What do Stanley Fish, Zinadine Zidane, and Mel Gibson have in common?

Carlos Rojas in The Naked Gaze:

In an Op-ed column in this past Sunday’s NY Times, Stanley Fish discussed the case of Kevin Barrett, the University of Wisconsin Ph.D. and coordinator for the “Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth,” who is scheduled to teach a course on “Islam: Religion and Culture” this fall, but who has argued that the US government was directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks. After he discussed these views on a conservative talk show, State Representative Stephen Nass (R) lead calls for Barrett’s dismissal from the university.

In his editorial, Fish argues that much of the ensuing controversy over whether or not  Barrett’s political opinions should be protected misses the point of what “academic freedom” does and does not cover. The point of academic freedom, Fish argues, “has nothing to do with content,” but rather “is the freedom of academics to study anything they like; the freedom, that is, to subject any body of material, however unpromising it might seem, to academic interrogation and analysis.”  Therefore, he concludes,

Any idea can be brought into the classroom if the point is to inquire into its structure, history, influence and so forth. But no idea belongs in the classroom if the point of introducing it is to recruit your students for the political agenda it may be thought to imply.

Ironically, Fish’s essay advocating a clear distinction between advocacy and analysis has been roundly criticized for its implicit ideological agenda (for some of these discussions, see Long Sunday and Sherman Don).

       

I, too, will consider Fish’s editorial and the issues it raises, but will approach them somewhat indirectly, by turning first to two other recent incidents which underscore the power of speech and its implicit limits. On July 9th, Zinedine Zidane’s headbutt of Marco Materazzi was in response to verbal taunting. Although FIFA states that both parties denied that the taunting was racist in nature, they nevertheless gave Materazzi a surprisingly harsh two-game suspension. More recently, on July 28 Mel Gibson was pulled over for drunken driving, and proceeded to launch into a profanity laced, anti-Semitic tirade, saying among other things, "F------ Jews... The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world."

More here.

Comments

[fred lapides]

Fishing aside, we have a PH.D in one subject area, teaching a course he has no background in, as a part-time instructor, and talking about 9/11, which has nothing to do with the subject of the course he is to teach...
Having a bit of experience in university teaching, I simply do not think lectures or discussions on issues not related to the course is an appropriate thing to do.

[cathy]

"It is in cases like this - difficult cases involving unconventional ideas - that we define our principles and determine our future".
It is great to see Wisconsin strongly supporting academic freedom. Now if Bollinger would just take his cue from that.
Professors should not be have the fear of subjection to disciplinary consequences for discussing unpopular even polemical or outright despicable ideas in the classrooms. There are no correct boundaries for patrolling ideas in universities. Organizations such as "Campus Watch" are doing the American universities a huge disfavour in the long run.

[Carlos]

Fred,
First, Kevin Barrett has a doctorate in African Languages and Literatures (with an apparent concentration in North Africa), which would seem a resonable qualification for teaching a general survey course on “Islam: Religion and Culture.” I know many tenured professors who routinely teach survey courses on material much further removed from their area of specialty.

Second, Barrett (according to news reports) will be devoting one week of his course to discussing 9/11 and its aftermath, which also seems entirely appropriate for a survey course on Islam. Indeed, given the geopolitical legacy of the 9/11 attacks, I think it would be a serious error not to include such a discussion in this sort of class.

[Jonathan]

For what its worth, the picture on the left is not Stanley Fish.

[Jonathan]

But it is now! Please ignore above.

[Abbas Raza]

Oops! Thanks for pointing that out, Jonathan. The picture now IS one of Fish.

Isn't it?!

[Abbas Raza]

We're just crossing comments now.

It is confirmed: the picture on the left is Stanley Fish!

Thanks again, J.

[fred lapides]

Let the guy teach what he will. Still not convinced that focusing upon 9/11 is a useful way to study Arab culture etc but then I am not teaching the course nor taking it. I had once taught a course in the literature of pornography.

[Seattle Man]

So a reasonable way to teach about Islam is to investigate (granting him that much) whether the "US government was directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks."

I guess I miss the connection. His expertise is in Islamic religion and culture.

Yet to do research and teach about a supposed US government conspiracy seems to require expertise in (at least) US government policy and techniques of criminal investigation. Does Barrett have the training to do such analysis?

I am all for inter-disciplinary work but I wonder if he really has the basic skills. Don't universities require direct expertise in a subject before you can teach it?

Barrett is not teaching about "ideas" but about analysis of facts. That requires an appropriate methodlogical kit.

[carlos]

Seattle Man,

The issue you raise is not uninteresting, but it speaks more to the relationship between specialization and cross-disciplinarity within contemporary academia than it does to the specific case at hand.

That is to say, instructors at all levels are currently expected, and even encouraged, to touch on matter outside of their strict area of professional expertise. History professors are encouraged to discuss literature and film, anthropology professors are encouraged to touch on politics and religion, and literature professors are encouraged to draw on philosophy and psychology. One may disagree with this general trend in academia, but it is far from unique to Kevin Barrett's course.

The Wisconsin provost's official announcement stated that Barrett "will spend a week examining current issues, including a brief discussion of various views on the war on terror. Barrett told Farrell that he plans to base the discussion on readings from authors representing a variety of viewpoints." Not knowing much more about the course than has been stated here, it seems to me reasonable to incorporate a discussion on the "various views on the war on terror"--a "war" which is commonly regarded as being a closely tied with Islam itself--into a course of Islam religion and culture. There is no implication that such a discussion would necessarily touch on issues of "US government policy and techniques of criminal investigation.

[Seattle Man]

"... it seems to me reasonable to incorporate a discussion on the "various views on the war on terror"--a "war" which is commonly regarded as being a closely tied with Islam itself--into a course of Islam religion and culture."

Well yes it is reasonable but a discussion of whether the US Govt was involved with 9-11 is NOT a discussion of public perception of Islam and since so many Moslems resent the connectionj of the war on terror with their religion, it seems to now tirnabout and defend this professor because "Well we all know that Islam and terror are related." :)

We'll have to qagree to disagree on this one.

Distrust in the US Govt does not increase trust for Islam.

•••

More broadly:

"People who regularly read daily newspapers or listen to radio newscasts were especially unlikely to believe in the conspiracies."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/279827_conspiracy02ww.html?source=mypi

[carlos]

Seattle Man,

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Yes, that may true, but perhaps that might be the appropriate attitude to take toward Barrett himself. While you are certainly correct that "many Moslems resent the connection of the war on terror with their religion," it is nevertheless true that that ostensible connection is repeatedly asserted and implied in popular discussions of the war. Therefore, it would seem reasonable to address this alleged connection in a survey course of this sort, precisely in order to interogate those allegations.

Furthermore, to the extent that the conspiracy issues may be touched on in these discussions (and nothing in the university's public statements indicates that these issues would comprise a significant component of even the 1 week discussion of "various views on the war on terror," it may be true that "people who regularly read daily newspapers... were especially unlikely to believe in the conspiracies," but it really depends on which "people" (and which newspapers, etc.) you are looking at. It is nevertheless a fact that significant proportion of Muslims (both in the US and abroad) give credence to "theories" of this sort. Again, I am not suggesting that the theories necessarily have merit, but merely that they are part (arguably an important part) of the public debate.

In general, this was a judgement call for the university to make, they, after reviewing Barrett's syllabus, teaching record, etc., made what I believe was the correct decision. What Barrett advocates outside the classroom does not, in the case, appear to have any relevance to his competency as an instructor.