School wants to fire 9/11 conspiracy theorist

[bascule]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/21/Sept.11.prof.ap/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

 

I'm pretty torn on this issue.

 

On the one hand, I think 9/11 conspiracy theorists are completely delusional, propagate a bunch of hearsay/lies/misinterpretations/half-truths between each other. This pisses me off more than Ward Churchill (at least I could see where he was coming from)

 

However, I can see a legitimate free speech angle here.

 

In the end, I'd lean towards saying can his ass for teaching lies.

 

In the words of the Onion... what do you think?

[padren]

I say his theories and teachings should be allowed or crushed based on the integrity of his work, not the content's viewpoints.

 

If he wants to teach that GW is a reptilian alien in disguise, I would not think that should discredit him - however, to academically maintian that point of view, he would in all likelihood fail miserably to defend his findings in peer review... so much so that his findings would be expected to be derived so unprofessionally that he could be fired for the unprofessionalism.

 

Still, the emphasis is on the term expected, and just because we expect that, doesn't mean we shouldn't go through the process of testing the professionalism behind the findings.

 

If his facts are faulty and intellectually dishonest, let that sink him, instead of whether he makes claims politicians find uncomfortable.

[Pangloss]

It's not a free speech issue. If it were, you might as well move the creationists right into the biology department. The focus should be on efficient and useful education, not equal treatment of every crackpot theory known to man.

[Mokele]

The humanities: because when every theory is untestable, all theories are equally valid.

[ecoli]

Freedom of speech? what about freedom of education?

[Mokele]

See, I'm all for academic freedom to voice your pet theory, but I think there also needs to be some sort of competency standard. If I voice my theory, departing from the norm, that the adaptive radiation of colubroid snakes was more due to the evolutionary plasticity of their muscular systems, and have evidence, that's fine, and I should keep my position no matter how much it pisses off those who thing venom such a big deal. Alternatively, if I just decide one day that DNA isn't the genetic material, all of genetics is a lie, and it's all a big conspiracy, I'd expect to be thrown out, for good reason. (Honestly, I'd like to be committed if that ever happened, and failing that, euthanized.)

 

The problem is that, as my flippant quote above mentions, in some fields it's not as easy to weed out the bullshit from the good theories as it is in science. After all, how do you test a hypothesis about history?

 

 

The tenure system exists to protect those who've found evidence that would piss everyone off, like that everyone's favorite theory for the past 50 years is totally wrong. It's not meant to protect people just voicing peculiar opinions. The problem is fields like history, where such opinions might or might not be valid.

 

Mokele

[ecoli]

See, I'm all for academic freedom to voice your pet theory, but I think there also needs to be some sort of competency standard.

 

Exactly! In New York, we have pretty high standards of public education. That doesn't mean all our teachers are great, but at least we can try to keep the imcompatence to a minimum.

 

In the university level, this is harder to control. I dont have to tell anyone that there are some pretty awful proffessors out there, who don't go away.

 

They just become an awful, old profesor.

[Jim]

Hmmm.. If 9/11 is part of his core discipline and he actually intends to teach this stuff in the classroom, I would let him go. It would be like having a economics professor who teaches that money grows on trees.

 

If there was not a nexus between his discipline and the claim, I would probably let it pass on free speech grounds.

 

Sounds like it is the former as he is going to teach a course on Islam.

[ecoli]

Sounds like it is the former as he is going to teach a course on Islam.

 

Which is sort of linked to the 9/11, but not really to conspiracy theories. I don't want this guy polluting the minds of innocent children with academically dishonest material. Stuff that been disproven countless times. Even on this stie.

[Pangloss]

Interesting guest editorial in the Sunday NY Times about this, written by a law professor at Florida International University:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/opinion/23fish.html?ex=1311307200&en=e967d7be6648ae71&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

The main point he makes can be seen in this interesting quote:

 

Any idea can be brought into the classroom if the point is to inquire into its structure, history, influence and so forth. But no idea belongs in the classroom if the point of introducing it is to recruit your students for the political agenda it may be thought to imply.

