Don’t get me started on his brother Seymour...

March 10, 2006 10:47 AM

Northwestern engineering professor Arthur R. Butz has over 6,000 signatures denouncing his commendation of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's assertion that the Holocaust is a myth. Rumor has it the university was going to stop hosting faculty sites instead of singling out Butz. His (lousy) university webpage is still up though. Prompted in part by prev discussion here
posted by Smedleyman (100 comments total)

From NW President Henry S. Bienen:
“We cannot take action based on the content of what Butz says regarding the Holocaust – however odious it may be – without undermining the vital principle of intellectual freedom that all academic institutions serve to protect.”

Obligatory Wiki link.

The ADL doesn’t seem to like him.

Perhaps because he’s in the nazi database.

More Background
posted by Smedleyman at 10:48 AM on March 10, 2006

Also - he hasn't said anything about this in class (of course, it's probably not going to come up in engineering)
posted by Smedleyman at 10:49 AM on March 10, 2006

"Vital principle of intellectual freedom" wtf?
posted by rxrfrx at 10:53 AM on March 10, 2006

I sure wouldn't want to have to take a class of his and listen to him lecture me on anything.

This has got to be great for recruitment - Come to Northwestern and learn from one of the best known Holocaust revisionists in the nation!
posted by billysumday at 10:54 AM on March 10, 2006

"Vital principle of intellectual freedom" wtf?

You don't think freedom of speech is vital to academics?
posted by jon_kill at 10:57 AM on March 10, 2006

What is it about getting older that making engineering professors get all these freaking wacky ideas and/or conspiracy theories? Too much solder in the brain?
posted by ltracey at 10:59 AM on March 10, 2006

I'm not sure what Holocaust denial has to do with the sort of intellectual freedom we afford university professors within their job. Just because he shouldn't be thrown in jail for saying this kind of stuff doesn't mean he deserves to keep his job.
posted by rxrfrx at 11:00 AM on March 10, 2006

I sure wouldn't want to have to take a class of his and listen to him lecture me on anything.

This has got to be great for recruitment - Come to Northwestern and learn from one of the best known Holocaust revisionists in the nation!
posted by billysumday at 1:54 PM EST on March 10 [!]

The administration at Northwestern has always scheduled alternate classes at the same time as his sections so that no student would ever be forced to attend his class.
posted by trey at 11:00 AM on March 10, 2006

(*sorry. "that makes..."*)
posted by ltracey at 11:01 AM on March 10, 2006

I'm not sure what Holocaust denial has to do with the sort of intellectual freedom we afford university professors within their job. Just because he shouldn't be thrown in jail for saying this kind of stuff doesn't mean he deserves to keep his job.
posted by rxrfrx at 2:00 PM EST on March 10 [!]

Tenure is based upon the principle that no one can decide what kinds of ideas are or aren't acceptable. Yes, holocaust denial is reprehensible, but I'm sure there are many people who find the idea of genetically-based homosexually reprehensible, yet we don't fire professors for holding that view.
posted by trey at 11:02 AM on March 10, 2006

Heh...as a former Northwestern engineering student (who did not have Butz), I can say that he is known (or rather was known 10 years ago when I was there) for several things: His office in the janitor's closet in the stairwell. His having the lowest salary of any other tenured professor, due to it being frozen decades ago after he decided to go public with his claims. His eletrical engineering students all having a secret loathing for him and seeing the required courses he teaches as a unpleasant right-of-passage. The almost uncanny silence that his tenure almost always enjoys, except when he rears his ugly head.
posted by mrmojoflying at 11:06 AM on March 10, 2006

Just because he shouldn't be thrown in jail for saying this kind of stuff doesn't mean he deserves to keep his job.
So, you disagree with his speech and he should be fired?
posted by badger_flammable at 11:07 AM on March 10, 2006

smedleyman : Also - he hasn't said anything about this in class (of course, it's probably not going to come up in engineering)

Yeah, until he's asked to teach that all-important course on engineering gas chambers and large ovens ...
posted by kcds at 11:09 AM on March 10, 2006

I didn't know Holocaust revisionists called themselves holocaust revisionists... I thought "revisionist" was a kinda pejorative term...

Next thing you know, you see terrorists calling themselves terrorists...
posted by qvantamon at 11:09 AM on March 10, 2006

At my uni they pulled the pin on the whole "student forum" coz they didn't approve of some of the politics of the chat that was going on.

