I dunno. It’s that peculiar quality of assertions made with lunatic certainty combined with a self-loathing masquerading as hatred of America, masquerading as independant though, which is to the left-wing as ice is to the Daquiri.
It’s an apt metaphor in that the final result is the same: blended fruit.
ELUCIDATOR –
And his employing institution – or the individual’s working there, including the president and provost – is/are equally perfectly entitled to say “we think his position is bullshit, because it is contrary to the known facts and cannot be rationally supported.” But they don’t. Once he runs up the flag of “academic freedom” they curl up like boiled shrimp, because what they ought to do – rigorously challenge his theories, scholarship, and conclusions – looks to much to them like what they cannot do – tell him to shut the fuck up.
I’ll bet Rove knows. These nuts starting to crawl out of the woodwork were probably like a Christmas present wrapped in bows and pretty shiny holographic paper. This is just starting to reach an audible chatter. By the next election, the populace will forget all the bad things the Republicans have done because, hey, at least they’re not LOONY like the Democrats (points to the noisy conspiracy idiots and even noisier plants in order to swiftboat the entire Democratic pary and all Liberals. Such a grand and glorious plan. And it will work.
Just in case the electronic voting machines don’t.
See?
I’m so Liberal I’d scare your mama, and I think your username is pure bullshit, but I agree with this 100%.
What’s the frequency, Equipoise?
I’m a liberal too, but I don’t know if I’d scare your mother. My username is not a dig at Dan Rather, it’s an inside joke about my nickname in high school.
Well, maybe. Kinda hard to be sure what that “blended fruit” cracks is supposed to be about. I mean, I’m pretty sure its snotty, but…what? Some kind of retro homo innuendo? I dunno.
My deepest apologies Dan. You do realize it makes you look like an asshole right-winger though, don’t you?
Carol Stream, fuck off.
No offense taken.
Getting back onto the tenure track (I love puns), does being tenured actually protect the prof. from being terminated for teaching stuff that’s demonstrably false as though it’s fact? If so, that’s a messed up system just begging for abuse. If not, then the university should chuck the guy, and if they don’t, the legislature should stop their funding of any program that contributes to keeping him there.
To answer both of you, tenure does not prevent a university from firing someone based on evidence of incompetence, especially in the classroom. As I’ve already said, if the material isn’t relevant to the class this Woodward fellow is presenting it in, or if he’s presenting it in a way that’s designed to intimidate students or stifle debate, then fire his ass for not doing his job in the classroom.
At this point, I’m not sure what you’re arguing. If someone else at UNH wants to speak up and prove the guy wrong, that’s the very essence of academic freedom, and I have no issue with that at all. But beyond disagreeing with him…which I have no objection to…or firing him…which you seem to object to…what are you suggesting UNH do?
It is an either/or proposition. Either university campuses are a safe havens where any idea can be debated on its merits (and if need be rejected on its merits), or they’re not. You call it a slipperly slope argument, I call it arguing from historical precedent: academic freedom has come under attack again and again, and every time it’s happened there’s been a chilling effect on both teaching and research. And that chilling effect cannot be contained to just the subject of the current ire. I choose to defend academic freedom, vigorously, because I believe history has demonstrated it to be better than the alternative. I’m sure people in the “market forces uber alles” crowd or the “democracy uber alles” crowd feel the same way.
You say this guy is obviously wrong? Fine. Then let his ideas die their natural death. Better yet, jump in the fray and prove him wrong. That is the correct response to an “obviously wrong” idea in academia. You think 2+2=4? Prove it (or find someone who can or already did). You think evolution is obviously more correct than Intelligent Design? Then defend it. You think this wacko is wrong? Then show him why.
OK, lets say that 100 people at UNH prove this guy is an idiot. Now what? Is it your contention that UNH needs to continue to pay him after that? That they are required to allow him to provide misinformation to students? That he can lend credence to his ideas by the fact that he is a UNH professor?
Do you feel the same about holocaust deniers, flat earthers, people who like Bay Watch?
I’m suggesting UNH fire him for teaching stuff as true that’s already been proven to be actually untrue.
Speak. Up. Not “if someone at UNH wants to speak up,” UNH itslef should speak up. What I am suggesting they do – and what I frankly think I’ve been pretty clear in suggesting – is publicly demand that this person defend his “scholarship” and, when he cannot, publicly refute it and distance the institution from it. Not mealymouthed bullshit non-denials that actually work to support him like “For me, this was a terrorist act” – as if there’s any doubt about it; as if there that is nothing more than an opinion, and by extension another opinion might be just as valid. Do they have to let the man talk? Arguably, yes. BUT there is nothing to stop them from talking as well – individually, and institutonally - and saying “this is stupid and we neither respect it nor support it.” Not “Well, gee, I, as the university president disagree, but that’s just me.” But they don’t, because “academic freedom” is interpreted so indefensibly broadly as to include BOTH a privilege that the professor be allowed to speak AND a prohibition against the employing institution disagreeing with or refuting him. It is the second that is IMO inconsistent with the larger missing of an educational institution, which is not merely to encourage the free expression of ideas, no matter how nuts, but also to engourage critical thinking of ideas, along with the expectation that a theorist will be able to defend his or her ideas, the defense of a thesis being itself a cornerstone of scholarship.
The opportunity to debate any idea on its merits does not mean that every idea must be given the same degree of respect or be free from challenge once it’s aired. There is no reason to start from the presumption the idea has merit at all. There is no reason wy the institution itself cannot participate in the “debate” when the idea is so beyond stupid it conflicts with the institution’s primary mission.
I don’t see what’s so hard about this.
Not very. “Academic freedom” shouldn’t mean that public schools can be used to promote nutjob science and history, be it six-day creationism, Holocaust denial, the African origin of Greek civilization, Velikovskyism, conspiracy theories in general, or the 9/11 hoax theory.
I haven’t seen anything that challenged his sanity or his ability to teach his topic effectively and accurately. I’ve known professors whos personal views seemed very wrong to me, but who were fine educators. I think the Scholars for 9/11 Truth are misguided, but an insanity diagnosis is extreme to me. It also isn’t clear to me how much or how often he has “devoted class time” to discussing his views. Is it something that came up on one day, or is it a portion of every lecture?
When the Wisconsin instructor got public attention for his views about 9/11, there weren’t allegations, AFAIK, that he was teaching it in class. But the provost was going to follow up and review his instruction to see is his course content was “appropriate.” Is that the kind of thing that would appease people who are most worried about this UNH guy? Or is it an automatic shitcanning you’re aiming for?
Incidentally, I don’t know what the outcome of the WI thing was–some of you who are passionate about this topic maybe have an update. Do share.
Just curious: what “proof” does this guy offer that some of the highjackers are alive and well?
I am not up on all the conspiracy aspects, but I believe within days of the attacks, the London Times had interviewed (or at least located) some of the Saudi citizens who had been credited as hijackers. Their passports had been stolen and their identities assumed by the hijackers. How this is significant, or how this fits into the craziness, I do not know.
What the hell was that for? You started with the Dan Rather insinuations on Dan’s username. :dubious: