Saturday
August 30, 2008
Advertisement
Advertisement
News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
Aug. 29, 2006
Another Scholar Under Fire for 9/11 Views
The University of New Hampshire is refusing to fire a tenured professor whose views on 9/11 have led many politicians in the state to demand his dismissal.
William Woodward, a professor of psychology, is among those academics who believe that U.S. leaders have lied about what they know about 9/11, and were involved in a conspiracy that led to the massive deaths on that day, setting the stage for the war with Iraq. The Union Leader, a New Hampshire newspaper, reported on Woodward’s views on Sunday, and quoted him (accurately, he says) saying that he includes his views in some class sessions.
The newspaper then interviewed a who’s who of New Hampshire Republican politicians calling for the university to fire Woodward. U.S. Sen. Judd Gregg is quoted as saying that “there are limitations to academic freedom and freedom of speech” and that “it is inappropriate for someone at a public university which is supported with taxpayer dollars to take positions that are generally an affront to the sensibility of most all Americans.”
State legislators chimed in, demanding Woodward’s dismissal and threatening to consider the issue when they next review the university’s budget. In some respects, the political reactions mirror those in Wisconsin, where lawmakers lined up to urge the University of Wisconsin at Madison to fire Kevin Barrett, who shared Woodward’s views and is an adjunct teaching in the fall semester. The university is letting Barrett’s course go ahead, although as a non-tenured adjunct, he has no assurance of work after this semester.
While Wisconsin conducted a study before announcing that Barrett would be allowed to teach, the University of New Hampshire’s reaction has been quick in backing its professor. There are no plans to take any action against Woodward and officials said it would be inappropriate to do so.
“What we’re saying is that we support and are committed to academic freedom,” said Kim Billings, a university spokeswoman. “We may not agree with Professor Woodward, but he is entitled to his opinion.”
In an interview Monday, Woodward said that he was gratified by the support. He said that he mentions his views on 9/11 maybe once or twice in semester-long courses he teaches on political psychology and the psychology of race. He said that when he discusses his views, he makes clear to students that his views “are controversial” and that most people disagree. (Local press reports, quoting students of a variety of political views, back Woodward’s summary of his class approach on the issue.)
A self-described “aging hippie,” Woodward, 61, has taught at New Hampshire for 31 years. He said that he’s never tried to hide his political views, and that he was active in protesting the Vietnam War. He said he’s never before had politicians demanding that he be fired. “It’s a little unsettling, but I am feeling empowered. I’m just one person — and I’m gratified if anything I could do would bring the discussion out into the open.”
In an e-mail, Roger Bowen, general secretary of the American Association of University Professors, had harsh words for New Hampshire politicians who are calling for Woodward to be fired.
“That some legislators apparently believe they have an obligation to criticize the content of faculty classroom instruction is of enormous concern to the AAUP. The U.S. Supreme Court has held repeatedly that academic freedom is a First Amendment right of professors and at least six federal appellate courts have followed Supreme Court rulings,” he said. “So long as the faculty member teaches within his or her discipline and is careful to teach the truth as set by the highest standards of scholarship within their discipline, they and their universities should not be subjected to political intrusions. This rule applies even in highly charged times like today. Professors outside the classroom should speak truth to power as their conscience dictates and inside the classroom they should speak the truths of their discipline. Based on the press reports I have read, it appears that Professor Woodward exemplifies both these professional desiderata.”
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.
Advertisement
Comments
9-11 Views
Given the fabrications that were spun before the invasion of Iraq, it would be a bit of a stretch to believe uncritically the U.S. government’s views on anything, and especially on an event as pivotal as 9-11.
Moreover, the demands that professors be fired tend over time to lend credence to their views. Why the outrage, if what they say is so obviously false? It is, precisely, because it is not so obviously false, and given the conduct of the Bush administration, more and more plausible.
Stephen Downes, at 7:05 am EDT on August 29, 2006
Different cases
The UNH case is different from the UW case. Williams does not make his opinions on 9/11 part of his teaching. According to UW Provost, Barrett explicitly intends to make his tin foil hat theories of 9/11 a “small but significant” part of a course on Islam. The latter behavior does not seem to fit the standard set forth by AAUP’s Bowen: “So long as the faculty member teaches within his or her discipline and is careful to teach the truth as set by the highest standards of scholarship within their discipline, they and their universities should not be subjected to political intrusions.”
Publius, at 7:45 am EDT on August 29, 2006
As a student who shares the professor’s views (although I do not know him, nor attend his university), it is reassuring to know that his university supports him.
Many educated people secretly or not so secretly acknowledge that what the professor says is highly plausible. I’m glad he has the courage to voice his opinions, and hope the government will respect our rights to form our own responses.
I would rather have someone put these ideas forward and help students examine their own mixed feelings about 9-11 than carry on with the ambivalent, ashamed, half-assed efforts at “memorializing” what we sense to be a state-sponsored catastrophe.
