Questioning 9/11 and Academic Freedom

A professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison named Kevin Barrett has met with a storm of criticism after it came to light that he intends to spend a small portion of his class on Islam -- less than 10 percent of the semester according to him -- discussing the "War on Terror" and numerous "conspiracy" or "alternate" theories about the attacks on 9/11 (story here). Barrett believes that the three attacks of September 11 were caused by "triggered explosions", and has stated that, "...9/11 had nothing to do with Islam. The war on terror is as phony as the latest Osama bin Laden tape."

In response to numerous calls by the Minnesota governor and other local politicians for Barrett to be fired, the provost at the university reviewed the professor's "past teaching and plans for the class" and determined that he is fit to teach. The university has also stated that despite the fact that many may find his theories disturbing or offensive, that is not grounds to stifle academic freedom and censor his views. The state legislature, however, disagrees and has threatened to cut the university's funding if it allows Barrett to follow through with his plans.

This case brings to the fore a number of issues dealing with who should determine what is "acceptable" material for professors to teach, and highlights a difficulty inherent in state sponsorship of universities -- the tendency for government bodies to censor unaccepted views with financial threats. While most of those objecting to Barrett's course material generally see the question as unambiguous, it in fact raises serious questions as to who should determine what is "acceptable" material, especially keeping in mind that throughout history important truths have often been extremely unpopular. If the academic community is to be monitored and censored by government officials in this manner regarding the 9/11 attacks, what is to stop them from weighing in on what is historically, economically, and scientifically "acceptable"? Allowing the government to dictate what is "acceptable" discourse in our institutions of higher learning -- even when the views espoused are considered "extreme" -- sets an extremely dangerous precedent.

The academic community has always successfully ensured that pseudo-science and conspiracy theories do not gain traction as legitimate academic pursuits. In order to determine what is legitimate, however, different theories must be openly discussed, not stifled by government coercion. The certainty with which most people dismiss "alternate" 9/11 theories is usually not due to any sort of empirical certainty, but is rather a knee-jerk reaction borne of political outrage. If Mr. Berrett believes that he can present a persuasive theory, he should be free to do so. The academic community will assess his theory on its merits and will most likely (though not certainly) find it to be lacking.

What should be most disturbing for defenders of free speech and academic freedom in this case is the influence political officials have over such academic matters as a result of their control of university funding. It is inevitable that the government, wherever it provides funds for academic institutions, will to some extent attempt to influence the university's curriculum, however this influence should be minimized as much as possible. Even if such influence is kept to a minimum, the situation in which our academic institutions are held hostage to the whims of political opinion is unacceptable.