On Jan. 21, University of Wisconsin law professor Ann Althouse wrote on her blog, ?I don’t know why the University of Wisconsin has not rehired 9/11 conspiracy believer Kevin Barrett to teach a course on the history of Islam. But if we know a person believes something truly nutty, are we not entitled to use that as evidence of his intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness??
This is an amazing statement coming from a professor of law ? a position that presupposes a respect for carefully considered evidence. Her assault on Mr. Barrett, in which she makes no effort to consider the countless facts backing the so-called Truth Movement, is shamefully flippant ? her word choice of ?truly nutty? ? and unworthy of an academic intent on attacking another.
Without going into details easily found on the Internet, a considerable army of architects, engineers, physicists, logicians, commercial and military pilots, first responders, military figures all the way to general officer, and government personnel including FBI and CIA agents has amassed a solid case countering the official story. That army is all the greater for the addition of similar experts from countries all over the world.
Ms. Althouse has refused to debate the issue in public forum. That being so, how does the objective observer avoid a conclusion of moral cowardice on her part? As a professional, is she not obligated to present evidence rather than indulging in personal attack?
There is irony surrounding Ms. Althouse’s questioning of Mr. Barrett’s intelligence, judgment and trustworthiness, because it leads one to the question, ?If we know that a law professor is willing to attack someone for no reason that she could defend in a courtroom situation, would we not be entitled to question her intelligence, judgment and trustworthiness?? And there is little doubt that in a courtroom, in which she would face that army of experts and their facts, she would be reduced to dust on the floor.
Professor emeritus, biology