A few weeks ago I posted something (see here) about the showdown in Wisconsin over academic freedom that was sparked by Kevin Barrett’s suggestion on a radio talk show that 9/11 was an inside job (Barrett is an adjunct instructor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison).  At the time I pointed out that Representative Steve Nass–who was chiefly responsible for trying to get  Barrett fired–has subsequently vowed to use the “power of the purse-string” to seek administrative cuts in the state-funded university budget.  See here for an update concerning Nash’s latest crusade. 

On a related note, Stanley Fish attempted to shed light on the issue in yesterday’s New York Times (see here).  Jennifer Hansen–of Mad Melancholic Feminista fame–has posted an interesting response here.  I am no less skeptical than she is about the tenability of Fish’s analysis.

UPDATE: Today’s Los Angeles Times has yet another article about the Barrett affair (see here).  Apparently 61 of Wisconsin’s 133 lawmakers have given the university an official ultimatum–either fire Barrett or reap the financial consequences in terms of budget cuts.  What is their justification for the ultimatum?  The tax-payers of Wisconsin purportedly don’t want to pay people like Barrett to teach lies to their children. 

The main problem with this line of reasoning is that Barrett’s course–which is entitled, "Islam: Religion and Culture"–will focus on "the history of Islam, the Koran and the faith’s effect on modern-day U.S. society."  Absent seeing the syllabus for the course, why would anyone think he would be teaching the students his views concerning 9/11?  After all, Barrett never said he was going to teaching his views about 9/11 in the classroom at all–his comments were made during a radio talk show and they were about his personal beliefs. 

It appears the good lawmakers of Wisconsin are operating under the following assumptions:  (1) If P says x in public, then clearly P will teach x to her students.  (2) If most people believe x is false and P is going to be teaching x to her students, P ought to be fired.  The unfolding debate seems to focus on the merits of (2)–which is pretty bad as far as it goes–but we need to be focusing on (1) instead.  After all, absent evidence that Barrett will be teaching his students his views concerning 9/11–we have no way of evaluating the merits of the argument the legislators have put forward.