Student, at 7:45 am EDT on August 29, 2006
Hit ‘em where it hurts
While the courts may prevent professors such as Woodward from being fired for stating controversial opionions in the classroom, there is nothing protecting the university from legislators who cut the purse strings in retaliation. Public higher education relies on political processes — including everything from lobbying to back room dealing — to keep budgets afloat. They have put themselves in the hands of, if not at the mercy of, politics. I doubt that the New Hampshire legislature will single out the university during the next budget cycle, but instead may cut higher ed funding across the board.
I don’t have a solution, nor does anyone else it seems, nor do I advocate for Woodward’s dismissal under threat of a funding cut. It’s a reality that somehow needs to be changed. Higher ed shouldn’t need to appease state legislators to keep their budgets intact.
Tom McCool, at 7:55 am EDT on August 29, 2006
Pols and Academics
Please ....
If our elected representative officials were obliged —by law or conscience— to enact the duties of the public as they should, they would virtually have no time —no inclination— to be involved in day-to-day affairs of a college.
It’s ironic —and laughable— that politicians would even dare to interject an opinion on academic affairs. After all, isn’t this unwarranted intervention comimg from the same group of folks who, when it came time to consider the possibilities and structures of No Child Left Behind, felt it necessary to EXCLUDE the academic community?
Leave classroom topics and discussions to the academic community and politicians, please, try focusing on your work at hand.
Michael, at 8:05 am EDT on August 29, 2006
State Motto
For decades, the New Hampshire license plates have read:
Live Free Or Die.
Time to change to:
Speak Freely and Suffer The Consequences
PS. Lest sophisticated New Yorkers sneer prematurely at their bucolic cousins, SUNY Presidents at Fredonia and Farmingdale have used their six-figure-salaried PR spin doctors to demonize (simultaneously with economic retaliation) Professors who exposed anti-student policies of those administrations.
Dave S., at 9:16 am EDT on August 29, 2006
Ideological Myopia
I wonder what would become of our cherished institutions of higher learning if debate and controversy are ostracised from intellectual discourse—-ideological myopia.
Intellectuals of different stripes and colors must cast aside their so-called ideological difference to protect academic freedom. Academic freedom is like a fortress; the slightes crack in it not be taken lighlty.
With the advent of the so-called political crusaders on the the political scene, we have been witnessing an outragoeous usurpation of our rights to profess, without let or hindrance. This kind of political activism is a cancer which must be nipped in the bud before it becomes malignant.
Let me hasten to add that though I do not fully subscribe Prof. Woodwards stance on 9/11, I do not think the call to axe him has any moral or legal merit. After all, the good professor is clever enough to let his students know that his view are
Ras, at 9:16 am EDT on August 29, 2006
Much ado about nothing
Dave S and others, I don’t get it. The university is standing its grounds, and the professors right to express himself seems to be preserved. Why are you mocking the state of New Hampshire ?
If anything, the university is to be applauded for its actions (or lack of action.)
As to Sen. Gregg’s statement, my guess is that it was taken out of context. Whatever the case, just because a US Senator grouses about something, doesn’t mean that a state official needs to fire someone.
Larry, at 9:45 am EDT on August 29, 2006
Democracy Matters
Thanks to Cornell West for this title and categorical look at the deconstruction of democratic principles. The University of New Hamshire has taken a stand against the rise of a particular political and errosive spin of what it means to be American. For those who view democracy as an evolution of humanity, this stand is a loud public wake -up call for educational policy. The alignment of discoursive power and political freedom is clear. The democratic principles tied to freedom of speech manifest in Academic Discourse. As purse-string politics colonize and erode Educational values,(recent reauthorizations of NCLB, HEA, IDEA) those who pull the strings-and those who succumb to the pressure are changing the course of democracy in America.
Pamela Morris, Instructior at Uof MO-STL, at 9:45 am EDT on August 29, 2006
I wonder
I wonder if any professors have come under fire for accepting at face value the administration’s narrative regarding the war or 9/11.
It seems to me that an academic who accepts government policy uncritically is more of a threat to freedom than one who challenges the narrative.
So: does anyone have any information about professors who vocally support the administration in the classroom? Perhaps their jobs should be put in jeopardy as well.
meddling kids, at 10:35 am EDT on August 29, 2006
Taking Back the Classroom
Maybe it’s time that teachers take back the classroom and do what they are trained to do, are hired to do, and, for the most part, do well. Here we have a case of an instructor demonstrating critical thinking and not grading students on their opinions. Perfect. Let the legislature go do their job and stay out of the classroom.
And don’t tell me that they pay so they get what they want. Do you walk into your local police station and tell the lieutenant how to orgnaize the system, how to assign officers, how to proceed in criminal cases? I sure hope not.
Jane Arnold, at 10:35 am EDT on August 29, 2006
Aging Hippy Says It All
Prof. Woodward enjoys the company of many in the Arabic-speaking Muslim world who believe that American leaders lied about what they know about 9/11, were involved in a conspiracy that led to the massive deaths on that day, setting the stage for the war with Iraq, and who insist that Islam is a religion of peace.
Put briefly, as a self-proclaimed “aging hippy,” Woodward is a simpleton and a fool whose continued presence in the classroom confirms the general levels of intellectual degradation and mental sloth that are sadly so widespread in universities.
