Opinion
Rehiring Barrett too risky
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Emily Friedman:
- Tenure at paper teaches, changes (May 10, 2007)
- Straight or gay, hire either way (May 3, 2007)
- Tragedy provides opportunity to re-evaluate nation's violent culture (April 19, 2007)
- Anti-abortion methods go too far (March 29, 2007)
- 'Don't ask, don't tell' hypocritical (March 15, 2007)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Kevin Barrett is a lucky, lucky guy.
Against all odds — from skeptical University of Wisconsin administrators to scathing criticisms by newspapers across the nation — Mr. Barrett survived the fall semester and the controversy surrounding his course, "Islam: Religion and Culture." In fact, he did far more than simply survive the term: He emerged from the entire episode with bragging rights, thanks to glowing reviews from his students.
To backtrack a bit, Mr. Barrett is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who, over the past year, has garnered a massive amount of media coverage. He believes the Bush administration was behind the terrorist attacks.
But things got complicated when UW hired him as a lecturer — much to the dismay of students, faculty and administrators, as well as legislators like state Rep. Stephen Nass, R-Whitewater. Critics worried — understandably — that his outlandish views would reflect poorly on the university and that Mr. Barrett would be unable to separate his own beliefs from the course material.
And now, just as Mr. Barrett's name had slipped from the headlines for a few months — a void that was surely welcomed by students and faculty alike — he's back. But this time, in a good way. According to anonymous student evaluations filled out by students who took his course this past fall, Mr. Barrett's lecture wasn't so bad, after all.
So I can't help but wonder, if Mr. Barrett decides to reapply for a position at UW come spring, should the administration take him seriously? Would they dare welcome back the very man they despised just months ago for his ability to drag the university's name through the mud — and on Fox News, no less?
At the end of the day, it's hard to dispute that Mr. Barrett fought a good fight and apparently conducted himself professionally within the classroom. What's more, he's got the paperwork to prove it.
Students debunked concerns many had expressed that Mr. Barrett would force his 9/11 theories down their throats and also attested to the fact that very little of the course was focused on the conspiracy theories. In fact, one student was quoted in The Badger Herald saying he wished Mr. Barrett could teach an entire course on conspiracy theories.
And the negative evaluations? Most criticized a lack of organization by Mr. Barrett, certainly a common student complaint about professors.
If the decision faces administrators as to whether they should consider rehiring Mr. Barrett, get ready for a bumpy ride. It will surely evolve into an issue — undoubtedly throwing Mr. Barrett back on the front page — certain to affect many parts of the university community.
On one hand, many students may resent an administration that, in a selfish effort to protect the university from additional unwanted publicity, would choose to pass on hiring Mr. Barrett. These students are paying tuition to go here, and they were the ones who actually dealt with Mr. Barrett as a teacher. Shouldn't their opinions of him matter?
But what about the reality that having such a controversial lecturer on campus may drive away potential students? And what about the probability that more donors will be dissuaded from giving money to the university?
While both sides of the argument have merit — and more points can be made on both sides of the issue — it would be surprising for a university like ours not to care about its image. Although it would be nice to think these student evaluations weighed heavily in the minds of the decision makers, I doubt very much they will.
I am a firm believer in both the power of the student voice and in the marketplace of ideas. I do not question the ability of students to sift through what they do and do not believe in, Barrett or no Barrett. I respect an institution that can keep different lecturers and professors on campus, with their own sets of ideologies, whether I agree with them or not.
But it has become increasingly evident that Mr. Barrett can be a loose cannon, and the risk of rehiring him is too great. Now that we have survived the semester, we would be stupid to not run while we can. To do otherwise would only be asking for trouble.
Emily Friedman (efriedman@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in journalism and legal studies.
19 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Brother Ali makes an ‘Exclusive’ stop
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
Wow, what a courageous stand. I’m glad we finally have such principled advocates for mediocrity in the face of a little controversy - now that’s the kind of fearless sifting and winnowing that would make ME want to donate money to such an enlightened university!
Miss Friedman, your backbone is missing.
Where is your proof that Barrett can be a loose cannon? Did Barrett go into the classroom to say, “Hey kids, guess what? your president killed your own people!” NO. Did he storm through class with the fury of the zealots we are accustomed to seeing at the base of Humanities? NO. Did he do anything more than what was his job: to lecture? No.
He was hired as a teacher, he taught students and actually got some kids who may never have taken that class to take it. Yes, the publicity was bad, but if we bowed down senators and the supposed moral majority everytime a controversial issue came up, we’d still be twiddling our thumbs under a British Flag.
Plus, since this man is a lecturer here, he most certainly is an active scholar. That means his conspiracy theories will be tested in the coming years and decades. Let him gather his evidence and we’ll gather ours, but I think we can both agree that it shouldn’t dominate the classroom discussion.