Their whizbang feature lasted less than a semester. Bit of a shame.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 11:10 AM on March 10, 2006

trey's got it. This is (or at least was :( ) a free country. That means people are free to hold opinions you don't like, even ones you can _prove_ are wrong.

No way should he be fired for this. The antidote to speech you don't like is more speech, not censorship. Lefty authoritarianism is just as bad as the rightist kind. (that's why I think hate crimes legislation is so odious; punish the crime, not the thought.)

His opinions on the Holocaust don't relate to his ability to teach engineering. You might not choose to take a class from him, and that's your right, but demanding he be removed from the faculty is the same authoritarianism we despise so much in the current administration.
posted by Malor at 11:10 AM on March 10, 2006

Yeah, until he's asked to teach that all-important course on engineering gas chambers and large ovens...

He'll bring in Mr. Death as a guest speaker.
posted by billysumday at 11:11 AM on March 10, 2006

So he's a turd of a human being. Does he really deserve an FPP?

Also, I'm not sure how his having the right to express opinions on anything other than engineering have anything to do with intellectual freedom, anyway.
posted by luriete at 11:12 AM on March 10, 2006

I wouldn't argue that he be fired, but surely Northwestern would look to get rid of him because, at the end of the day, they are looking to bring the brightest (and wealthiest) students to their school, and to make some money. Do schools not have other ways of pushing out professors with tenure?
posted by billysumday at 11:13 AM on March 10, 2006

I thought "revisionist" was a kinda pejorative term..

No, "revisionist" was generally a neutral term used to refer to historians with new/contrarian analyses of history. George W. Bush decided to start using the word pejoratively, by referring to his political adversaries as "revisionist historians," as if this was something necessarily bad.


So, you disagree with his speech and he should be fired?

Both of these things are true, yes.
posted by rxrfrx at 11:18 AM on March 10, 2006

I'd just like to point out that this man's last name is Butz. That is all.
posted by gurple at 11:25 AM on March 10, 2006

Butz's beliefs are dreadful, but he can't be fired for them without setting an equally dreadful precedent. The only way to fight this sort of thing is, indeed, with more speech. Let's reframe the matter: Instead of calling him a "historical revisionist" (which he is) or, indeed, a "Holocaust denyer" (which he is), let us refer to him as something which he also is: a liar. "Famed liar Arthur Butz..." It has quite a ring to it, doesn't it? Northwestern could start referring to him in this manner as standard policy, and the best thing is that if Butz tried to go to court to charge libel or slander, his case would never stand up. He'd quit within a month.
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:27 AM on March 10, 2006

"Famed liar Arthur Butz..." It has quite a ring to it, doesn't it?

Which journalists do you think would like to lose their jobs and reputations for subjective reporting?
posted by gurple at 11:33 AM on March 10, 2006

I have always understood the right to freedom of speech as a right between individuals and government, not individuals and each other, or individuals and non-government entities. As such, I fully support the idea that speech can have consequences, as long as those consequences aren't government-imposed or -sanctioned.

Therefore, I see no conflict should the University decide to terminate Dr. Butz's employment. I would have a problem with the government attempting to silence him.

As a hypothetical, if I were to make disparaging public comments about my employer, I would fully expect them to fire me. I have the right to make these comments, of course, but I also have the responsibility to live with the consequences.
posted by aberrant at 11:37 AM on March 10, 2006

Which journalists do you think would like to lose their jobs and reputations for subjective reporting?

How on earth would that be subjective? Butz claims that the Holocaust never happened. This is a lie, every bit as much as it would be to claim that the solar system isn't heliocentric. Ergo, since he tells lies, Butz is a liar. Journalists need to reach down, find a pair, and start speaking the unadulterated truth.
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:39 AM on March 10, 2006

Oh no you didn't!
posted by furtive at 11:40 AM on March 10, 2006

“Next thing you know, you see terrorists calling themselves terrorists.”
Ilich Ramirez Sanchez - didn’t mind being called Carlos the Terrorist (later - the Jackal).
Some people get off on negative energy. Butz seems like the type.

Obviously I don’t think he should be fired or jailed for his views, but having a web page hosted by the university is where the line goes dark grey for me.
I respect Northwestern for taking the care it is taking not to trod on his rights, but they own the servers. If his web page isn’t about him, his office hours and engineering, I’m not certain he should have it.
That said, I’m not so sure it’s ok to limit what he can put on his university hosted page if he divorces it from the university.
Just looks like an uncomfortably tight squeeze.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:40 AM on March 10, 2006

If he pays for his own space, let him put whatever he wants up. Tenure doesn't imply guaranteed access to all resources, as his frozen salary and hobo office demonstrate.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:42 AM on March 10, 2006

This is a lie, every bit as much as it would be to claim that the solar system isn't heliocentric.