 

And this is where we come back to Mr. Barrett, who, in addition to being a college lecturer, is a member of a group calling itself Scholars for 9/11 Truth, an organization with the decidedly political agenda of persuading Americans that the Bush administration “not only permitted 9/11 to happen but may even have orchestrated these events.”

 

It is perfectly possible to teach a viewpoint without embracing it and urging it. But the moment a professor does embrace and urge it, academic study has ceased and been replaced by partisan advocacy. And that is a moment no college administration should allow to occur.

 

All you have to do is remember that academic freedom is just that: the freedom to do an academic job without external interference. It is not the freedom to do other jobs, jobs you are neither trained for nor paid to perform. While there should be no restrictions on what can be taught — no list of interdicted ideas or topics — there should be an absolute restriction on appropriating the scene of teaching for partisan political ideals. Teachers who use the classroom to indoctrinate make the enterprise of higher education vulnerable to its critics and shortchange students in the guise of showing them the true way.

 

I agree with this position, and I think he makes the point very well.

[Sisyphus]

Why is the fact that it's political important? Why isn't the fact that he's a total crackpot teaching his crackpot theory as truth the only real issue here? As I see it, the politics is irrelevant, since anything can be made political. Young Earth Creationists are always accusing science professors of pushing their "political agenda" on students.

[padren]

I have absolutely nothing against any academic program that pulls the students towards a very strong political bias.

 

That is, as long as the research leading to that is sound.

 

 

I really wish there was less emphasis on the effects his curiculum would have on student's views, and a lot more on how robust the research is. If he actually found evidence that solidly backed up his position, it should be shouted from rooftops, not just in one classroom.

 

While I suspect the contrary is to the case, meaning his work is not that robust and as such he should be liable for teaching non-robust theories...that is a process that should run its course and an assesment his materials will point the right course of action.

 

We should not cut corners and short circuit that process though, simply because his theory is offensive to many.

[john5746]

I agree with the point in Post #10 as well. In fact, it is demeaning to the subject, in this case Islam, to use it as a means to spread your opinions. It would be like going to a course on Christianity and the prof keeps praising Bush and the war on terror.

 

A political science course, that might make more sense, but a Professor is supposed to be open minded, maybe have debates, not shove ideology down throats.

[ecoli]

I have absolutely nothing against any academic program that pulls the students towards a very strong political bias.

 

That is' date=' as long as the research leading to that is sound.[/i']

 

 

I really wish there was less emphasis on the effects his curiculum would have on student's views, and a lot more on how robust the research is. If he actually found evidence that solidly backed up his position, it should be shouted from rooftops, not just in one classroom.

 

While I suspect the contrary is to the case, meaning his work is not that robust and as such he should be liable for teaching non-robust theories...that is a process that should run its course and an assesment his materials will point the right course of action.

 

We should not cut corners and short circuit that process though, simply because his theory is offensive to many.

 

 

The problem is, is that there opinions are based on misrepresented versions of scientific fact. It's hard to convince people like this that they are wrong.

[Callipygous]

i think hes a complete crackpot, and under no circumstances should he be allowed to present his beliefs in the form of an education. however, if the article said something about him presenting his beliefs in the classroom i missed it. if he can teach the curiculum and leave his personal beliefs out of it then let the man teach. as soon as tries to breed the next generation of conspiracy theorists, get him out of the school.

[5614]

I agree with Callipygous.

[Mokele]

I think this is being made out to be too simple. Obviously, if it's unrelated to his teaching, and he doesn't bring it up in class, he's protected on free speech grounds. If it's unrelated and he does bring it up (like, say, in a class on physics), it's obvious he needs at least disciplinary action, if not to be fired.

 

But what if this *is* his field, as it seems to be? Crackpottery is a continuum, and while he's at the extreme end, making it easy to just say 'fire him', the rules need to work for all cases, including cases of crackpot theories that turn out to be right (think of plate tectonics, the asteroid impact hypothesis of dinosaur extinction, etc).

