Dr. David Ray Griffin and Kevin Barrett Respond to Recent NYTimes OpEd

The following two responses have been issued from Dr. Griffin and Kevin Barrett in response to the NYTimes OpEd from last Sunday.

David Griffin Replies to NY Times "Conspiracy Theories 101"

If universities were to enforce this restrictive interpretation, it would mean that biology professors could not explain their reasons for accepting evolutionary theory rather than “creation science”; physics professors could not profess their belief in (or against) the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory; and so on.

Fish would surely protest that he did not mean anything so absurd. He meant his restriction to apply only to political questions, as shown by his indications that what professors cannot do is promote “partisan political ideals” and “urge political action.” It is on this basis that he would argue that professors should not be allowed to tell their students that they believe the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by the Bush administration.

However, even with this less obviously absurd interpretation, Fish’s position is untenable. The question of who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks is a purely factual question, and if professors are prohibited from giving their answers to some such questions, academic freedom has been seriously curtailed.
..
The appropriate question to ask about professors who give their opinions about 9/11 in the classroom, whether to embrace or reject the official theory, is the standard one: Do they do so in an academically responsible manner, supporting their opinions with evidence in a way that could be defended before their peers?

Kevin Barrett Responds to NY Times Op-Ed "Conspiracy Theories 101"

Fish is right. As university instructors, we are being paid to teach students to think critically, not to parrot our personal views or regurgitate received wisdom. I say this despite the fact that one of my most valuable learning experiences as an undergraduate at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in the 1970s was auditing the classes of the late Harvey Goldberg, a radical socialist firebrand whose lectures, delivered in an inimitable rant while stalking the stage and gesturing in the manner of Mick Jagger, could hardly be described as dispassionate critical performances. Goldberg is still a hero of mine, though I no longer fall within hailing distance of his ideology or teaching style.

So how will I teach students about "9/11 and the war on terror"? Fish writes: “Any idea can be brought into the classroom if the point is to inquire into its structure, history, influence and so forth.” In an introductory course on Islam, it is entirely appropriate to devote a week to inquiring into the structure, history and influence of the “war on terror” as it is perceived by Muslims as well as non-Muslims. The fact that somewhere between 60% (Pew, 6/2006) and 89% (al-Jazeera, 10/2003) of Muslims and al-Jazeera viewers respectively believe that the story of the “19 Arab hijackers” is a lie is interesting, and worthy of critical analysis and inquiry. Likewise, the fact that 42% of Americans believe that the 9/11 Commission Report is a coverup (Zogby, May 2006) and that half of New Yorkers believe that top US officials committed high treason and conspiracy to mass murder on 9/11/01 (Zogby, 8/2004) is worthy of critical analysis—in the New York Times as well as the academy. Since there are a great many critics of the 9/11 Commission Report who appear to be arguing rationally and citing evidence that is not easily dismissed, it is imperative that the full light of critical scrutiny be focused on their claims.