Chuck, at 10:35 am EDT on August 29, 2006
911, an inside job all the way
I encourage doubters to do their own research beginning with Dr. Morgan Reynolds’ site:
Morgan O. Reynolds, Ph.D., currently is Professor emeritus, economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. He is a former Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Labor 2001-2002, and he also served as the Director of the Criminal Justice Center and Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, headquartered in Dallas, Texas.
Who do you believe on an issue so pivotal at 911? A gentleman and scholar, or the treacherous word of the liers and white collar criminals who shamefully call themselves our elected representatives?
rk, at 10:35 am EDT on August 29, 2006
9/11 scholar under fire
Totally missing from the article are the possible merits of the possibility that 9-11 was an inside job. In fact, the more I study it on websites such as scholar’s for truth (ST911.ORG), the more I admit the possibility that the accusations are true.If you are one of the many who have not taken an unbiased look at the facts, (which you will never find in mainline media) you may start by watching the video the college kids made called, “Loose Change.” Google Loose Change, then click videos and watch it free.
I mean, what if the crazy professor’s are right?
Danny Davis
Danny Davis, Boss, at 10:35 am EDT on August 29, 2006
Another freedom fight?
As our freedoms are being eroded (it seems more each day, with our present political environment), how refreshing that academic freedom is, at least for now and at least in New Hampshire, safe. It sounds like Professor Woodward is teaching exactly as a good professor should—he makes mention of his personal beliefs, while telling his classes that they are HIS, not the world’s. However, if his students are interested in seeing how many people think, they need only read newspapers from our international allies. His views are not so controversial elsewhere—just here, where “patriots” are those people who believe unquestioningly anything their president tells them, while “terrorists” are those people who question the present system. Hmm.
E.S., Ed.D. aspirant at university of Kansas, at 10:36 am EDT on August 29, 2006
Substantiation, please
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The claim that U.S. officials conspired to kill three thousand of their own citizens is certainly an extraordinary one.
If Woodward and Barret have such proof, their civic as well as academic duty is to present it because they would be exposing heinous criminals. If they have not, then they are despicable liars no respectable college would employ because there is no scholarship in making vile accusations which facts do not support.
Academic freedom gives a professor the right to claim the moon is made of green cheese, if he wants to, and academic responsibility obliges him to show just how he knows that to be true. If Woodward’s and Barret’s colleges, and the AAUP, defend their right to teach their 9/11 conspiracy theory but do not also require of them a high degree of evidence for it, then their academic standards are scarcely better than “The National Enquirer.” It’s proper to insist that Barret and Woodward can say what they like and equally proper to tell them “Put up or shut up.”
Jack Olson, at 10:36 am EDT on August 29, 2006
Open Opinion on 9-11
I want to affirm the limits, responsibilities, and lattitudes that accompany academic freedom.
However, I also want to challenge those who read this article and are skeptical of the opinions of the professor in question. I know I was like that when I read the first few of these challenges, but then I read some of the information that’s out there and I would encourage more to do the same. If you have 20 minutes, or less but that’s the length of the video, check it out and see for yourself.
http://www.infowars.com/video/previews/martial_law/wm_256.htm
Reader, at 10:50 am EDT on August 29, 2006
Schooling Chuck
It is a simpleton and fool who passes off personal opinion as having substianting evidence. If Woodward has no evidence to ground his view, then you have done the same as he. If, in fact, Woodward has deliberated on the findings and come to a reasoned conclusion given the evidence, then you my friend have added to the validity of his view.
Pamela Morris, at 10:55 am EDT on August 29, 2006
The belief of Administrators, who are employed by the state, that “Academics” are allowed to spew whatever silly and unsupportable theories might be chosen at the moment is at best a violation of the public trust. The Administrators are trustees of the public’s property. If an academic has a point to make, then let’s hear it, evaluate the truth of the matter and then go on. These conspiracy theories are crack-pot theories based upon warped ideas and interpretations.
Notice that I have not stated we need to muzzle or remove first amendment rights as citizens. Rather, let him support and defend his ideas with facts. If he is right, then the truth will be set free. If his idea cannot be supported, then he must put it away.
So long as the professor insists on taking public monies(salary), he must serve the public interest. Taking public monies without serving the public interest is theft and fraud.
Jim M., at 10:55 am EDT on August 29, 2006
No Thanks, Senator!
‘U.S. Sen. Judd Gregg is quoted as saying that “there are limitations to academic freedom and freedom of speech” and that “it is inappropriate for someone at a public university which is supported with taxpayer dollars to take positions that are generally an affront to the sensibility of most all Americans.”’
Gee. I’m an American, I have sensibilities, I pay taxes and work for a public university supported with taxpayer dollars, and yet Professor William Woodward’s opinions are NOT an affront to me. So don’t speak for me Senator Judd Gregg. The last time I checked, I’m able to speak for myself!
Chartreuse, at 11:20 am EDT on August 29, 2006
Sticking to our fields
I’m a bit puzzled by professors who, having studied their own field for years, decide suddenly to become experts on everything else. In general, I respect the stand taken by UNH in defense of their employee, but protected speech is not the same as professionally responsible speech. Whether his comments are professionally responsible largely depends on the context of the course, obviously. If, for instance, he brought up his views in the context of a discussion about the political psychology of war, that might be perfectly appropriate. However, if he inserted his views into unrelated class meetings, I think that is protected, but unwise speech.