 

It's easy to make the rules for science: if they can back it up with solid evidence, they keep their post. But things are different for fields like history or theology. There's some level of the same, but it's not like science, where you can test hypotheses. As a result, theories have a much bigger 'grey area' in such fields. Any rule you make for these sort of things has to not only cover outright whackos, but the entire grey area.

 

Mokele

[Pangloss]

I think this is being made out to be too simple. Obviously, if it's unrelated to his teaching, and he doesn't bring it up in class, he's protected on free speech grounds. If it's unrelated and he does bring it up (like, say, in a class on physics), it's obvious he needs at least disciplinary action, if not to be fired.

 

There were two indications outlined in the link above that it's the latter.

 

- He's admitted to talking to students about his views

- He's a member of an organization dedicated to spreading what they perceive to be the truth about 9/11

[Chinese Love]

There are no such things as conspiracies because our leaders and intellectual superiors never lie: they are god-like figures, unfallable, and should be worshipped and honored, and anyone should be willing to give up their lives for them.

[AL]

There are no such things as conspiracies because our leaders and intellectual superiors never lie: they are god-like figures, unfallable, and should be worshipped and honored, and anyone should be willing to give up their lives for them.

No one made that claim. However, if you think specifically that this 9/11 conspiracy is tenable, then by all means, substantiate your position.

[Chinese Love]

No one made that claim. However, if you think specifically that this 9/11 conspiracy is tenable, then by all means, substantiate your position.

 

My position is that human organisms should be open to the possibility that the whole attack was an inside job. Just hear both sides out and see where the evidence stands.

 

But, human genetics don't code for rationalism, but rather hierarchy: The elites on the top, the rest as "mindless" cannon fodder whose biological function is like the worker ants, to keep the queens/elites pampered and safe. The worker ants do what they are told, believe what they are told, and work, fight, and die to pamper the elites. It's no big deal really: the worker ants are very happy being the servants they are: their genes code for them to be happy and accept such a life position. So in the end, it's all good!

[Pangloss]

He wasn't hired to propound conspiracy theories, or even discuss 9/11 at all, so how "open" his students are (or are not) is irrelevent.

[Callipygous]

My position is that human organisms should be open[/b'] to the possibility that the whole attack was an inside job. Just hear both sides out and see where the evidence stands.

 

 

its not the evidence that concerns me, its the sheer size of the operation. the number of people that would have to be involved in order to pull it off, and all of them would have to be ok with the idea of crashing US planes into US buildings where americans are working. your telling me everyone at every level of this plan was ok with it, never said a thing to anyone, it never got to the media or anyone outside the plan? there was no one who decided it was wrong to crash planes into occupied buildings and went and said something to the press?

 

thats not even getting into the problem of what the motivation would be... there are better ways to get your country to go to war. have a soldier get "shot" in afghanistan. problem solved.

 

but anyway... it doesnt even really matter whether people are open to the possibility. its about whether hes teaching students or recruiting them. i wouldnt let a fundamentalist teach theology. on the same line, it might be a bad idea to let this guy teach politics, but it depends whether he can leave his beliefs on this particular subject aside.

[Chinese Love]

Here is an interesting article on the Israeli connection to the attacks: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j030802.html

[bascule]

My position is that human organisms should be open[/b'] to the possibility that the whole attack was an inside job.

 

I was. I evaluated their claims.

 

Claim: WTC7 was "pulled" (i.e. demolished) by the Fire Department of New York. Controlled demolitions take weeks of preparation. Therefore, WTC7 was rigged with explosives weeks before the 9/11 attacks. But how could they know the 9/11 attacks were going to happen? Answer: IT'S A CONSPIRACY!

 

Problems: The amount of time it would take to rig WTC7 with exposives is a flaw in the conspiracy theorist argument. Drawing any conclusions from this flaw without first supporting it is ridiculous. This argument is one completely unevidenced statement which draws conclusions from another completely unevidenced statement.

 

Oh, and the other problem

 

YOU ARE ACCUSING THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OF NEW YORK OF BEING IN ON THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY. WHAT KIND OF F*CKING ASSHOLES ARE YOU?