That's your opinion and mine and the opinion of almost the entire world.

The opinion that God exists is shared by similar numbers of people. But if a journalist referred to me as "famed liar Gurple" for writing in support of athiesm, most people would see that journalist as engaging in editorialism.

The only difference is that holocost deniers are even more reviled than athiests.

I'm with the folks who think that it's the university administration that needs to grow a pair and boot this asshole.
posted by gurple at 11:43 AM on March 10, 2006

a. butz lol
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:49 AM on March 10, 2006

posted by gurple I'm with the folks who think that it's the university administration that needs to grow a pair and boot this asshole.

So, you want the brass to grow balls and kick Butz.
posted by fandango_matt at 11:52 AM on March 10, 2006

That's your opinion and mine and the opinion of almost the entire world.

The opinion that God exists is shared by similar numbers of people. But if a journalist referred to me as "famed liar Gurple" for writing in support of athiesm, most people would see that journalist as engaging in editorialism.

Well, no. Heliocentricity is not a belief, like religion. Nor is it a theory, like evolution. It's a fact, observable and proveable. (If I'm wrong, I expect a scientist will soon set me straight.) I could never justifiably call you a liar for your atheism, just as I could never justifiably call a religionist a liar for his or her belief in the inverse-- the existence of a deity is unproveable. But claiming the Holocaust never took place? That's a lie. Perhaps I should change my example-- what if a professor claimed that the American Revolution never took place, and that the United States were still colonies of the British Empire? That would be ridiculous, and a lie. That person could be called a liar without fear.
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:56 AM on March 10, 2006

aberrant, when we're a government of, by, and for the people, I think we have a responsibility to offer the same freedoms that the government is forced to.

Unless the university can demonstrate that he's doing actual harm to them (and internet outrage is not harm... it would require declining enrollment), they have no business trying to control his speech or views.

Many many years ago, back before the Internet, I had a very profound run-in on a BBS. The file-section maintainer was removing uploaded images she didn't like... enforcing her standards of decency on the community. (she didn't own the board, she was just a maintainer). I was polite, but very firm that what she was doing was wrong, and that we didn't need nannies.

She called my BOSS and complained, and my boss gave me a hard time over it. I wasn't fired, but I sure felt humiliated and angry. I was punished for holding an opinion that someone else didn't like. Having been on the receiving end of this kind of thing... it's wrong. Punishing people for having a different opinion is a form of violence; you are trying to FORCE them to either shut up or change their mind.

Calls for this man's firing are an incompetent response. You are trying to suppress speech you don't like by foul tactics. If your opinion really is right, then SHOW that it's right, don't try to coerce the man into silence.
posted by Malor at 11:59 AM on March 10, 2006

Therefore, we cannot take action based on the content of what Butz says regarding the Holocaust – however odious it may be – without undermining the vital principle of intellectual freedom that all academic institutions serve to protect.

I find extremely funny that he could have gotten fired for an off-color sex joke, but Holocaust denial is fine and dandy for his university

too bad that intellectual freedom is one thing, Nazism is another. it's appalling that they're keeping a Nazi on the faculty. also, you cannot even claim that this man is simply ignorant and misguided like certain skinhead street thugs -- he is an intellectual and should certainly know better. he's a liar who choose to lie about genocide. I just hope that he takes a trip to Austria, where that shit doesn't go over as well as in the United States. but I guess he's too yellow.
posted by matteo at 12:01 PM on March 10, 2006

Certainly, he should be fired, and all of his writings must be burnt at once. No one must ever read his arguments, no matter how unconvincing or thoroughly rebutted they are. Once no one has access to his views, surely all the neo-nazi's will give up and take up crochet, right?

Look, I don't know anything about the person himself. I don't even know much about his stance on the holocaust, but I have the impression that he is making very specific claims about specific historical occurrences--not merely saying "Teh Jewz lied!". I'm also under the impression that these claims have been pretty thoroughly debunked, partially with Northwestern's funding.