The same goes for the emeritus econ professor noted by a prior poster. He has his views on 9/11, but that has nothing to do with his training, and I’m not sure why he should be seen as more credible than any other citizen on a topic outside of his field.
Whether we like it or not, our professional titles lend special weight to our opinions in the classroom and in public. Good universities like UNH will protect our right to speak outside of our field for fear of the slippery slope of censorship, but that doesn’t mean that we should abuse that protection by becoming all-purpose experts like the Daily Show/Mac add guy.
QuakerProf, at 11:20 am EDT on August 29, 2006
Academic Freedom vs. Common Sense
I agree that Prof. Woodward handled the situation in the classroom appropriately. However, high IQ seems to have little relationship to common sense. Living in the Ivory Towers, we sometimes forget that our country is at WAR. Sometimes it is best to temper one’s love affair with academic freedom to the realities of the world. In many countries Prof. W. would be “removed” permanently from this earth for his remarks. Reality: just released Fox reporters, with a gun to their heads, were given a choice to convert to Islam or else. . . Guess we better win the war first and then sit around in the faculty lounge, drink coffe, and discuss academic freedom.
Reg Shoesmith, RS, at 12:35 pm EDT on August 29, 2006
Ground Control to Major Tom
From Richard Hofstadter, food for thought for possible recruits to the tin foil hat brigades:
“A final characteristic of the paranoid style is related to the quality of its pedantry. One of the impressive things about paranoid literature is the contrast between its fantasied conclusions and the almost touching concern with factuality it invariably shows. It produces heroic strivings for evidence to prove that the unbelievable is the only thing that can be believed. Of course, there are highbrow, lowbrow, and middlebrow paranoids, as there are likely to be in any political tendency. But respectable paranoid literature not only starts from certain moral commitments that can indeed be justified but also carefully and all but obsessively accumulates :evidence.” The difference between this “evidence” and that commonly employed by others is that it seems less a means of entering into normal political controversy than a means of warding off the profane intrusion of the secular political world. The paranoid seems to have little expectation of actually convincing a hostile world, but he can accumulate evidence in order to protect his cherished convictions from it.”
Publius, at 12:50 pm EDT on August 29, 2006
why the rhetoric is just rhetoric
Folks, step back a second.
First of all, I have to say, that I disagree with the theory that the US government was behind 9/11. But that doesn’t mean that they are incoherent on their face, or so wrong that they are not worth thinking. Perhaps if someone stated that the world were run by unicorns it would be different.
By the same token, I agree with Quakerprof: people need to stick to their fields. It diminish’s ones credibility to speak about things you don’t know about.
Second of all, this professor’s job is not really threatened. If a US Senator says that a state employee should be fired, his views mean next to nothing. First of all, US Senators don’t have the power to order state agencies (such as a university) to fire people. Second of all, assuming that a US Senator could somehow tie funding of that university to a proviso requiring the termination of people expressing such a view, such a proviso would probably be unconstitutional, anyway. Everyone, including the US Senator, knows this.
Indeed, the US Solicitor General (part of the DOJ) has even stated that they will not litigate similar viewpoint-discriminatory funding issues, no matter what Congress does, because even he thinks that they are unconstitutional. (You can read a.pdf copy of the letter from Roberto Clement to the Senate after a loss at the Distict Court in ACLU v. Mineta (regarding such a proviso, diminishing funding on the DC Metro if they post marijuna-legalization ads) here: http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/gen/10902lgl20050126.html ). The SG follows the logic of US v. ALA, 539 U.S. 194, 203 n. 2 (2003). (If you don’t trust the ACLU, you can get the letter on the DOJ’s website, but the ACLU’s is better organized.)
So, all the Senator is doing is “energizing” his base, with rather silly political platitudes.
Larry, at 12:50 pm EDT on August 29, 2006
Erosion of rights and freedom
Good for UNH and the defense of this educator. I hope this most recent “Scholar Under Fire” is wrong in his ideas, but I’ll bet he has done his homework. Why is the administration in place at this time and its many supporters so afraid of dialogue? I for one am glad others make us think... Oh, that’s right, it wasn’t covered that way on wFOX news!
John, Professor, at 12:50 pm EDT on August 29, 2006
Other side of the coin
I wonder what would happen to a professor who advocates and promotes right-wing views and ideologies in his/her courses? Would it receive any media attention — like what you see here — or would the university administration handle it discretely?
Dingo Lovin’, at 12:50 pm EDT on August 29, 2006
Distinguished Critics of 9/11 Commission Report
Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report is certainly not limited to academics.
