Linky

Item 1: Professor should be allowed to share his ideas in the context of instruction, but only as just that...an idea.

Item 2: Professor should not be fired just because his conspiracy theories may be contrary to what most believe/want to believe.

Discuss.

Linky

Item 1: Professor should be allowed to share his ideas in the context of instruction, but only as just that...an idea.

Item 2: Professor should not be fired just because his conspiracy theories may be contrary to what most believe/want to believe.

Discuss.


Were it not for the fact that we have Osama Bin Laden and his cronies on Al Jazeera openly admitting to the attacks, and on many occasions bragging about it to their followers in their "press releases", I might agree with you.

That said we have the situation of a professor, then, who is teaching incorrect history.

What would we do with a math professor who taught 2 + 2 = 5 ?  Or a premed teacher who teaches that that the stork really brings newborn babies?  Or a history professor teaching that Robert E. Lee actually was fighting to free the slaves?  Or that Hitler was "the Jews' best friend"?

Were it not for the fact that we have Osama Bin Laden and his cronies on Al Jazeera openly admitting to the attacks, and on many occasions bragging about it to their followers in their "press releases", I might agree with you.

That said we have the situation of a professor, then, who is teaching incorrect history.

What would we do with a math professor who taught 2 + 2 = 5 ?  Or a premed teacher who teaches that that the stork really brings newborn babies?  Or a history professor teaching that Robert E. Lee actually was fighting to free the slaves?  Or that Hitler was "the Jews' best friend"?


The story was not clear as to whether the professor was presenting the theory as an idea to be discussed, or as a doctrine that the students must follow.  If the former, then whatever, he's an idiot, but at least he's leaving it up in the air.  If the latter, then there is a much more legitimate complaint and he should be disciplined.  That was what I meant in my two bullet points.

I want to see how this plays out, it's one of those stories where I really shouldn't care about it but I can't help but be drawn in :D

The story was not clear as to whether the professor was presenting the theory as an idea to be discussed, or as a doctrine that the students must follow.  If the former, then whatever, he's an idiot, but at least he's leaving it up in the air.  If the latter, then there is a much more legitimate complaint and he should be disciplined.  That was what I meant in my two bullet points.

I want to see how this plays out, it's one of those stories where I really shouldn't care about it but I can't help but be drawn in :D


If he is an idiot then I still do not want him teaching.

Linky

Item 1: Professor should be allowed to share his ideas in the context of instruction, but only as just that...an idea.

Item 2: Professor should not be fired just because his conspiracy theories may be contrary to what most believe/want to believe.

Discuss.


I remember fighting similar things back in the early 1980's in High School.

This was when a lot of the "children of the 70's" were now school teachers, and some simply could not resist trying to "indoctrinate" kids into what they thought "correct modes of thought".  I remember my Government teacher very well, and he would constantly try to teach us not only the difference between various governments, but which was best and worst.

In fact, it was because of him that I first became good friends with my ex-wife.  This was during the 1982 Falklands War.  He went on during one class, saying that Argentina was wrong, that they never had any claim to the Islands, and that they had always belonged to England.  My ex (who was born and raised in Argentina) tried to tell him he was wrong, and he called her a "brainwashed child" (she was actually 19 at the time).  She got upset and left the room, and myself and 3 or 4 other students also let.

I helped her in the next week to write up a report on the history of the Falklands, and talked about both how England annexed it in the 1820's, abandoned it, then took it over again in the early 1900's.  It even covered the petition that Argentina had placed in the UN every year since 1946 requesting they be returned to Argentina.  Since her English was not very good yet, I did most of the work writing it up for her.

And the teacher simply read it, then handed it back stating it was wrong!

A few weeks later, we were covering various topics about law and personal belief, and we had to study what constituted "pornography".  Of course, most of us said the normal answers, "Playboy", "XXX Movies" and the like.  The teacher then takes out a political pamphlet from the early 1970's, and hands it to the students for us to look through and pass along.

