world.

So, for those of you who do not think controversial ideas should be protected by academic freedom, be careful, the rights you squander may be your own.

I am not arguing that there are no problems with the current tenure systems. There are and some reforms are needed. But, not to the effect of suppressing controversial ideas. I had no problem with Ward Churchill’s firing (except that it should have been done long ago). He was fired for incompetence, not his ideas. So far as I can tell Kevin Barrett is well qualified to teach in his field irregardless of how silly I think his views on 9/11 are. (To many in the Middle East US complicity in 9/11 sounds very reasonable.Shouldn’t our students have a chance to think about why that might be?)

Mike, Math Prof, at 1:45 pm EDT on July 12, 2006

Andrew

To answer your question, here:

““These views are expected to take a small, but significant, role in the class.”

The guy stated on TV that he would spend about a week on them.

JBM, at 4:25 pm EDT on July 12, 2006

Provost trusts students to have some sense!

I like how Provost Farrell expects his unergrads to have some sense and reasoning ability. Farrell said:

Many of the political leaders who have called for Barrett to be fired have suggested that he would somehow dupe Madison students, but Farrell rejected that idea. “Our students are not blank slates. They are capable of exercising good judgment, critical analysis and speaking their minds,” Farrell said. “Instructors do not hand over knowledge wrapped up in neat packages. Knowledge grows from challenging ideas in a setting that encourages dialogue and disagreement. That’s what builds the kind of sophisticated, critical thinking we expect from our graduates.”

I agree wholeheartedly. Students are intelligent. As an instructor, no matter what the subject matter, I have seen this in action. Give the students some credit—they will weigh the facts themselves.

nonplussed, at 8:50 pm EDT on July 12, 2006

Administrative accountability

Publius is right about administrative responsibility. Let’s put this another way.

A chair is confronted with the need to find an adjunct to teach the course “Islam: religion and culture". He interviews a candidate who says he will teach the course but intends to spend a week discussing his own theory that the Bush administration planned it as part of a much larger plot to attack the Middle-East. How many chairs do you think would say “sounds great, just what we need to stir up some discussion that will improve critical thinking"?

My guess is that most would say you have to stick to the syllabus and leave your own politics for extra-curricular activities.

In this case the issue is more problematic because Barrett has been on the radio, TV and the comments section of this blog making statements suggesting that people who disagree with him are crazy or stupid. That would certainly give me pause about putting him in the classroom.

The provost’s statements about not giving in to outside pressure strike me as disingenuous. Does he expect people to believe that Sean Hannity is influential with the UWM faculty? A more likely interpretation is that he is under pressure from the UWM community not to be seen as caving in to pressure from talk radio.

Left unanswered by the provost’s memo is whether the school considers discussion of various 9/11 conspiracy theories to be part of the syllabus for the course or is Barrett injecting his own political agenda into the classroom. If the latter is tha case, it should be ringing alarm bells in a lot more places than on Hannity and Colmes.

jonathan Cohen, at 4:40 am EDT on July 13, 2006

Are all conspiracies equal?

Jonathan Cohen raises an important point about internal politics. Mr. Barrett is a member of the tinfoil hat brigade of the much larger “it’s all Bush’s fault” movement that dominates faculty politics. Suppose an adjunct in the Political Science Department proposed to teach a course on the American Presidency with a “small but significant” part on his pet theories about the CIA-Mena Airport-Vince Foster conspiracy. Would he ever have been hired? Would he never have been asked to modify his syllabus? Would Provost Farrell have waxed as poetic about academic freedom and critical thinking?

Publius, at 7:55 am EDT on July 13, 2006

What’s the big deal

The college as reviewed the course and OK’d it. As long as:

1) students know the context of the course and the prof’s agenda before they sign up

2) there are other, more mainstream courses available on Islam and

3) the school balances the total number of such courses with the threat of damage to the reputation of the school

then why the worry? The is just the type of course students looking for an easy A may take when they don’t mind wasting three credits. There is no deception, no heavy slanting of the courses and no depriving a student of needed core work. One would hope that the prof would balance a wild view like this with other wild views more critical of the mid east.

MTS, at 10:55 am EDT on July 13, 2006

Response to RK

RK, I admit I was a skeptic. But with the powerful evidence below, I must agree that thousands of politicians (of both parties), military, police, firefighters are involved in the mass murder of thousands of Americans and a continuing conspiracy of silence. This must be the kind of research that Provost Farrell believes is protected by academic freedom and will promote critical thinking.