I thought that it was axiomatic that the only way to fight misinformation was with correct information, not with blind retributive hatred?
posted by Squid Voltaire at 12:01 PM on March 10, 2006

I thought that it was axiomatic that the only way to fight misinformation was with correct information, not with blind retributive hatred?

so you call paying tens of thousands of dollars to be taught by a Nazi "quality education"?
posted by matteo at 12:07 PM on March 10, 2006

Yes, he should absolutely be fired. I'm on the committee with the power to suppress the speech of anyone with whom we happen to disagree.
posted by badger_flammable at 12:07 PM on March 10, 2006

What a putz.
posted by dhartung at 12:12 PM on March 10, 2006

I find extremely funny that he could have gotten fired for an off-color sex joke, but Holocaust denial is fine and dandy for his university

Moral turpitude clauses in university tenure contracts call for something on the order of felony behavior. Coercive sex, yes. Beating a student to a pulp, yes. Bad joke about sex and beating a student to a pulp - not without being sued and probably losing.
posted by mrmojoflying at 12:14 PM on March 10, 2006

Malor, I might agree with you except for the fact that my experience is that, more often than not, people use the "OMG FREE SPEACH! I'M BEING REPRESSED!" line in order to avoid taking responsibility for their actions.

If you really, truly believe in what you say, then you should be willing to endure hardship* because of it.

(Note that I'm NOT advocating violence or government suppression of speech. Please see my previous hypothetical as one example of what I mean.)

Also, if the existence of the holocaust is provable, then the University should be concerned that one of its professors - who should be dedicated to speaking and teaching truth - is deliberately doing otherwise. We think that doctors prescribing placebos and teachers teaching creationism are violating some sort of ethic; why should this putz face any different consequences?
posted by aberrant at 12:17 PM on March 10, 2006

Also, if the existence of the holocaust is provable, then the University should be concerned that one of its professors - who should be dedicated to speaking and teaching truth - is deliberately doing otherwise.

Yeah, that's the crux of it. The university brass are the ones with the responsibility here. They have a reputation to maintain for truth and open inquiry and all sorts of other things that we like about universities. They have to weigh the value of "We Have Professors Who Are Not Batshit Insane Assholes" against the value of "We Respect the Free Speech of Our Professors".

The answer isn't the same in every situation like this -- they have to analyze each one carefully. The only thing that should inform them whether they've made the right choice or not is whether they continue to attract the kind of students they want.

In this case I can't imagine that keeping this nutjob on staff would be better than sending him off to find another job somewhere with lower standards.
posted by gurple at 12:24 PM on March 10, 2006

posted by aberrant We think that doctors prescribing placebos and teachers teaching creationism are violating some sort of ethic

We do? Placebos are used all the time in research and diagnosis, and creationism, idiotic though it may be, is taught in religious schools. I fail to understand the ethical violations of which you speak.
posted by fandango_matt at 12:24 PM on March 10, 2006

I've never read any of the Holocaust revisionism stuff before, so I took this opportunity to read through most of his linked articles. If one is willing to completely dismiss the vast majority of evidence, and to cherry pick from the remaining minority, he actually makes a pretty good case.

Interesting reading, even if he is bat-shit insane.

Put me down as a vote for allowing college professors to have wacky ideas that challenge your comfort zone.
posted by y6y6y6 at 12:30 PM on March 10, 2006

Fandano_matt: placebo discussion, and one of many on teaching creationism. Also see the discussion of pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control on moral/religious grounds.
posted by aberrant at 12:33 PM on March 10, 2006

The problem is, if you this guy for his beleifs (if he really beleives what he says), you would be saying that there is a correct version of history and that deviations get you fired. What if someone does honest research and finds that not 6 million people were killed in the holocaust, but 5.5 million? How about 4 million? Surely there would have to be a point at which someone becomes a denier. But what if they erred to the high side, say 8 million or 20 million, do they get punished too?
posted by 445supermag at 12:34 PM on March 10, 2006

y6y6y6: I would suggest that there's a difference between "challenging [one's] comfort zone" and "deliberately spreading untruths while being employed to do the opposite".
posted by aberrant at 12:35 PM on March 10, 2006

Damn I wish I had me some of this "tenure" you speak of.

It is funny that his office is a closet and that he's probably not getting the support from the school that others get. But they *can't* fire him. That's how it works. They can assign you a shitty office, shitty courses, shitty grad students, etc. All of this is to push him out, but once you've got tenure, it's open season on your batshit insane ideas. Sweet!
posted by zpousman at 12:37 PM on March 10, 2006

445supermag: why should knowingly overstating the effect of the genocide be treated any differently than denying it exists? Liars should be exposed, first, and then rejected by organizations who represent the furtherance of truth. I would argue that a University's first mission is to further truth by, among other things, exposing and rejecting lies. Northwestern may have taken steps to do the former, but I'm not sure they've gone far enough in doing the latter.
posted by aberrant at 12:39 PM on March 10, 2006

aberrant: ...the University should be concerned that one of its professors - who should be dedicated to speaking and teaching truth - is deliberately doing otherwise.