The pamphlet was picture after picture of dead women and children.  And the caption of each one talked in detail how these people were killed by "Evil US agression in Viet Nam".  A few students got quite upset, and I remember a few started to cry.  I saw it, and proceeded to stand up and walk out of the room.  I went straight to the Principals office, and demanded a transfer.

It was to late in the semester to change teachers, so I was stuck with him.  But he was severely reprimanded.  There was a monitor in his class room almost half the time for the rest of the semester, and all of his class materials had to be approved before being presented in class.  He also had to apologize to the entire class (and every other class which he had presented the "pornography" to).  I still remember the joint lesson that both he and the Principal gave, discussing the difference between "Pornography" and "Propaganda".

I do realize that he was a new teacher at the time, that was his 3rd or 4th year when this all happened.  And since this was Los Angeles, it was not all that unusual at the time.  I have talked to him many times over the years, and the meetings were always friendly.  The last time I met him was in 2002 at a High School football game.  I ran into him in the stands, and we spent over an hour talking about old times.  When the incident of the book came up, he actually thanked me for it!  He said that at the time, he saw nothing wrong with what he was doing, since he thought his job was to teach the kids the "right ways to think".

I know that when we last talked, he was planning to retire in the near future.  I am sure that the school is much the worse for his retirement.  From the reaction of his students at the game, he was obviously a much loved teacher.

A lot of time, teachers and journalists fall into the trap of trying to remake the world into their image of a "better society".  And that is the problem, when they break the neutrality of the professions and move from instruction and informing into indoctrination.  I have no problem if a teacher gives other points of view.  But it is a different thing when they try to present their beliefs as fact.

this is going to sound a bit odd but just because OBL and his lackeys brag about doing 9/11 doesn't mean they did it. they'd have every motive for taking responsibility for it even if they DIDN'T do it.

i totally support this dude's right to teach the point of view that the government orchestrated 9/11. if it's so unconvincing, why are all these politicians trying to suppress it? seems to me they're afraid of that point of view because the argument in favor of it is maybe more convincing than they would like. hence, of course, in trying to suppress it they in fact further legitimize it.

this is going to sound a bit odd but just because OBL and his lackeys brag about doing 9/11 doesn't mean they did it. they'd have every motive for taking responsibility for it even if they DIDN'T do it.

i totally support this dude's right to teach the point of view that the government orchestrated 9/11. if it's so unconvincing, why are all these politicians trying to suppress it? seems to me they're afraid of that point of view because the argument in favor of it is maybe more convincing than they would like. hence, of course, in trying to suppress it they in fact further legitimize it.


My point wasn't to discuss who orchestrated 9/11 and why, because that was done in another thread.  My point is that the professor had a right to express his theory as an idea for discussion, but if he oversteps that line and heralds it as a fact without substantial evidence (as it stands, I only see it as a conspiracy theory) then he should be reprimanded.

Any teacher who says stuff conservative Republicans don't like oughta be fired! FIRED YA HEAR!
>:(

The Bush family and the Bin Laden Family are good friends. They're both filthy rich and politically powerful. News item: Rich and powerful people practice deceit to further their own interests above the public interest.

I think you all know there's something fishy about the Bushes and 9/11 and you wish there was not. If you intimidate educators and politicians out of discussing the issue, perhaps you can stop the public from understanding plutocratic power in the 21st century, which has:
a. No regard for human life.
b. No loyalty to nation or people, only to money.

But let's not talk about that.

My point wasn't to discuss who orchestrated 9/11 and why, because that was done in another thread.  My point is that the professor had a right to express his theory as an idea for discussion, but if he oversteps that line and heralds it as a fact without substantial evidence (as it stands, I only see it as a conspiracy theory) then he should be reprimanded.
well, you can't really talk about the legitimacy of what this guy's doing without talking about who orchestrated 9/11 and why. isn't that what this is all about? unless you assume the conspiracy theory about the 19 guys with the itty-bitty knives is unquestioningly true, in which case everyone who says anything deviating from it should be fired for deviating from the party line.

if the guy thinks what he's teaching is true, he should teach it as though he thinks it's true. once the politicians start thought-controlling the college professors (and bear in mind this guy's supposed to be teaching grownups! this isn't the eighth grade here, if it were that would be a different matter) we're ALL in deep doo doo.

once the politicians start thought-controlling the college professors (and bear in mind this guy's supposed to be teaching grownups! this isn't the eighth grade here, if it were that would be a different matter) we're ALL in deep doo doo.