“WTC Facts:

The date of the attack: 9/11-9 + 1 + 1 = 11. Each building had 110 stories. After September 11th there are 111 days left to the end of the year. September 11th is the 254th day of the year: 2 + 5 + 4 = 11. 119 is the area code for Iraq/Iran. 1 + 1 + 9 = 11, 911-119 are opposites — enemies? 11 11 polarity. Twin Towers — standing side by side, looks like the number 11. The first plane to hit the towers was Flight 11. State of New York — The 11th State added to the Union. “New York City” has 11 letters. “Afghanistan” — 11 letters. “The Pentagon” — 11 letters. “Ramzi Yousef” — 11 letters (convicted of orchestrating the attack on the WTC in 1993). Flight 11-92 on board — 9 + 2 = 11. Flight 11 had 11 crew members onboard. Flight 77-65 on board — 6 + 5 = 11.

Flight 11, 93, 175, 77 — If these numbers are broken down, 11 actually remains the same in numerology, 93 becomes 12, 175 becomes 13 and 77 becomes 14. 11-12-13-14 Broken down again and you have2-3 = 4-5. Add them all up and break them all down!

11 + 93 + 175 + 77 = 356 = 14 = 5 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 = 50 = 5 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 14 = 5

Twin Towers =11 + Flight 11 + September, 11th = 33

In Freemasonry 33 is the highest degree there is. Remember on another page I taught you one must be careful in pointing the finger at an instigator? Well, I’ll point the finger right now. Certain members of the U.S. Government and the U.S. Military knew the event was going to happen because they are the ones who planned it. They worked together with Osama bin Laden to bring this event to pass.” (Mr. Barrett apparently believes UBL is dead and that the CIA uses a UBL mannequin for its fake videos.)

Publius, at 4:10 pm EDT on July 13, 2006

UW-Madison

This is not a question of academic freedom; this is question of quality of education and academic integrity. It is overwhelmingly evident Mr. Barrett has an axe to grind. I studied his writings, statements, and interviews and they clearly establish a biased opinion against the United States Government. How he presents his thoughts in class could hardly be balanced given his well publicized track record. He has made his thoughts very clear in every public forum he could muster. I can’t for the life of me understand how a well established University can accept this reality and brush it off as an academic freedom issue.I suppose Barrett will write a book in the best interest of his students. Maybe he will donate the proceeds to the alleged victims of the Terrorist United States Government.

Tom Wynn, Sound Minds Must Prevail, at 10:20 am EDT on July 14, 2006

As a current student at UW-Madison, I feel like all of this discussion about Kevin Barrett’s qualifications to teach *one* course at UW-Madison represents nothing short of an inquisition against an unpopular idea. Some argue, “What can this man possibly have to offer the students of the University of Wisconsin?” Many are quick to say that he has no place at my university. I wholeheartedly disagree. In my time at this institution, I have learned much much more from professors with whom I did not agree, who forced me to truly reexamine — and in the end, strengthen — my own personal views. As a Political Science and History, I have disagreed with professors on a number of different occasions, in big and small cases. Yet, I have come out of it as a stronger, better, better-rounded student as a result. This kind of academic freedom gets to the very core of what it means to be an educated citizen of the United States. One must learn to listen, to understand a point of view, and to draw conclusions of one’s own about what is expressed. Students at this university are very capable of understanding objective fact from subjective opinion, and how to use facts to form opinions of their own. Education is not the filling of a bucket; rather, it is the lighting of a fire.

A note to A.D.: Even though Harvard’s endowment may be $30,000,000,000, it costs each undergraduate student an estimated $46,450 PER YEAR to attend Harvard. A four year degree would cost an estimated $185,800. Not exactly a price tag that the average American family can foot the bill for, no matter how much is taken out in loans. Investment in public education is an investment in the ingenuity and creativity of our people that clearly, substantially, and effectively improves the condition of our society. An education is not just for those who can afford to pay the bill. The days of aristocratic despotism are long gone by. A public education is of the people, by the people, and for the people of this country. Without the backbone of public education to spark and fuel innovation, it is highly unlikely that the computer on which you sit would exist in the first place. Since you clearly have no concept of the importance of education, it is plainly evident that my arguments are lost on you nonetheless.

MadTown Prodigy, UW-Madison, at 6:20 pm EDT on July 14, 2006

Hmmmm ....

“No matter how much you deny the truth, the truth carries on behind your back regardless”

That above quote is from George Orwell, and it aptly applies not only to the “dutiful” lawmakers in Wisconsin, but also to the various readers here who have posted comments about this article. I take it that everyone who made comments has looked at all the evidence and read “both sides” of the stories concerning this?

