PLANETIZATION and the Human Union

MUJCA-NET's
ENDORSERS

GROWING TRENDS  

Ramadan Reflections

Truth is our Trench

Wisconsin Provost Will 'Review' Teaching of Instructor Who Calls the 9/11 Attacks an 'Inside Job'

By JOHN GRAVOIS

The provost of the University of Wisconsin at Madison announced last week that he would conduct a "review" of the teaching of an instructor at the university who believes that the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, were orchestrated by the U.S. government.

The provost's announcement came amid calls from state legislators to fire the instructor, Kevin Barrett, after he discussed his views on a local conservative radio talk show.

Mr. Barrett is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a group that includes about 50 professors around the country who dispute the official story that Al Qaeda hijackers carried out the attacks. Mr. Barrett and the other scholars in the group argue that the attacks were an "inside job" designed to sow fear among Americans and to provide a pretext for war in the Middle East (The Chronicle, June 23).

Mr. Barrett, a Muslim, is also a founder of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth, a Madison-based group. On that group's Web site, he writes, "From a Muslim perspective, it hardly seems worthwhile to engage in dialogue with non-Muslims who believe that 9/11 was an act of 'Islamic terrorism.' Either we discuss the compelling evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, or there is precious little to talk about."

He did not return telephone calls or respond to e-mail messages from The Chronicle on Friday.

Mr. Barrett has been actively arguing his case about the terror attacks for several months. Last year he organized a well-attended talk at the university by David Ray Griffin, an emeritus professor of theology at the Claremont School of Theology and one of the most prominent members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Mr. Barrett also helped to organize a conference in Chicago last month called "9/11: Revealing the Truth -- Reclaiming our Future," a gathering of 500 people who believe the attacks were an "inside job."

However, it took an appearance last Wednesday on an AM radio talk show for Mr. Barrett's views to set off political alarms in Wisconsin. The day after the broadcast, a Republican state representative, Stephen L. Nass, issued a statement calling for the university to fire him.

"This case isn't about academic freedom," said Mr. Nass. "I firmly believe this is a case of protecting students from the academic garbage that Mr. Barrett spews."

Mr. Nass is among the state lawmakers who have been sharp critics of the university system over a series of controversies and snafus since last year (The Chronicle, November 25, 2005).

Also on Thursday, the university's provost, Patrick V. Farrell, issued a statement announcing his plan to review the instructor's teaching. (Mr. Barrett is under contract to teach an introductory course on Islam this fall.)

"Mr. Barrett is entitled to his own personal political views," the provost said. "But we also have an obligation to ensure that his course content is academically appropriate, of high quality, and that his personal views are not imposed on his students."

On Friday, Mark Green, a Republican U.S. representative who is running for governor, joined the call for Mr. Barrett's dismissal.

However, Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said that the law is "fairly clear" in its protection of Mr. Barrett's speech.

"We have much more to fear from the erosion of the protections of free speech and academic freedom than we do from the disagreeable opinions of any particular professor," he said. Mr. Lukianoff added that, even if the university does not find any cause to dismiss Mr. Barrett, the mere act of "reviewing" his teaching has a chilling effect on free speech.

"Investigations themselves, particularly when they're specifically brought about because of somebody's opinion, are especially threatening to free speech," he said.

David G. Walsh, president of the University of Wisconsin's Board of Regents, said he supported the provost's review. But he cautioned that universities should not "micromanage" controversy out of their syllabi. "At the end of the day we need to send a strong message to everyone that controversial ideas are entitled to more light, the light of day, so that they can be discussed and challenged," he said. "That's what our mission's about."

* * *

Kevin Barrett responds:

John,

I must say that I liked this article a lot more than your other one. Thank you for a remarkably fair and balanced piece.

With regard to:

"From a Muslim perspective, it hardly seems worthwhile to engage in dialogue with non-Muslims who believe that 9/11 was an act of 'Islamic terrorism.' Either we discuss the compelling evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, or there is precious little to talk about."

This relates to my reasons for bringing the subject up, and critically examining the different views, during the one week, of fifteen weeks, of my Islam course that is devo---------------------ted to the "War on Terror." A recent poll showed that a strong majority of Muslims worldwide do not believe Arabs carried out the attacks. Any Islam course that addresses contemporary issues needs to acknowledge and critically explore the reasons for this -- which are not unrelated to the reasons why 42% of Americans, and every colleague with whom I have discussed the matter except Donald Downs, believes or at least strongly suspects that the 9/11 Commission Report is a cover-up. At the same time, I will do my best to be fair to the approaches to the topic that I do not share. I believe I have been more than fair to the standard American account of 9/11 in my past Islam courses.

I am glad you are mulling over the truth movement, and urge you to read the best 9/11 revisionist scholarship, not just whatever you find on the internet. David Griffin's two (now three) books as well as his internet articles, Paul Thompson's The Terror Timeline, Nafeez Ahmed's The War on Truth, and the ongoing Steven Jones project, taken together, mount a formidable challenge to the official account (a massive understatement in my opinion, but one that I think you will endorse if you read this literature). I also recommend Global Outlook magazine, whose standards approach, and in some ways rise above, scholarly ones.

Thanks again for a job well done, and feel free to call any time.

Kevin

608-333-2859

* * *

On Jul 5, 2006, at 8:31 PM, Kevin Barrett wrote:

Hi John

Look forward to talking.
No hard feelings about your earlier article. You've noticed that I respond rigorously to journalists--for example, Jessica McBride: http://mujca.com/mujcaagents.htm
Anyway, call any time, my cell is working again 608-333-2859
Kevin

On Jun 30, 2006, at 3:05 PM, John Gravois wrote:

202-466-1724.

Kevin Barrett
Coordinator, MUJCA-NET: http://mujca.com
Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth