Forget the academic freedom bit. That's a red herring. He can think and say what he likes and teach it as well. I remember (vividly) a University Professor and Head of the Chemistry Department (Cape Town) who was crazy. The Vice Chancellor let him go on, and on, and in the end he holed up in his office with a .22 rifle and it became a nightmare. That's Academic Freedom in action. But it was an exception.
It's this man's nutty idea that needs to be examined. Is it true? Is the report factual or distorted? Newspapers are well known for getting things right out of context. If this is not the case he's digging his own grave. If he really believes that those buildings were deliberately blown up by the US government, then he's crazy and not fit to teach anyway. Don frank theriault wrote: > On 7/25/06, Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Which part do you consider bullshit? What the man proposes to teach, >> or the university defending his right to teach it? Personally, I >> think freedom of speech must encompass ideas that the mainstream >> considers repugnant. >> > > Right you are, Bob! > > For one thing, at university, they call them "professors" for a > reason. To profess is merely to affirm a belief. At a post-secondary > level, the assumption is that students are at a level that they can > research the professors affirmations and form their own opinions as to > whether the professor is right or wrong. > > Up to the end of high school we have "teachers". To teach is to > impart knowledge. The distinction between teachers and professors is > an important one. > > This guy in Wisconson may (or may not be) a nutbar, but I defend his > right to lecture whatever he wants. Moreso, I defend his university's > right to pay him and have him lecture there. The fact that tax > dollars go to that university does not give the taxpayers or the > legislature the right to demand that the guy gets sacked. At most, it > gives them the right to pull those tax dollars out of the place, but > then 90% or more of the students will be harmed due to (what's > portrayed as) the rantings of this loonie. > > The other thing, of course, is that perhaps, just perhaps, if someone > actually sat in on this guy's course and read the materials, he might > have a few accurate things to say, and he might have evidence to back > up his assertions. Stranger things have happened. It's hard to judge > based on a newspaper article - and a biased one, at that. > > I've got to admit, I always wondered how it is that the Pentagon isn't > one of the best defended buildings in the world, with all the latest > detection devices and radar and defences. I've always thought it a > bit strange that something as complex and difficult to pilot as a > modern airliner, flown by a rank amateur, managed to get through those > defences and score a direct hit. I'm not saying this guy's right, but > it makes one wonder. > > cheers, > frank > > > -- Dr E D F Williams www.kolumbus.fi/mimosa/ http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams/ 41660 TOIVAKKA – Finland - +358400706616 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