Probably not. Myself included.

However, what is more disturbing here is this pervasive idea in the United States today that “it’s OK to ban unpopular speech ... especially if I’m on the popular side".

Moron legislatures who state “when 61 lawmakers have a problem with what a University of Wisconsin Professor says” blah blah blah. When 61 popularity-contest winners in Wisconsin say so ... things get done. Action takes place.

Hardly.

I like the charter idea of privatizing all colleges and auniversities. Sure, it will be more expensive for higher education (lower, perhaps in some respects, since the competition will be more fierce) but this is the only way individuals and academia can finally rid itself of the burden of listening to these legislative invalids who apparently “hold the purse strings” of the University. Does public funding dictate where we, as students, should educate ourselves? Should governments far and wide tell us what classes are allowed in these schools? How about the book list on the syllabi? Should this be decided on a bi-partisan basis? Will there be legislative action for viewing websites that are “dangerous to public safety” if they are assigned in class? (http://www.mujca.com/essay.htm being one of them)

Governments and the people who work for them remind me of the spoiled rich kid on the block, always having what he wants, when he wants. And the kid on the block with no money, but a hunger for self improvement and strong work ethic, is the one usually being shoved around by this spoiled twat waffle.

It’s high time we begin starving the rich kid, and deny him the sustenance that he doesn’t earn, but instead leeches off the rest of us (especially off the poor kid on the block). A high flying “up yours", nanny-state ... please kill yourself. When you begin remembering that YOU are at the service of US, it will be a much nicer morning in America, I assure you.

The end.

I. Keogh, NFI, at 10:15 pm EDT on July 21, 2006

Sound Minds Must Prevail

I see the logic now. It’s just a theory but it might have some backbone. Provost thought that the ‘fall out’ from making a logical decision would be too much of a price to pay. He didn’t expect that the national media would grab on to this story. The funny part is Barrett will continue to take advantage of his new found attention by stirring up more controversy and the University will eventually pay the price. The media won’t have to find Barrett; Barrett will find the media. It will be interesting to see how this will all pan out.

Tom Wynn, UW-Madison, at 4:40 am EDT on July 27, 2006

how to keep your employer secret

Many renditions of the recent comments fromthe Provost to Barrett center around the idea that Barrett should not have told people he worked for the UW. He is frequently lambasted for “capitalizing on his position". Well how should he have handled this?

That is a public university run by the State of Wisconsin and the position, pay and identity of all University employees is publicly accessible knowledge. But interestingly I note that now the university has removed Kevin Barrett from the online directory: http://www.wisc.edu/directories/?name=k%20barrettThis is an unusual situation because typically people do not have any choice about being in this directory. They can control some of the information such as phone numbers or email but I’ve never heard of a way to be a stealth employee as seems to be happening now for Barrett. (Or it may mean he was fired already.) If you work for the UW you are in there, period. Except, in Kevin Barretts case, he seems to have found a way to be removed from it. He was in this directory previously as I recall.

So in the typical case, as soon as someone knows your name, if it is not an extremely common name, they will be able to easily find out if you work for the UW. It is even more difficult for non-adjunct employees to escape being detected as working for the University as they appear in the publicly accessible budget: http://www.uwsa.edu/budplan/redbook/But being an instructor he wouldn’t be in there. It does not include LTE’s, graduate employees, or certain adjunct positions.

So my point is how can you retain the right of free speech under this concept that you should not reveal your employer? There’s still plenty of ways to find out someone works for the UW even if they’re not in the directory eg:http://timetable.doit.wisc.edu/cg...gate.cgi?20071+sects/d104c370A1.html

So my point is that in most cases, in order to really prevent someone from easily figuring how you work for the university, the person would have to not give their real name. Which would not work as soon as one’s picture was displayed. So I don’t think this concept of free speech ‘if you just leave the university out of it’, is really workable and what that really boils down to is the person cannot say anything unpopular at all.

Speaking of the university making a bad impression on the taxpayers, this $26 Million dollar incident didn’t help either:http://www.wkbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=5211841

free speech nut, at 8:05 pm EDT on August 6, 2006

“Although I’d have difficulty endorsing the decision to keep him on board, I would all the same enjoy having coffee with him one day to discuss his journey to this platform.” says Jerry Pattengale. In other words, FIRE THE DISSENTER and then, well, BUY THE POOR FELLOW A CUP of coffee. What a noble heart... The dark matter of hypocritical liberalism? I dunno.

Sig, at 2:40 pm EDT on October 12, 2006