Senior American Government Officials
Morgan Reynolds, PhD – Chief Economist, U.S. Department of Labor under George W. Bush 2001-2002. Former Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis. Professor Emeritus, Economics, Texas A&M University
Video: “I first began to suspect that 9/11 was in inside job when the Bush-Cheney Administration invaded Iraq. … We can prove that the government’s story is false.” http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8180123292618944278
Essay: “It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause(s) of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely [to] prove to be sound.” http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html
Full Bio: http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=bio
Paul Craig Roberts, PhD — Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan, “Father of Reaganomics”, Former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal, Currently Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University
Essay: “We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to “pancake” at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false.” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14566.htm
Full Bio: http://www.vdare.com/roberts/bio.htm
Catherine Austin Fitts, Assistant Secretary of Housing under George H.W. Bush. Former Managing Director and Member of the Board of Directors of the Wall Street investment bank, Dillon, Read & Co
Audio Interview: “The official story could not possibly have happened. … It’s not possible. It’s not operationally feasible. … The Commission was a whitewash.” (Radio KPFA 9/9/04 About 45 minutes into the file.) http://157.22.130.4/data/20040909-Thu1700.mp3
Essay: “The first category of people who benefited were those who are guilty and complicit in designing, implementing and financing the 9-11 operation. On such a sophisticated and successful covert operation, the people responsible would have had budgets and financing and would have organized the operation to maximize their political and financial benefits.” http://globalresearch.ca/articles/FIT403A.html
Signatory: Petition requesting an immediate reinvestigation of 9/11 http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633
Full Bio: http://www.solari.com/about/ca_fitts.html
Edward L. Peck, Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under Ronald Reagan. Deputy Coordinator, Covert Intelligence Programs at the State Department;, U.S. Ambassador and Chief of Mission to Iraq (1977-80). 32-year veteran of the U.S Foreign Service.
Signatory: Petition requesting an immediate reinvestigation of 9/11 http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633
Morton Goulder, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Warning 1973-77 (Nixon, Ford, and Carter) Founder of Sanders Associates
Signatory: Petition requesting an immediate reinvestigation of 9/11 http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633
Philip J. Berg, Esquire, Former Deputy Attorney General, Pennsylvania
Article: “The official story of what actually took place on 9-11 is a lie” http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/trade_towers_rescue.html
Signatory: Petition requesting an immediate reinvestigation of 9/11 http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633
Alan Miller, at 1:05 pm EDT on August 29, 2006
Deconstructing Pamela
Leave it to someone like Pamela Morris to confirm that nowadays anything goes in terms of one’s opinions, beliefs and claims in higher education.
Psst....…… go read Lawrence Wright’s brilliant and gripping “Looming Tower” about the background and planning of the 9/11 attacks, then tell us how Prof. Woodward’s ludicrous claims fare there. This will be rich.
In Morris’ delusional world, not only should we give credence to the idea that the “government” perhaps had advanced warnings and knowledge of 9/11 attacks, but she will probably allege that “they” probably also detonated explosives under the New Orleans levees, have been behind the increased price of gasoline, are to blame for the surge in global warming, know more than they are letting on about the collapse of the Red Sox, and probably are not telling us the truth about Hezbollah.
Welcome to the world of the paranoid, conspiracist left.
One imagines folks like her and Prof. William “Wayward” Woodward anxiously perusing the Wikipedia, MoveOn.org, AngryLeft.org or various rabidly anti-Bush sources for “proof” and “evidence” for their hilarious claims.
Verily, in discussing 9/11, when there is nothing more to be said, no one says it better here than Pamela Morris.
Watch and see.
Chuck, at 2:35 pm EDT on August 29, 2006
J. Miller sez:
Notice that I have not stated we need to muzzle or remove first amendment rights as citizens. Rather, let him support and defend his ideas with facts. If he is right, then the truth will be set free. If his idea cannot be supported, then he must put it away.
What a great idea this is. Any professor advocating an idea must be able to prove it or go away. At the very least this will rid our campuses of those pesky philosophers, literary critics, and physicists.
Frank Anshen
Frank Anshen, Assc. Prof at SUNY — Stony Brook, at 2:35 pm EDT on August 29, 2006
Correction
In my just sent note, I attributed some nonsense to a “J. Miller", it should have been Jack Olson. I apologize to to Millers.
Frank Anshen
Frank Anshen, at 2:50 pm EDT on August 29, 2006
Does this mean that there are no conspiracies?
Chuck, First of all, I looked on Moveon’s website, and there is no indication that they endorse any such conspiracy theory. So, your credibility suffers a bit. Second of all, you have yet to give a working criteria regrading which thoughts are so invalid that they are simply worth thinking. It would seem that you reject all ideas in which more than one person collaborates to deceive another. Does this mean that any time someone is charged under a conspiracy statute, and there is some indication that they deceived someone, that the indictment must be dismissed, as the idea is obviously wrong on its face?
Larry, at 2:50 pm EDT on August 29, 2006
If the physicists Frank Anshen refers to are named Pons and Fleischman, why, yes, I rather wish they would go away and take their cold fusion with them.
Jack Olson, at 3:10 pm EDT on August 29, 2006
serving the public
Jim M. makes a good point, but I don’t know that we would see eye to eye on this issue. Yes, “So long as [we] professor[s] insist on taking public monies(salary), [we] must serve the public interest.” The assumption it would appear Jim is making is that what the public wants is in the public’s best interest. To argue by analogy, this is like saying my seven-year old wanting pop and candy all day is considering his own best interest rather than selfish desires. Or, since he’s not yet of age, perhaps the nation’s seemingly insatiable desire to watch some professed child killer being the focus of media attention when he hasn’t committed the crime is something the publc wants.
