University Instructor Likens Bush to Hitler
By Shawn Healy
Kevin Barrett's push to pin blame for the 9-11 attacks in the course he teaches at the University of Wisconsin-Madison hits close to home for me as I stand as a proud graduate of the fine institution. While I vehemently disagree with his message and find the parallels between Nazi Germany and the contemporary United States repulsive, I support my alma matter's decision to retain him as a member of the faculty for the sake of academic freedom. Barrett's absurd beliefs deserve consideration in the marketplace of ideas, and his backhanded praise of Hitler at the expense of the current President will be shunned in the process of sifting and winnowing facilitated by the First Amendment.
CNN released a story detailing Barrett's opinions as revealed in a course packet assigned to students: University Instructor Likens Bush to Hitler.
CNN released a story detailing Barrett's opinions as revealed in a course packet assigned to students: University Instructor Likens Bush to Hitler.
2 Comments:
We know that not all speech is protected. To use the tired but worthy example, one doesn't have the First Amendment right to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Since not all speech is protected there must be a spectrum of speech, one end which contains protected speech and one which contains proscribed speech or at least speech which can be punished. Our challenge as a society then is to define under what circumstances speech may be punished.
Since we know that defamatory speech may be punished, what is wrong with punishing Barrett on the grounds that his speech defames President Bush in fact, without respect to whether or not the President files a defamation suit or not? Alternatively, why can't an employer decide not to employ someone who speaks offensively to some of its constituents? Doesn't this merely promote civilty?
Defamation is definitely punishable if pursued and proven, but the President is a public figure and therefore subject to unabridged criticism unless actual malice can be proven. By my estimation, this certainly cannot be proven here.
In relation to your second point, I don't dispute the university's right to make decisions relative to employee performance. If Mr. Barrett failed in his duties as a professor to present a broad array of perspectives in his classroom, dismissal is warranted. His teaching was scrutinized, and the university rightly decided to retain him on these grounds. If he was fired for viewpoint reasons alone, academic freedom would be sacrificed for a majoritarian worldview. College students are mature enough to weigh his opinions with their own and others they will encounter in a free learning environment. In most cases Mr. Barrett's absurd leanings will be rejected and their own convictions strengthened as a result. If the marketplace of ideas is weakened on college campuses, where will it flourish?
Post a Comment
<< Home