Screwball Lecturer in Madison

I've been following this story some. The University of Wisconsin has hired a lecturer named Kevin Barrett. That is a totally unspectacular story, except that Barrett believes in a conspiracy theory that says 9/11 was carried out as part of a White House plan. He will be teaching an introductory class on Islam, and part of the class will address 9/11. Many are outraged that Barrett would be hired, particularly when he will be teaching his screwy views as part of the class. Ann Althouse, a professor at Madison, has been following the story for a while.

Should Barrett not have been hired? Let me assume he is a decent quality educator so that the only qualification question is pointed at his personal views. It bothers me a bit to argue that holding certain ideas will get you disqualified. What other views will cost you your job? If an applicant for a lecture position does not believe in evolution, should that application be rejected out of hand? I don't know that universities should start walking down that path. Certainly the university has an obligation to provide a quality education, a goal which would be undermined by a lecture staff that only taught bizarre, off the way ideas. There must be an expectation that the lecturer will teach what will help the students, not hinder them. But that must leave room for unorthodox ideas, as well as the conventional ones.

So, taking the evolution denier example, there certainly must be the expectation that that person will teach evolution, should they be a biology professor or lecturer. But that should not preclude the possibility that the teacher could present some dissenting views as well. Quite frankly, if a science theory cannot stand a little questioning now and then, it isn't much of a theory. And scientists who aren't trained to question orthodoxy are going to be somewhat impaired as scientists.

It's ironic that it is the conservatives who are most outraged by Barrett's hiring, given the frequent complaints that the American higher education system is so conformist and does not foster an environment where dissenting views are acceptable. As conservatives might argue, isn't the university a place where questioning of orthodoxy should be encouraged? One of the best classes I had in college was the one where I was most challenged in my beliefs and outlooks. So, on the one hand we want to foster minds that will question, young people who will find things out for themselves rather than being mindless sheep following whatever is shoveled out as truth by others, but then we shut out teachers who's views we don't like? Talk about a nanny state, even controlling what ideas young adults are presented with lest they be lead astray.

I'm not defending Barrett's views. I call him a screwball in the title of this post. But if we have become so bad at education in this country that college age students can't be trusted to hear some screwball ideas now and then, then we are in serious trouble as a nation. Presenting them with screwball ideas is a good thing. It encourages critical thought and the ability to formulate an argument. Demanding that only orthodox ideas be taught encourages little beyond mindless obeisance.