You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Culture Wars
The new nutty professors
2006-08-30
As state colleges and universities begin the school year, deans and trustees should familiarize themselves with a group called "Scholars for 9/11 Truth." This group, the new locus for September 11 conspiracy theories, believes that the official history of the terrorist attacks is a hoax. But unlike garden-variety conspiracy clubs, this one happens to count nearly two dozen professors, instructors and other affiliates at state college and universities around the country among its members. Insofar as these people allow their nutty political beliefs to infect their teaching, school officials had better be equipped to make some decisions.

The University of New Hampshire probably wishes it had that advice last week. Over the weekend, a tenured professor of psychology, William Woodward, came under fire from Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican and State Senate President Ted Gatsas for telling the New Hampshire Union Leader that "there was a genuine conspiracy on the part of insiders at the highest level of our government" to orchestrate the September 11 terrorist attacks. This, of course, was compounded by another revelation: Mr. Woodward hopes to teach a class on the attacks. The class would examine them "in psychological terms -- terms like belief, conspiracy, fear, truth, courage, group dynamics," he told the Union Leader.

It's not just Mr. Woodward's sheer nuttiness that bothers people. It's the possibility of taxpayer-funded classes which legitimate that nuttiness. "I believe it is inappropriate for someone at a public university which is supported with taxpayer dollars to take positions that are generally an affront to the sensibility of most Americans," Mr. Gregg said, capturing perfectly the type of sentiment school officials will hear over and over as groups like "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" gain steam.

The university has backed Mr. Woodward so far, which will only make sense if the professor can show that he won't be teaching his theories as though they were rooted in fact or accepted outside his own echo chambers. That will be a tall order. The Union Leader quotes one class attendee, a National Guardsman who served in Iraq, who vouches for the professor. "He certainly doesn't try to indoctrinate the kids ... He just puts it out there." Even that is probably too much for taxpayers who hear about it.

Most people have come to expect a certain amount of nuttiness from academia and are reconciled to it -- but not when it comes to September 11. Conspiracists can believe whatever they choose in the privacy of their own homes and can proclaim it in lecture halls they rent with their own resources. But don't expect taxpayers to subsidize it. Those who do will get the William Woodward treatment.
Posted by:Omiper Unenter9180

#3  "Scholars" should know better than to try to "teach" an opinion.

Unless it's labelled the theory of evolution, of course! {snicker}
Posted by: Bobby   2006-08-30 11:44  

#2  And if you excuse me, leads to one of the underlying casual factors that men seem to be attending college in lesser numbers. With the proliferation of soft degrees in arts and humanities populated by females, the men looking at post high school education in a practical manner of return on investment, time and money, are headed to what would be considered trade or skill jobs. Hard studies like chemistry, mathematics, architecture, etc, donÂ’t seem to be suffering the same male flight that the soft degrees do. Graduate with a four year college loan debt in English or History or Art and what are the chances are you going to get employment in any of those fields outside teaching assistant while you build even more debt working to the next degree. Meanwhile, when you take your car in to the dealer for service, just how much an hour is that mechanic getting? ItÂ’s that sort of thing. Stuff like the hierarchical positioning games played by college wonks and lesser primates are something most guys can avoid by seeking productive income through other routes.
Posted by: Sleting Ebbager4513   2006-08-30 09:44  

#1  The myth is that one time institutions of higher learning were suppose to be centers of intellect. That's about as true as the news media was suppose to be neutral. It's something honored in exception rather than practice and more so in the past than any present incarnation of the process. The bulk of universities and colleges today are simply accreditation mills for employers. It's something to be placed upon a resume. The administrators try desperately not to acknowledge this fact cause they cling to the myth so they expend the value of their institution by defending self-important jerks and twits who played the tenure game. The ability to sell your product as having value and therefore is disguisable from say a community college is the prestige the product is held to is dependent upon how employers, those people who help pay off student loans by the means of employment, perceive what you deliver. Undermine that value by playing stupid games of inter-university politics and soon the name starts to lose value. You can live on branding only so long. Some longer than others, but eventually it will catch up with you.
Posted by: Sleting Ebbager4513   2006-08-30 09:31  

00:00