I agree with you here.  This is why I posted the article in the first place, I believe the Wisconsin legislature overstepped their bounds in trying to control what this professor is teaching, but my feeling is that the article wasn't clear on whether the professor was using his theory as gospel or simply presenting it as an idea, which leads me to:

if the guy thinks what he's teaching is true, he should teach it as though he thinks it's true.

Not even SCIENTISTS will teach this way unless the experiments have been proven true 99% of the time.  We will say/hypothesize what we think may be happening, and propose alternative hypotheses and mechanisms that result from the discussion and from references in previous literature, but NO scientist will ever say, unequivocally, that something is absolutely true unless there is no possible way to disprove it.  And even when something is accepted as dogma, we test the sh!t out of it anyway because according to the scientific method, we must test the hypothesis until it can no longer be accepted to be true...at which point we form a new hypothesis.  And if scientists won't go 100% on stuff that is supposed to be scientific FACT, then humanities professors, who by nature are scholars of a subjective nature, have to tread even more carefully when they present something in class as "fact".

Now...as I have said before...if this professor is using his theory as a topic of discussion, and will allow a student with a dissenting view, like myself, to challenge his views and further the discussion--i.e. he will listen to my viewpoint, accept that I have a different opinion, dissect the opinion, and tell me where he thinks I am wrong--I am more than okay with that.  I have had these discussions with my liberal friends and friends more conservative than I whom I do not agree with, and they are always engaging.  The moment that he says "This is how it is and if you do not believe me then you FAIL" is where we draw the line, because the conspiracy theory can be disproved.  At this point there is no way to absolutely disprove the conspiracy theory, no more than you can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that Osama did it.  So keep it open for discussion, but don't preach gospel and expect that we will take you for face value.

There were teachers of mine in high school who took an obviously conservative or liberal bias, but the good thing about all of them is that they were able to argue with themselves with a dissenting viewpoint from their own.  They presented both sides.  If this prof presented both sides, the legislature has no case.  If he said "You will believe as I do or you will fail" then we have a different story.

well, you can't really talk about the legitimacy of what this guy's doing without talking about who orchestrated 9/11 and why. isn't that what this is all about? unless you assume the conspiracy theory about the 19 guys with the itty-bitty knives is unquestioningly true, in which case everyone who says anything deviating from it should be fired for deviating from the party line.

if the guy thinks what he's teaching is true, he should teach it as though he thinks it's true. once the politicians start thought-controlling the college professors (and bear in mind this guy's supposed to be teaching grownups! this isn't the eighth grade here, if it were that would be a different matter) we're ALL in deep doo doo.

As said professor replied to Sean Hannity--
FOX News represents the biggest bunch of political extremists and paranoid conspiracy theorists indoctrinating Americans. Some little Ph.D. in Madison, Wisconsin, doesn't stand a chance against the right-wing torrents of sewage the mainstream media dumps on the entire country day in and day out!



Now...as I have said before...if this professor is using his theory as a topic of discussion, and will allow a student with a dissenting view, like myself, to challenge his views and further the discussion--i.e. he will listen to my viewpoint, accept that I have a different opinion, dissect the opinion, and tell me where he thinks I am wrong--I am more than okay with that.  I have had these discussions with my liberal friends and friends more conservative than I whom I do not agree with, and they are always engaging.  The moment that he says "This is how it is and if you do not believe me then you FAIL" is where we draw the line, because the conspiracy theory can be disproved.  At this point there is no way to absolutely disprove the conspiracy theory, no more than you can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that Osama did it.  So keep it open for discussion, but don't preach gospel and expect that we will take you for face value.