I’d argue that neither of these (our nation-wide obsession with Jon Benet’s killer or my son wanting to drink pop and eat candy all day) are in the best interst of the public, at the micro and macro levels, even if it is what they want. Rather, I’d say that raising the possibilities, exposing them to the light of day, examining the evidence pro and con, is what is in the public’s interest, and it would seem that’s just what is happening and should continue to happen, politics de jour be damned.
bradley bleck, instructor at Spokane Falls CC, at 4:45 pm EDT on August 29, 2006
Pity the Students
Pity the students who are being cheated out of their education! While the University of New Hampshire may be right to protect its own, it appears that the professor in question may be unfit to teach. He should be encouraged to retire or graze in more appropriate pastures.
Simple Simon, Professor at CUNY, at 5:05 pm EDT on August 29, 2006
What?
” .. “So long as the faculty member teaches within his or her discipline ..”
What does psychology have to do with fire engineering? Civil engineering?
Nothing. Because this is really about Bush-hatred. Messrs. Barrett and Woodward just can’t be honest with others — or themselves. Like GWB.
L.L., at 5:30 pm EDT on August 29, 2006
to Bradley’s point
Well put, Bradley, but I worry that we too easily fall into the trap of giving all perspectives equal time. This applies, for instance, to the global warming or evolution debate. There is a scientific consensus on each of these issues, and giving equal time to arguments that humankind was created 3,000 years ago in its current form or that global warming is a liberal myth seems foolish.
Some perspectives are simply better supported than others. By support, I mean support of those with detailed knowledge of relevant evidence and the training to interpret it, not anyone who has ever worked in a related field or has a Ph.D. in another discipline. I mean, a retired economist and a White House official from the 70s? Come on.
Giving poorly supported opinions equal time abandons our mission as educators. As I said in my earlier post, I think the NH prof’s comments are clearly protected speech, but not professionally responsible speech.
QuakerProf, at 5:30 pm EDT on August 29, 2006
Journal of 9/11 Studies
I’ve been researching this topic informally with Dr. Jones for the last 4 months through his research group. I’d be interested in your feedback.
Here are some local articles with quick summaries:
1. “Y. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC” — November 10, 2005
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html
2. “BYU professor’s group accuses U.S. officials of lying about 9/11″ — January 6, 2006
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635179751,00.html
3. “Physicist says heat substance felled WTC” — April 10, 2006
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635198488,00.html
Here is Dr. Jones actual research paper: www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Here’s a movie produced by Dr. Jones http://www.911revisited.com/video.html and his research group www.st911.org if you prefer watching movies more than reading (I think you need the google video plugin to watch it):
With the exception of the research paper itself, the links above serve mostly as an INTRO to the topic. For more in-depth analysis see the new peer-reviewed: http://www.journalof911studies.com/
Sincerely,
Dan T. Peterson
Dan Peterson, at 9:05 pm EDT on August 29, 2006
equal time
I agree that most fringe, maybe even so-called whacko, perspectives shouldn’t be given the time of day in a classroom. And I could be persuaded that evidence for our government’s complicity in the 9/11 attacks fit the whacko paradigm. But I think the professor is teaching within his discipline, political psychology and psychology of race when he touches on such a notion. In all honesty, I have no idea how he does it, but when talking about either of these topics, it would seem not inappropriate to discuss 9/11. I saw a CBC documentary the other day titled “Why We Fight” and it examines a lot of the pyschological work being done on the populace (any populace) in the lead up to war (Irag war in this instance). Because we are ostensibly at war with a bunch of arab islamo-facists, the pyschology of race fits as well as an appropriate part of a course. So, is it whacko to charge our government with having a hand in 9/11? Close, if not right on. Should the way mid-east cultures view us, that it was a supposed Israeli conspicacy and such, not be discussed? No, because there are a lot of reasons, good and bad I suppose, that such views hold water in the mid-east and elsewhere.
bradley bleck, instructor at Spokane Falls CC, at 5:45 am EDT on August 30, 2006
Time for serious debate
I am still quite undecided about the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but I am thankful we are finally able to debate their validity in a serious and open-minded way.
I initially discounted all these views as being “tin-foil hat” nutcases. It seemed the people discussing these ideas on the internet were very sloppy in their thinking, and often had personal problems of their own.
However, when the likes of Paul Craig Roberts, PhD (former Former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal) writes about these ideas, he is not the least bit sloppy in his communication style.
Nor can the likes of Edward L. Peck, (Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under Ronald Reagan. Deputy Coordinator, Covert Intelligence Programs at the State Department), or Catherine Austin Fitts, (Assistant Secretary of Housing under George H.W. Bush. Former Managing Director and Member of the Board of Directors of the Wall Street investment bank, Dillon, Read & Co), or Morton Goulder, (Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Warning 1973-77 (Nixon, Ford, and Carter))be dismissed as ‘flakes’.
I read, with great interest, the Popular Mechanics article (found by Google search) which is supposed to debunk the 9/11 conpiracies, and I noticed that it doesn’t touch the chief arguments articulated by Paul Craig Roberts.
