Demented UNH Professor Says US Govt. Planned 9/11

[Jodi]

OBIFOLD –

To what degree is this conspiracy theory any less gibberish than literal gibberish? I don’t know, and neither do you. We can guess that the answer is “not much degree at all”. That’s likely a very good guess. But it’s still a guess. We as individuals cannot judge the value of his research based on guesses. And for that reason, he should not be fired based solely on that guess.

I’m in favor of academic freedom, but I think this post – and this professor – highlights an inherent problem with it, which is that there seems to be such slavish devotion to the idea of academic freedom that people refrain from using the common sense God gave them. The slavish deference to academic freedom leads, in cases such as this, to an institution that should be defending rationality and fighting ignorance actually defending irrationality and spreading ignorance. “Academic freedom,” in other words, trumps the institution’s very mission of educating people. IMO, that’s an example of having a mind that is so open your brain falls right out.

In the name of academic freedom, people are given the right to say massively stupid thing they see fit, and their institution supports them by standing silently by. And that is a form of support. This professor, like every professor, has the prestige of his position and his institution behind him. He is “the teacher,” and when he makes an argument, he makes from a position of implied authority. To say others will use their right to free speech to argue against him is all well and good, but it doesn’t change the fact that he, as an academic, is trading on the credibility of himself and his institution and will reap the benefit of many people assuming his position must have some true to it, could not possibly be mere lunacy, because, hey, he’s a professor.

I think it’s a very thorny issue, because academic autonomy *is[/i hugely important, and undermining it undermines the university. But at some level things like hate-speech and demonstrably intellectualy unsound theories also undermind the university, and I see little acknowledgement of that in academic circles – no, someone mentions the “academic freedom” buzzwords and the administration lies right down. I would like to see more thought put in to how to preserve the values and integrity of the institution as a whole, when faced with situations like this. IMO, that would not include firing the guy, but it certainly would include having the institution distance itself from the intellectually indefensible, and maybe even taking a lead role in showing that it is intellectually indefensible. No doubt that would lead the professor to cry “persecution” from his own institution, but I do not believe that such institutions should allow their better judgment and common sense to be silenced – as they do – every time the sacred cow of “academic freedom” is trotted out.

[DanBlather]

@Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor

Creating a Causus Belli is a commonplace tactic.

The idea is not as odd as it might seem.

Yes it is:

Fetzer argues the hijacked planes could not have destroyed the World Trade Center. Among other claims, he says several of the suspected hijackers have turned up “alive and well.”

It is in the realm of possibility that the administration had a mole that encourages teh hijackers or knew about it in advance and let it happen, but it is flat out lunacy to claim that something other than the planes brought down the towers.

Now if this professor does not talk about this in class and doesn’t let it affect his work that is one thing, but if he presents this in class then it is little better than talking about flat earth or creationism.

[Anne_Neville]

There have been lots of people who made significant contributions to their field of study while holding loony opinions on other things. Isaac Newton’s well-known interest in alchemy comes to mind, as does Johannes Kepler’s writings about astrology and mysticism. A modern example of someone who held loony views on something not related to his field of study would be William Shockley, one of the inventors of the transistor, and his ideas on eugenics.

If this guy is wasting class time talking about his 9/11 theories instead of teaching psychology, or spending his time promoting those theories instead of publishing papers in psychology journals, discipline him for that, but don’t fire him just for holding loony theories.

@elucidator

Yes, just a soon as the taxpayers elect an Aribiter, someone who can legally determine correct and acceptable opinions from rabid lefty moonbattery.

I’m volunteering for that job. I will even filter out rabid righty moonbattery, as well, at no additional charge.

[Xan]

@DanBlather

Yes it is:
It is in the realm of possibility that the administration had a mole that encourages teh hijackers or knew about it in advance and let it happen, but it is flat out lunacy to claim that something other than the planes brought down the towers.

Why is it lunacy?

[Malthus]

What is disturbing is not that the Prof holds nutty views. I think that what he believes is his own business.

What is disturbing, is that he evidently teaches and intends to do more teaching of said views. From the article:

Woodward has discussed the theory in his classroom and has said he hopes to teach a new class that would explore Sept. 11 “in psychological terms.”

Academic freedom is one thing - I take it that means that a prof cannot be fired for holding “controversial” views. Fair enough, the trade off is that some nuts get through in order to ensure that research/consideration of the unpopular continues.

However, it appears from the article that this fellow does not seperate his political demogogary from (say) teaching Psychology. Is it an infringement of academic freedom for the university to insist that he teach Psychology in Psychology class, and not 9/11 conspiracy theories? If it is, are there any limits on what a prof can legitimately teach students? Do we really believe universities are improved by having profs peddling pet religious and political positions, and presumably attempting to indoctrinate students in them, rather than teaching the disciplines they were intended to teach?