I did not see evidence the professor was enforcing concurrence with his ideas on pain of failing the class...but you know what? One man's discussion is another man's indoctrination, and one man's indoctrination is another man's discussion.
My beef with the Right is they don't merely object to contrary points of view on 9/11, they object to scientifically accepted points of view on the theory of evolution and the theories of global warming.  That's why the Republicans are proud to have Senator Inhofe and his psychotic little fantasy that global warming is a hoax. I mean, which is more nuts: "The Bush family is behind 9/11" or "There's no such thing as global warming, it's a hoax made up by anti-capitalist environmental whackos"!

Not even SCIENTISTS will teach this way unless the experiments have been proven true 99% of the time.  We will say/hypothesize what we think may be happening, and propose alternative hypotheses and mechanisms that result from the discussion and from references in previous literature, but NO scientist will ever say, unequivocally, that something is absolutely true unless there is no possible way to disprove it.  And even when something is accepted as dogma, we test the sh!t out of it anyway because according to the scientific method, we must test the hypothesis until it can no longer be accepted to be true...at which point we form a new hypothesis.  And if scientists won't go 100% on stuff that is supposed to be scientific FACT, then humanities professors, who by nature are scholars of a subjective nature, have to tread even more carefully when they present something in class as "fact".

but he's a social sciences/humanities professor, right, not a science one? i did something like six years in various humanities programs (fallacious appeal to authority, there) and the way you made a written argument is by assuming the truth of the argument you're making and then making your case as convincing as possible. (which means among other things presenting counterarguments in order to refute them.) since "proof" is never an issue your argument stands or falls on the force and conviction of your rhetoric and the appeal of your argument.

i would certainly prefer if this guy took a more contingency-based approach to teaching but if he wants to teach this stuff as fact, it's up to the students to exercise basic common sense and realize that just because this guy says it's so doesn't make it so necessarily. but i definitely don't think he should be reprimanded, and i sure as hell definitely don't think 9/11 should be taught (on the institutional/curriculum level) as though there's a received conventional wisdom (this being the warren -- sorry, 9/11 commission report) and everything else is just an interesting curio.

and for the record, i can't stand ward churchill. not because of what he says per se, but just because he has no intellectual rigor.

anybody hear about jeb bush's move to make it required that florida public schools teach history as an unambiguous, monolithic text not open to interpretation? that's the sort of thing that scares me.

I mean, which is more nuts: "The Bush family is behind 9/11" or "There's no such thing as global warming, it's a hoax made up by anti-capitalist environmental whackos"!


I actually think they're both prespammersite.  Global warming is an issue I do not wish to discuss in this thread though ;)  I think it happens but it doesn't happen at a scale that people are freaking out about.


but he's a social sciences/humanities professor, right, not a science one? i did something like six years in various humanities programs (fallacious appeal to authority, there) and the way you made a written argument is by assuming the truth of the argument you're making and then making your case as convincing as possible. (which means among other things presenting counterarguments in order to refute them.) since "proof" is never an issue your argument stands or falls on the force and conviction of your rhetoric and the appeal of your argument.

i would certainly prefer if this guy took a more contingency-based approach to teaching but if he wants to teach this stuff as fact, it's up to the students to exercise basic common sense and realize that just because this guy says it's so doesn't make it so necessarily. but i definitely don't think he should be reprimanded, and i sure as hell definitely don't think 9/11 should be taught (on the institutional/curriculum level) as though there's a received conventional wisdom (this being the warren -- sorry, 9/11 commission report) and everything else is just an interesting curio.


As with any subjective argument, there are always holes in the reasoning, and my only wish was that he would allow for counterarguments in his course instruction.  An example would be, "Okay class, I know that some amateur cameras caught a plane crashing into the Pentagon, but if you look closely it sort of looks like a cruise missile.  While I cannot prove that it was indeed a cruise missile, the lack of airplane wreckage seen in stock photographs and the pattern of structural damage around the building seem to suggest a missile strike."  In that case he has presented his case while addressing the counterargument.  Students like myself will still think he's nuts, but at least he made a genuine attempt at constructive discussion by allowing for point-counterpoint.  That's all I really ask.

