Curious take on academic's rights to speech..

pettyfog · Aug 6, 2006

UW-Madison Provost:"CONTROL YOUR INTEREST IN PUBLICITY FOR YOUR IDEAS"

Barrett, for his part, says that he isn't seeking this publicity. It's seeking him. And what, exactly, is wrong with his speaking publicly? His reprehensible conspiracy theory is fine to inflict on students, but please stop showing your face to the general public because it's making trouble for the university? That Barrett is teaching at the university is -- unlike his crazy theory -- a plain fact. It's an embarrassing fact, and we can easily understand Farrell's interest in suppressing it. But the public is entitled to know this fact and to react to it. This too is part of free speech. Why are we so keen on airing all sorts of ideas within the university but averse to letting the general public have access to those facts?
...
...why should Barrett have to refrain from publicizing his ideas in order to keep his job? It's acceptable for him to teach here, but please, be very quiet about it? And this is held out as an attempt "to be fairly careful to not inhibit his privilege of speaking freely"? The letter makes a connection between speaking out publicly and being able to "separate his opinions from what happens in the classroom." But what is that connection? And would we use that reasoning on other teachers? Promoting a strong political position in the public arena raises a suspicion that you can't fairly present material in the classroom anymore? All politically active academics would feel threatened if we thought the university would apply that reasoning across the board. And if Farrell is not going to apply that reasoning across the board, why is he inflicting it on Barrett?
Click to expand...

Nowhere in this blog-piece does Ann Althouse address the obvious: What is the standard for teaching in academia?

The nutcase conspiracy theories running out of the hallowed ivy are beginning to rival, in credibility and logic, those reviled fundamental preachers baptists who insist in literal six-day creationism and the world being 6000 years old.

This guy is unfit.. but for the University to tell him to 'just shut up' because he's embarassing them?

It's worth either firing him or forcing him out... but, if UW-M are going to keep him and let him poison minds with this crap, dont tell him to 'lower your profile' hoping it will all go away.
Dump him or back him...He's either your guy or he isnt.

VonBilly · Aug 6, 2006

The nutcase conspiracy theories running out of the hallowed ivy are beginning to rival, in credibility and logic, those reviled fundamental preachers baptists who insist in literal six-day creationism and the world being 6000 years old.
Click to expand...

Faith, nice to take out for the evening, but dont take it home afterwards,hoping for a shag! it aint goona happen

pettyfog · Aug 6, 2006

And look what I just ran across on Youtube..Barrett, himself

If he DOES actually present all scenarios, as well as allow debate on it.. he's in the minority.

Curious take on academic's rights to speech..

pettyfog Well-Known Member

VonBilly New Member

pettyfog Well-Known Member

Share This Page

About Us

League Standings

Useful Searches

Curious take on academic's rights to speech..

pettyfog Well-Known Member

VonBilly New Member

pettyfog Well-Known Member

Share This Page