The fact of the matter is, considering the job expectations once he was hired, he was above average in his performance. So hire him again. The people I talked to liked his class. If religious studies can provoke this kind of interest, all for the better.
why the hell would you write this? now he’ll wrote an angry letter back and whip up media attention all over again, giving him EXACTLY what he wants.
Good article.
I hope University of Wisconsin gets up the courage to take a principled stand just as BYU did with Prof. Steven Jones should Barrett reapply.
I know I want Fox News making all of our educational discusions. So what if his students raved about the class? This place isn’t supposed to be about students and education. After all,we all know education has a liberal bent. This is about appeasing the corporate over lords.
Wait, let me get this straight.
“And now, just as Mr. Barrett's name had slipped from the headlines for a few months — a void that was surely welcomed by students and faculty alike — he's back.”
Except that he isn’t. The university hasn’t made a decision on whether or not to re-hire him yet. The only reason “he’s back” in the headlines is because YOU put him there. So, if the void was so welcomed by students (I could not agree more), why write this article at all?
As far as I can tell, the only real “news” you are commenting on is the nature of the evaluations Barrett received.
Ugh…stupid news stories NO ONE cares about that the media absolutely MUST cover: first Barbaro (thank God that horse is finally dead), then Anna Nicole Smith (why should we care that a drunk, coked-out, stupid pseudo-porn star is dead?), and now on the Wisconsin campus, Professor Kevin Barrett.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ll be pounding my head against my desk.
3:13am Kevin Barrett himself folks.
Why don’t you actually take his class and come up with an informed opinion? Or are you scared of controversial topics?
Yeah, let’s hire faculty solely on ideology, not on clear teaching ability or even student reviews. Go back to Bob Jones.
Yeah, they should teach us what we already know. Trying to convince us of something we don’t believe would shatter our delicate and naive world view. Hopefully, Dubya’s nipple will never run dry so I never have to stop suckling.
Loose cannon? I thought “he conducted himself professionally within the classroom”?
“Yeah, let’s hire faculty solely on ideology, not on clear teaching ability or even student reviews.”
Already happening, hard to get hired if you aren’t a liberal.
Wow - the students like him, he conducts himself professionally, and Bill O’Reilly and Steve Nash are his primary opponents.
Sounds like UW couldn’t find a better ally.
wow emily, you really know how to tow the company line. you fit right in with the rest of the sleepwalking braindead americans.
Aside from the fact that anyone with half a brain and a couple of hours to do some research can see that government officials were complicit in 9/11, it would be completely draconian not to rehire Barrett simply because of his political views. In fact, unless I’m mistaken, it is illegal to discriminate against a potential hiree because of their politics, particularly when he is obviously qualified and well-liked by his students.
Emily, FYI:
Jumbo-Jets can not demolish skyscrapers.
Justin Keogh Physics Undergrad Tucson. AZ
I’m a UW alum and I would make a future donation to the university ONLY IF THEY REHIRED Barrett. So how’s that for a counterpunch?
“But what about the reality that having such a controversial lecturer on campus may drive away potential students?”
This statement is preposterous. Barrett is a brave man for sticking to his guns for what he knows to be the truth. If others in academia followed suit, this country might stand a chance of saving itself from the rouge criminals whom have done more damage to America than hardly anyone can imagine.
Any sane person who mindfully looks at the heaps of evidence pointing to 9/11 being an inside job, cannot deny the fact it sure looks to be true. Why did Building 7 collapse at 5:20pm in controlled demolition fashion when it was never hit by plane? Silverstein admitted they pulled it for god’s sake. Both towers came down at near free-fall speed exploding into fine dust. This because of fire alone?? Come on.
NO STEEL FRAME BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED FROM FIRE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD….except on 9/11 that is. And three building for that matter. Ahh huh, sure.
Are we’re supposed to accept as truth (from the lying government) that the entire operation was run from some random cave on a laptop, defeating our billion dollar defense system!! Ha ha ha ha ha….give me a break!
NORAD stood down, there’s no question about it. Norman Mineta testified that Cheney gave the stand down order (look on YouTube for the footage C-SPAN censored).
When will the lying mainstream media come clean and expose the blatant cover-up? We all know already and it’s making you fools even more criminal than you already are for keeping this from the American people and the world. We want justice for the true perpetrators of 9/11 NOW!!
WE WANT OUR COUNTRY BACK. Repeal Patriot Acts I and II. Repeal Military Commission Act. Re-instate Habeas Corpus. No NSA wiretaps. We want a real investigation into pre-Iraq lies leading the country to war with hundreds of thousands dead. The list is endless what these murdering traitors have done. And all because of the fraud that was 9/11. Impeach, try, prosecute, jail, and throw away the key!
Why was there molten steel underneath World Trade Center 1, 2, & 7? Surely someone can answer this question. Right?