<p><a href=“http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-0602070235feb07,1,6453318.story?coll=chi-technology-hed[/url]”>http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-0602070235feb07,1,6453318.story?coll=chi-technology-hed</a></p>
<p>thoughts?</p>
<p>I saw this today too…</p>
<p>these professors have no business teaching bright young minds.</p>
<p>Well, we can scratch Northwestern University as someplace my 16-year old daughter will apply. Just as Justice Jackson said that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, perhaps we should take a similar tack with regard to academic freedom - academic freedom shouldn’t be a pact to permit evil to continue to teach and collect a university paycheck.</p>
<p>Well I am glad that Hillel is there to set a different tone-One of remembering the Holocaust.</p>
<p>The article that link directed me to was actually an account of NU’s reaction, which I thought was appropriate.</p>
<p>Butz’s views, publically state, were known to the University as early as 1976, the year of the publication of his book. </p>
<p>"13th IHR Conference: A Resounding Success</p>
<p>Optimism, Confidence Mark International Revisionist Meeting</p>
<p>A landmark meeting, characterized by confidence and optimism, brought together scholars, activists and friends of the Institute for Historical Review over the weekend of May 27-29, 2000. Some 150 men and women – some flying in from as far away as Australia, Argentina, Chile, Switzerland and Finland, as well as from across the United States – met in a spirit of continuity and renewal at a pleasant hotel in Irvine, southern California.</p>
<p>This 13th IHR Conference, by all accounts a resounding success, and perhaps the most spirited and successful ever, featured leading figures in the international revisionist movement. The forthright banquet talk by former Congressman Pete McCloskey and the rousing address by British historian David Irving were probably the most memorable high points of the three-day meeting. Four of the featured speakers – Robert Faurisson, Arthur Butz, John Bennett and Ernst Zündel – had addressed the very first IHR Conference in 1979, and one attendee – Harvey Taylor – had been at all 13 IHR conferences."</p>
<p>Butz published his book “The Hoax of the 20th Century” in 1976.</p>
<p>Not only that, but in 1996 Northwestern went out of its way not to renew the contract of an adjunct professor who challenged Butz’s “theories” in his classroom:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.k9ape.com/c96/candor03.html[/url]”>http://www.k9ape.com/c96/candor03.html</a></p>
<p>Butz can’t have sold too many copies, as the entire book is available for free on the internet.</p>
<p>mini,</p>
<p>Just because Northwestern didn’t renew the contract of the adjunct instructor who challenged Butz’s view doens’t mean Northwestern sided with Butz. If you read carefully, you’d notice Butz didn’t discuss his view in his classroom (I wish he did so the University could have an excuse to fire him but this guy is not dumb) while Sheldon did. Northwestern doesn’t care whose view is more right or wrong as long as it’s not discussed in the engineering classes. But Sheldon insisted on inserting Holocaust in his class and that’s what got him into trouble. By the way, Cohen, I was told, is actually Jewish. There’s no way he would side with Butz anyway.</p>
<p>Butz was tenured in 1974. He holds ludicrous views on a subject unrelated to the one he teaches (engineering). </p>
<p>There was a comparable situation when I was at Stanford: William Shockley, a Nobel-prize winning professor of engineering, had become fixated with his peculiar views on eugenics, which he felt were more significant than his role in inventing the transistor.</p>
<p>Here’s what the American Association of Colleges and Universities says on the subject:</p>
<p>"Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties; but research for pecuniary return should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the institution. </p>
<p>"Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject. Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment.</p>
<p>“College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.”</p>
<p>Northwestern would be in breach of its employment agreement with Butz if it were to fire him for speaking or writing as a citizen. If you want to strike from consideration every school that enters into such agreements with its tenured professors, you won’t have many schools to chose from.</p>
<p>But Epstein’s course WAS on the ramifications of technology and ethical decisionmaking in technology, and the Holocaust was directly relevant to the course and subject matter he was teaching. The Dean (Cohen) made it clear to faculty that “ethics” must become a full part of the education of engineering students. Working in the same department as Butz, how it could it not be part of the education of engineering students?</p>
<p>I think NU just didn’t want to have to air their dirty laundry with Butz, and so they sacrificed Epstein.</p>
<p>mini,</p>
<p>First of all, did you actually sit in Sheldon’s class? How do you know Holocaust was really relevant to that course? How do you know he’s not using the class to lobby students to challenge Butz’s view? Looking it the other way, had there been no Butz, would Sheldon be as compelled to “incorporate” Holocaust into his class? If Sheldon could share his view with students on Holocaust, then so could Butz. Now, that would really be annoying for those students!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even professor Lewis, who is Jewish and teaching at NU, acknowledged she had no first-hand knowledge of the circumstances and was withholding judgement. </p>
<p>Several years ago, a biochemistry professor at Berkeley was also creating quite a stir by saying HIV doesn’t cause AIDS (or something like that). Berkeley didn’t fire him either.</p>
<p>Something I found that might be relevant:
</p>
<p>LOL! How is that relevant? That “article” is a hoax–it’s so generic that you can substitute “Northwestern” with any others (try Duke, Wash U, Emory, Stanford and you end up with the same crappy article; can’t use Ivies though).</p>
<p>For those who haven’t noticed, Butz has been stuck with being an “associate” professor (instead of FULL professor) since 74. I have never seen someone stuck at one level for that long! So for those who thinks NU hasn’t done anything, perhaps this would make you feel better.</p>
<p>First of all, let’s be clear: I DON’T think Butz should be fired. Nor would I prevent my kid from attending NU if she chose on his account. Don’t confuse me with someone else. </p>
<p>Was Epstein compelled with or without Butz to incorporate the Holocaust into his class? Of course not! Were technology issues relevant? With information we now have about the use of IBM equipment and technology to enable to tracking necessary to carry out the Final Solution, and the issue raised at David Irving’s trial about the technology needed to administer Cyclon B, and about the relationship between government and technology, I could hardly think of anything more central to a discussion of technology and engineering ethics.</p>
<p>Sam Lee, I think the joke is that you can use the same “scanty” evidence to claim universities don’t exist, as some deniers have done with the holocaust. It’s a swipe at Butz and those like him.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>mini,</p>
<p>To me, he was incorporating it as a response to what Butz did.</p>
<p>As professor Lewis pointed out, where the proper place for the discussion of “ethical” issues is in a university is a complex topic. Cohen adviced Sheldon not to discuss Holocaust in his class but Sheldon did just the opposite anyway. So here we have a person who’s on contract assignement disregarding the advice of the boss. Let’s just forget it’s about Holocaust for a minute. I don’t think it’s unusual for the boss not to renew the contract with this person especially when there are many other qualified ones waiting to land that contract. NU didn’t really “went out of its own way”.</p>
<p>“To me, he was incorporating it as a response to what Butz did.”</p>
<p>I should hope so! And if Butz had not been there, Cohen would have given no such instruction, since a discussion of the Holocaust would be integral to an exploration of technology/engineering and ethics. In other words, just as I said, NU didn’t want to air its Butz dirty laundry in public, and was unhappy with Epstein as a result.</p>
<p>I don’t think you have enough first-hand knowledge to make any conclusion. You are entitled to your speculation though I have to say it’s rather baseless.</p>
<p>Another obvious reason to eliminate the entire concept of tenure. Take this guy and the idiot Sioux-imposter at Boulder and let them have at each other.</p>