Its time we debate these aguments, in a open-minded way, without resorting to name-calling.
Reader, at 5:50 am EDT on August 30, 2006
Conspiracy? Come on.
Every time there is a “big” event, there are conspiracy theories.
Conspiracy theories for 9/11? I’ve spent a lot of time reading the “conspiracy” theories and I’m not impressed. Imagine how many people would have to be lying. There is no chance that someone wouldn’t blow the whistle. I believe the reports from the structural engineers, architects, etc. — people with credentials — rather than 60s-style hippies and professors.
Doesn’t sound like this professor is in any trouble with his university, so I’m not sure what the beef is.
Former professor, at 5:10 pm EDT on August 30, 2006
Reader notes:
“Nor can the likes of Edward L. Peck, (Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under Ronald Reagan. Deputy Coordinator, Covert Intelligence Programs at the State Department), or Catherine Austin Fitts, (Assistant Secretary of Housing under George H.W. Bush. Former Managing Director and Member of the Board of Directors of the Wall Street investment bank, Dillon, Read & Co), or Morton Goulder, (Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Warning 1973-77 (Nixon, Ford, and Carter))be dismissed as ‘flakes’.”
I wouldn’t say they are flakes, just people speaking outside of their area of expertise and yet still using (abusing, I think) their various titles. Really, what special knowledge does a former investment banker/ assistant secretary of housing (housing!) have that could possibly shed light on a subject like 9/11? The others mentioned have more relevant backgrounds, but they have also been out of the loop since the 1980s, hardly making them experts on this issue.
Everyone has opinions- what differs is our standard of evidence. If your standard of evidence is that a random, small collection of professors and former policy guys talking outside their knowledge base think something, then should we give equal credence to those who would deny that the Holocaust took place? A former history professor is in this camp, right?
I’ll stop posting about this, but as I said before, it’s not professionally responsible for professors to speak as experts outside of their areas of training in the classroom, or even in public if they are using their titles. The undue weight given to their views is evident in the repeated postings in this forum referring readers to the all-purpose housing/investment banking/economics “experts.”
Peace and moderation,QuakerProf
QuakerProf, at 6:05 pm EDT on August 30, 2006
Standards of Evidence
To the Quaker Prof,
As your example of the Holocaust deftly illustrates, those who create horrifying and shameful situations often try to destroy every shred of “evidence.” Do you truly expect the White House to come clean and admit that they staged the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon so they could launch a gradual takeover of the Middle East?
The administration has been ever so forthcoming about every other unsavory aspect of their covert activities. From the leak of Valerie Plame’s identity (which George W. Bush promised to get to the bottom of, and clearly did!), to the FSA surveillance scandal, to Cheney’s drunken shooting of his friend, the “evidence” of wrong-doing and inappropriate conduct always seems to go strangely missing in the hands of this admin.
The absence of evidence does not indicate the absence of a phenomenon; it simply indicates that someone is good at ‘cleaning up.’
As per 9-11, doesn’t it bother you just a bit that a group of Muslim terrorists willing to sacrifice their lives would be so silly/kind-hearted/careless as to attack the WTC before most people even showed up for work? I mean, if you’re going to take your own life, you could at least do the planning to ensure that you’ll take out a maximum number of American casualities in the process. But not *these* terrorists! They decided to do it early in the morning, before the business day even started...
A “scare” tactic gone awry?
Student, at 9:50 pm EDT on August 30, 2006
Woodward
If Prof Woodward is trying to teach critical thinking skills it seems to me that he has chosen the perfect way to do so. For five years the media has been giving us Bush’s version of the story as justification for the “war on terror” to the point where it has become ingrained as a part of our culture. So you need an independent mind which is explicitely trying to set aside emotion in order to reexamine 9/11 in a reasoned and rational manner. Would we rather he teach his students to blindly accept “Freud’s Interpretation of Dreams” without critical analysis? Or Julian Jaynes’ “Origin of Conciousness", for that matter? Neither of those men will be the last word in psychology and the 9/11 commission’s report is so full of holes (it doesn’t even try to explain the collapse of tower 7) that it should never be the last word on that incredible tragedy.
As the above comments illustrate, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 are the most life altering event of recent history and so it is not wrong or inappropriate for Woodward to ask his students to think about it for themselves and critically analyse the official story.
Considering the risks to our way of life in these United States, every patriotic American should consider the need for a fully independent investigation into the events of 9/11, beginning with the question of why Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Condi, and our representatives in Congress are so opposed to such an inquiry. After all they’ve spent on the Iraq and Afganistan wars (both of whose militaries we can squish like a bug) I dare anyone to try and say “we can’t afford it".
tin foil, at 5:50 am EDT on September 1, 2006
To Student,
You argue that the absence of evidence doesn’t prove the absence of a phenomenon. This is certainly true. I would argue, though, that the 9/11 truth movement is taking the absence of evidence as proof of a conspiracy to hide something. From this starting point, members of the movement then cite each other’s speculation about this lack of evidence, especially professors and former policy figures. These Daily Show-style experts speak on topics outside of their fields, and when challenged, accuse the rest of us of being foolish for accepting the offical story.