For the record, I do not absolutely dismiss the idea that the Bush family orchestrated 9/11, but the coordination and absolute precision it would take to make for such a possibility is mind-boggling.  Improbable, NOT impossible.


and for the record, i can't stand ward churchill. not because of what he says per se, but just because he has no intellectual rigor.

anybody hear about jeb bush's move to make it required that florida public schools teach history as an unambiguous, monolithic text not open to interpretation? that's the sort of thing that scares me.


I did not hear about that and I don't expect something so stupid to pass.  Not that it can't pass, but geez.

I actually think they're both prespammersite.  Global warming is an issue I do not wish to discuss in this thread though ;)  I think it happens but it doesn't happen at a scale that people are freaking out about.

As with any subjective argument, there are always holes in the reasoning, and my only wish was that he would allow for counterarguments in his course instruction.  An example would be, "Okay class, I know that some amateur cameras caught a plane crashing into the Pentagon, but if you look closely it sort of looks like a cruise missile.  While I cannot prove that it was indeed a cruise missile, the lack of airplane wreckage seen in stock photographs and the pattern of structural damage around the building seem to suggest a missile strike."  In that case he has presented his case while addressing the counterargument.  Students like myself will still think he's nuts, but at least he made a genuine attempt at constructive discussion by allowing for point-counterpoint.  That's all I really ask.

For the record, I do not absolutely dismiss the idea that the Bush family orchestrated 9/11, but the coordination and absolute precision it would take to make for such a possibility is mind-boggling.  Improbable, NOT impossible.

I did not hear about that and I don't expect something so stupid to pass.  Not that it can't pass, but geez.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Barrett

here's a wikipedia article on the guy, with external links. he seems pretty interesting. my guess is his curriculum has less to do with the forensics (pictures of the cruise missile in the pentagon) but more the political reasons why a government might do such a thing and the cultural reasons why it might be possible to keep it a secret.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Barrett

here's a wikipedia article on the guy, with external links. he seems pretty interesting. my guess is his curriculum has less to do with the forensics (pictures of the cruise missile in the pentagon) but more the political reasons why a government might do such a thing and the cultural reasons why it might be possible to keep it a secret.


Interesting.  I am not completely adverse to conspiracy theory, as I have stated before.  If he presents it as a discussion forum then that's cool with me...not exactly a class I'd personally take though :D

Have you read John Grisham's "The Brethren"?  There is a major subplot in there about the government orchestrating several terrorist attacks to scare the Americans into voting for a tougher candidate who would rebuild the military and exert American supremacy.  Kind of funny to see fact from fiction, eh?

Interesting.  I am not completely adverse to conspiracy theory, as I have stated before.  If he presents it as a discussion forum then that's cool with me...not exactly a class I'd personally take though :D

Have you read John Grisham's "The Brethren"?  There is a major subplot in there about the government orchestrating several terrorist attacks to scare the Americans into voting for a tougher candidate who would rebuild the military and exert American supremacy.  Kind of funny to see fact from fiction, eh?
i didn't. there's some similar stuff in "white noise," and i think they say this professor is into philip k. dick -- i tell ya, "scanner darkly" is about the most paranoid thing i've seen since oliver stone got his brass ones lopped off. i loved it!

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2006/07/kevin-barrett-james-fetzer-911.html

this is the best of those wikipedia links, it's a conservative site but inadvertently i think makes the point that barrett's much more about politics than forensics. (this guy he appeared with, james fetzer, i'm actually familiar with him and he's not someone to take seriously, although i don't doubt his sincerity.) it's funny these guys make the point that barrett takes a dim view of mainstream culture as "infantilized" etc. and then goes on in the next paragraph to say the average "joe six pack" isn't gonna know about the mannlich carcano. so the idea appears to be, anyone who represents the "other side" is easily duped, whereas "we" know better.

thank you sooooo much. now i've been listening to interviews with this guy all afternoon.

the fox news interview is hilarious.

care to explain THIS? :o

Rice_Cube
Equal Opportunity Offender
Nestor le Pingouin
***

Karma: 37
Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 911