[DanBlather]

@Xan

Why is it lunacy?

We have four missing planes. Thousands of people (relatives of killed passengers, air traffic controllers, gate agents, owners of the different airlines, military escort pilots) know first hand that the planes disappeared. We have footage of them hitting the towers, we have wreckage, we have videotapes of the hijackers in the airport, we have immigration records, we have evidence in their car, we have Osama Bin Laden taking credit, we have the people that trained the hijackers on simulators. Clearly there is no rational basis to deny that the planes were hijacked and crashed into the towers and Pentagon.

Now are we to believe that the perpetrators thought that crashing two planes into the WTC, one into the Pentagon, and a 4th attempt into some other govt building was not suffcient to stir calls for revenge? No, what happened is that undetected by anyone a team snuck around the WTC planting explosives so that they could be detonated hours later in the off chance there was not enough damage from crashing planes full of fuel into the buidings. Somehow, however, none of the conspirators have been found and no evidence of explosives has surfaced.

[Squink]

@DanBlather

Somehow, however, none of the conspirators have been found

Where the hell is bin Laden anyway? After five years, Bush’s talk of being ‘on the hunt’ for the mastermind sounds more and more like Texas slang for ‘on vacation’.
If we really wanted to catch the guy, we’d have done it by now.
Why don’t we want to catch him?

[saoirse]

@Squink

Bush’s talk of being ‘on the hunt’ for the mastermind sounds more and more like Texas slang for ‘on vacation’.

Heh My ex-Father-in-Law calls it “going to get some ice.”

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

Really fabulous points made on academic freedom thus far. I have little more to add on that score.

If this guy is espousing bullshit theories that are not relevant to his topic or syllabus, and have no educational purpose, then I think his offense is wasting students’ time. Yeah, that’s serious, and I hope he is taken to task for it.

I think this concern over impressionable young minds, however, is overblown. College students are very quick to identify bullshit (if anything they may be a little too quick with that diagnosis). I am not particularly worried about how he’s warping or “indoctrinating” them. If he’s a fucking loon on this topic, then students probably know he’s a fucking loon–particularly if the syllabus reads “PSYCHOLOGY” and he’s giving them “Conspracy Theories about the U.S. Government”

I’m not excusing him, but let’s be realistic about the damage he’s doing.

[RTFirefly]

There’s always more Ward Churchills out there. This guy’s one of them. BFD.

[DanBlather]

@CrankyAsAnOldMan

I’m not excusing him, but let’s be realistic about the damage he’s doing.

Problem is we are paying for him and students are being denied the opportunity for a sane professor. It’s not like there is an infinite trough of money we can use to educate students. Keeping clowns like this on, when John Q Public can be forced out at whim from their job, will lower people’s willingness to fund higher ed.

[Orbifold]

In the name of academic freedom, people are given the right to say massively stupid thing they see fit, and their institution supports them by standing silently by.

Except, of course, the institution is not standing silently by. You seem to have read my post but missed this quote from the article in the OP.

Andy Lietz, chairman of the system’s Board of Trustees, said he asked university administrators to review Woodward’s comments in the classroom. He maintained, however, that Woodward may belong to any organization he chooses, and that he may present controversial material so long as he does it responsibly.

Emphasis added.

I think it’s a very thorny issue, because academic autonomy is hugely important, and undermining it undermines the university. But at some level things like hate-speech and demonstrably intellectualy unsound theories also undermind the university, and I see little acknowledgement of that in academic circles – no, someone mentions the “academic freedom” buzzwords and the administration lies right down.

“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” --Winston Churchill

Substitute “free academic inquiry” for “democracy” and “science” for “government”. We’ve already seen in the twentieth century what happens when people try to manage scientific inquiry, to use “common sense” to mandate what research is appropriate and what isn’t. On one side of the Atlantic there was Lysenkoism; on the other side, there were “loyalty oaths” for teachers. Today, we have more than enough groups waiting in the wings for that door to open again; their “common sense” tells them that evolution is a sham, that the earth is less than 4000 years old, and that there’s a conspiracy of university professors out there actively looking to indoctrinate students in anti-Americanism. Free academic inquiry may allow the occasional kook, but I’d trust it over “common sense” any day.

[Carol_the_Impaler]

@DanBlather

Problem is we are paying for him and students are being denied the opportunity for a sane professor. It’s not like there is an infinite trough of money we can use to educate students. Keeping clowns like this on, when John Q Public can be forced out at whim from their job, will lower people’s willingness to fund higher ed.

Now who’s being histrionic?

Seriously, the way UNH handled this makes me want to make a donation.

I’m not sure that you understand what academic freedom means and why tenure means what it means and why it’s absolutely vital.

Lots and lots of things have come to be accepted that were initially thought to be insane. Lots of things have been tossed aside when they were demonstrated to be insane.