An absence of evidence for alternative theories of 9/11 does not prove that a conspiracy must be withholding such evidence any more than an absence of evidence for creationism proves that evolutionary biologists have conspired to fabricate evidence of human and pre-human life before 3,000 years ago. Sometimes, the official story is actually an accurate representation of events.
I propose a more interesting conspiracy theory. The Bush administration is behind the 9/11 truth movement and is using it as a tool to divert the attention of the left away from issues on which it might be able to make some progress these days, such as poverty, classism, and materalism. They are crafty devils, and if you cannot see that the 9/11 truth movement is just another scheme to divert the attention of the left, you are clearly not paying attention. Of course there is no evidence for my claim- they must be covering it up!
QuakerProf
QuakerProf, at 2:10 pm EDT on September 1, 2006
Who Is Supposed to Step up to the Plate?
I’m a little confused by your logic. You dismiss professors and experts who speak outside of their fields of expertise, yet here you are, ‘expertly’ instructing all of us to cover our eyes and ears, and go back to agitating for social change, or whatever we do in our spare time.
I think that it’s perfectly responsible (and in fact imperative) for professors and other public figures to raise their voices on the issue of *******ability re: 9-11. It’s precisely because academic voices do matter that the administration wants to silence people like Woodward.
You don’t need to spend a lifetime studying 9-11 to realize it stinks the way herring stinks. Who would you trust on this matter—the former Stanford provost Condi Rice? Or perhaps Dick Cheney, the Haliburton expert who knows exactly how much fear is needed to throw a billion dollar no-bid contract in his company’s lap? A payoff of a couple of million to the families of 9-11 victims is a small price to pay for the huge profit Halliburton made on this deal...
How’s that for diversion tactics? Those motives make a lot more sense than using the 9-11 Truth movement to divert academics from their social justice concerns...
Student, at 6:30 am EDT on September 2, 2006
Small Solution
As someone that had urged a consultant to “get on the first flight out of Boston” on the evening of 9/10/2001, I was directly impacted by 9/11. I am also an alum of UNH and am outraged by the university’s inability to do something about Woodward. Also having to listen to the “Investigate 9/11″ crowd at Ground Zero on 9/11/2006 just made my resolve stronger to do something. Well, I just received a request for a donation to UNH and have been able to contribute consistently in prior years. I’ll be writing a response to the interim president letting her know why I’m not donating this year.
Fred Chaloux, at 5:35 am EDT on September 24, 2006
You, ask taxpayers, ask professors to teach your kids (aka “the next generation") to think for themselve. This includes thinking about statements, evaluating evidence, and weighing opinions. You claim that higher education is not doing enough if you run into a 20-something who cannot form an opinion. Yet you balk at the idea that a professor may not be teaching the “right” information. The very idea that politicians would impose financial, social, or political repercussions as a means of thought control smacks of Big Brother. Yes, our administration has done a fine job of getting indivuduals to watch the right hand dangle memorials and “pro-freedom” speeches while the left hand secretly sweeps away individual freedoms under the carpet, along with intelligence documents. Keep the public occupied with rising fuel costs and their sons and daughters in body bags so they don’t discover the real truth or *gasp* ask questions. We need more people like Bill Woodward to prevent proliferation of the “Party”
Student and Professor, at 6:21 pm EDT on October 3, 2006
Advertisement
Jobs Related to Another Scholar Under Fire for 9/11 Views
or search for jobs directly.
Senior Faculty in Condensed Matter Theory
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
Librarian, Assistant Professor Wilson Library
University of La Verne
Librarian, Assistant Professor Wilson Library Position #2926 The University of La Verne invites applications for Librarian ... see job
ASSISTANT DEAN, FACULTY AFFAIRS — School of Medicine (31513)
Tufts University
The Office of Faculty Affairs has ultimate responsibility for all appointments, promotions and tenure for the School of ... see job
Fundamentals of Academic Reading Adjunct Faculty Pool
Howard Community College
Fundamentals of Academic Reading, a non-transferable credit course, prepares students to read academic text at the college ... see job
Campus Instructors
Kaplan University
Campus Instructors — RN Full & Part-Time • Omaha, NE Kaplan University is a thriving division of Kaplan, Inc., a subsidiary ... see job
Laboratory Technician — Science (Chemistry) 0000501
Los Rios Community College District
For more information and application please visit our website http://www.losrios.edu and ... see job
Title V Program Director
Maricopa Community College District
Job Summary The Title V Project Director is responsible for the implementation and management of grants operations, and ... see job
Bovine Theriogenology Clinical Specialist
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
Assistant Director, International Trade Center
University of Texas, San Antonio
Description of Job Duties: Assist the International Trade Center Director, Client Management Specialist and ... see job
Admissions Recruiter/Advisor
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
Home
| Sign up | Log in
| About us
| Work for Us
| Press Releases
| Rights and permissions
| Contact us
| Advertise
| Partners
| RSS 
| Podcasts
| Links
| Privacy
| My Account
© Copyright 2008 Inside Higher Ed
9/11 views
This is a publically funded school who should present facts to students. Personal opinion should be presented as such. The university should also present opposing arguments to give the students a balanced perspective.
Ed Kosinski, at 5:55 pm EDT on June 14, 2008