|
Saturday, August 05, 2006In this post on Kevin Barret, Ann Althouse is half-right. Says Ms. Althouse, the problem is not Barret's identification of himself with the university but that in their eyes it's alright with the university for him to teach nutty ideas as long as he keeps it quiet.Althouse is correct when she says that the adjunct professor shouldn't be using his class to espouse nutty ideas. However, she is incorrect in her assertion that she doesn't herself represent the university when her professional affiliation is given before she speaks. In an ideal world, the truth would be enough and titles and affiliations wouldn't matter. In the real world, Ann Althouse, University of Wisconsin, speaks with more authority than Leonard the Homeless Person at 3rd and Vine. Unless Ann Althouse, University of Wisconsin, makes enough of an idiot of herself that people begin to question whether a speaker from the University of Wisconsin could possibly have anything to say. The University of Wisconsin is a brand. It is a brand elevated or dragged down by the quality of its spokespeople. At the same time, its ability to maintain quality spokespeople lends added credibility to those affiliated with it who are not yet known to the audience. As such, Barret has been devaluing the U of W brand, as surely as Ann Althouse elevates it. The best way to resolve the free speech, university rights, etc, question, is to look for a solution that satisfies all parties as see what elements are found therein. Here's a proposition: Imagine if Kevin Barret a) taught his curriculum in class and stayed away from ranting but b) ranted as loonily as desired but on a website that didn't highlight his university affiliation. In this case, yes, someone could find out who he was and question the university, but he could honestly report that he wasn't trying to drag the university into his personal politics. Still, if he wrote a paper that got accepted in a peer reviewed journal, or spoke about matters particular to his discipline on the radio, staying roughly in tune with what was being discussed in the peer-reviewed journals, that would be great. What went wrong is that he used his U of W affiliation twice - in the classroom as a professor and in his communications - which implies that his authority to speak comes from the U of W, not his own say-so. That is the problem. Because Ms. Althouse is thoughtful and well-spoken, the issue of representing the university hasn't come up, but only because she represents the university well. With Barret, the problem is that he has represented the university poorly in multiple fora. The university should have canned him for his abuse of a captive audience first, and second for affixing their names to nonsense. And Ms. Althouse should be glad that she had the U of W name behind her to get her first notices before she started doing the university credit instead of drawing her credibility from the university. 
posted by gbarto at 11:25 AM |
Archives
|
Day By Day© by Chris Muir.Old TurkeyBlog here.