Professors of all subjects need to have the freedom to explore and express unpopular, wacky, controversial, and yes insane ideas.

I certainly hope that your dangerous and short-sighted opinion is rare.

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

@Squink

Where the hell is bin Laden anyway? After five years, Bush’s talk of being ‘on the hunt’ for the mastermind sounds more and more like Texas slang for ‘on vacation’.
If we really wanted to catch the guy, we’d have done it by now.
Why don’t we want to catch him?

As long as bin Ladin is out there, the Reps have something to scare the sheep with.

[Jodi]

@Orbifold

Except, of course, the institution is not standing silently by. You seem to have read my post but missed this quote from the article in the OP: “Andy Lietz, chairman of the system’s Board of Trustees, said he asked university administrators to review Woodward’s comments in the classroom. He maintained, however, that Woodward may belong to any organization he chooses, and that he may present controversial material so long as he does it responsibly.”

Surely you know that the university’s Board of Trustees is not part of its day to day administration. The very quote you cite says the this trustee has asked the administration to review Woodward’s comments – it certainly doesn’t say the university administration has agreed to do so or intends to do so. The very first sentence of the article you are quoting from says “University of New Hampshire administrators are standing behind a tenured professor who has publicly theorized that the U.S. government orchestrated the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks . . . .” The university’s interim president is positively deferential to the professor’s POV. “For me,” she says, "there is no doub that this tragic incident was the result of terrorists . . . " But hey! That’s just one woman’s opinion. And her professor can disagree, in the university’s classrooms, because he has a right to free speech. We all have the right to free speech, and the university could exercise its own to distance itself from this person if it chooses, but it doesn’t. IMO this is a complete abdication of rational, reasoned discourse, in the name of “academic freedom.” Yes, he has the right to be as stupid as he chooses – on his own time. But the university has more choices than just standing there saying nothing, while allowing him to co-opt its stature and subvert the values it should stand for – of which academic freedom is only one.

We’ve already seen in the twentieth century what happens when people try to manage scientific inquiry, to use “common sense” to mandate what research is appropriate and what isn’t.

I have never advocated shutting the man up, or “mandating” what he can say (though as to that, the school already to some degree “mandates” what he teaches, and rightly so). The analogy in science would be if you had a CDC scientist coming out and saying AIDS is a man-made plague intended to kill minorities and homosexuals – and the CDC stood mutely by, no – worse, issued a statement: “For me, AIDS is a viral disease . . .” but we stand behind our scientist because he has “freedom of speech.”

You make the obvious slippery slope argument, which is to challenge an academic on theories that are hateful, biased, irrational, or academically unsound is but one step to censorship, which is but one step to government control, the Orwellian thought police, and the earth crashing into the sun.

Free academic inquiry may allow the occasional kook, but I’d trust it over “common sense” any day.

Contrary to what you and the “academic freedom uber alles” crowd seem to believe, it’s not an either/or proposition. And that’s my point: You don’t have to say, “we’re choosing academic freedom, so we’re dispensing with common sense.” The university is not required to have no reaction or opinion on views that are hateful, objectively indefensible, or stupid, just because they are coming from a professor. The marketplace of ideas doesn’t mean that you can say any damn fool thing you want and your prestigious, hopefully ignorance-dispelling employer has to stand silently by. There are choices other than fire him or support him. I wish the university would explore them.

[DanBlather]

@Orbifold

Substitute “free academic inquiry” for “democracy” and “science” for “government”. We’ve already seen in the twentieth century what happens when people try to manage scientific inquiry, to use “common sense” to mandate what research is appropriate and what isn’t. On one side of the Atlantic there was Lysenkoism; on the other side, there were “loyalty oaths” for teachers. Today, we have more than enough groups waiting in the wings for that door to open again; their “common sense” tells them that evolution is a sham, that the earth is less than 4000 years old, and that there’s a conspiracy of university professors out there actively looking to indoctrinate students in anti-Americanism. Free academic inquiry may allow the occasional kook, but I’d trust it over “common sense” any day.

And substitute salt for sugar and your cookies will taste bad. In terms of evolution, your approach would make it impossible to fire a teacher that decides to teach his/her biology students that the earth is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs are extinct because they didn’t fit on the ark.

I am all for free scientific inquiry, but no one has a “right” to expect others to pay for it.

[elucidator]

Not quite. A professor of English Lit is perfectly entitled to believe and state his belief opposed to evolution. Similarly, a prof of biology is equally entitled to believe that the relationship of Virginia Wool and Vita Sackville-West is the dumbest subject in the world.

You quality control approach is valid only in that the professor needs to verify his expertise, and ignorance or rejection of the accepted facts of his chosen field would nullify his standing.

[Scylla]

Seems like a fairly normal left wing viewpoint to me.

[elucidator]

By which you mean treasonous, or merely demented?

[DanBlather]

Jodi you said it better than I could (or have).