The University is more concerned that professors have academic freedom:

In a 1997 statement, Northwestern President Henry S. Bienen reaffirmed the university's policy on intellectual freedom, which provides that the computer "network is a free and open forum for the expression of ideas," and that "the expression of personal opinion . . . may not be represented as views of Northwestern University." He wrote:

Mr. Butz does not claim that his views are those of the University, and I emphasize again that they are not. His statement says explicitly that the Web site exists for the purpose of expressing views that are outside his purview as an Electrical Engineering faculty member. In addition, at no time has he discussed those views in class or made the issue part of his class curriculum. As a result, we cannot take action based on the content of what Mr. Butz says regarding the Holocaust without undermining the vital principle of intellectual freedom that our policy serves to protect.

posted by badger_flammable at 12:48 PM on March 10, 2006

In the comments above, there's a link to www.nsm88.com, labelled as a "Nazi Database". I foolishly assumed that meant "a database being maintained by a non-Nazi organization to track the whereabouts of known Nazis and sympathizers." Instead, it turns out to be a link to the National Socialist Movement website, aka "the American Nazi Party." It makes me very unhappy to know that my employer now has a record of me visiting that site. Even though it does not contain sexual content, perhaps links like this should also be labelled as NSFW, yes?
posted by davejay at 12:51 PM on March 10, 2006

badger_flammable: it's certainly Northwestern's decision. But that's what it is - a deliberate decision by the University that freedom of expression of ideas is more important than rejection and disassociation with lies. This issue has no right or wrong answer.

Northwestern's resources, Northwestern's rules. But understand: the right that Batz is being granted has been given by the University - not the government - and can be taken away by the University using the same power it used to grant him the right in the first place. (The government has no similar power, though in practice it often seems as if it does.)
posted by aberrant at 12:54 PM on March 10, 2006

no, because it's cool to be a Nazi, as this thread in this allegedly liberal website demonstrates
posted by matteo at 12:54 PM on March 10, 2006

HERESY!
posted by undule at 12:54 PM on March 10, 2006

I'm far more concerned about the cryptofascists than the blatant ones.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:56 PM on March 10, 2006

445supermag: why should knowingly overstating the effect of the genocide be treated any differently than denying it exists? Liars should be exposed, first, and then rejected by organizations who represent the furtherance of truth.

They shouldn't, but would we be talking about him if he did overstate? And how do you decide who is lying and who is not? a hundred thousand away from the accepted number? a million? and who chooses the correct number? And who chooses the list of historical facts that can't be denied? If this guy said only 10 million were killed by Stalin, not 20 million, would we have the controversy?
People like this are only preaching to choir, no one slaps their head and says "Wow, I guess the holocaust really didn't happen" after seeing this guys web site.
posted by 445supermag at 12:57 PM on March 10, 2006

People like this are only preaching to choir, no one slaps their head and says "Wow, I guess the holocaust really didn't happen" after seeing this guys web site.

How do you know this?
posted by aberrant at 12:58 PM on March 10, 2006

I would suggest that there's a difference between "challenging [one's] comfort zone" and "deliberately spreading untruths while being employed to do the opposite".

Well, yes. Of course.

But much like MetaFilter I think we are better off allowing for a fair bit of both in universities. If the university policy is going to be, "We will only allow professors who speak 100% true at all times, even outside of class", then I think that would make for a crappy university.

I don't like my intellectual environment black and white. I don't like it to be clean and ordered. I like it to be robust and contentious. Messy and rowdy even. People who want to restrict those with an authoritative voice to only one approved opinion seem rather like religious fundamentalists to me.

And for the record I think the guy isn't lying. He actually believes this stuff. A lie is willful dishonesty, and I don't think that's what Butz is doing. He's wildly wrong and obtuse, but IMHO not a liar.

His arguments have a thought provoking internal logic. They even made me go do some extra reading on the Holocaust. I now know more about the reality of millions of people being murdered than I did yesterday. This is a good thing, yes?
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:01 PM on March 10, 2006

And how do you decide who is lying and who is not? a hundred thousand away from the accepted number? a million? and who chooses the correct number?

see also
posted by aberrant at 1:03 PM on March 10, 2006

I now know more about the reality of millions of people being murdered than I did yesterday. This is a good thing, yes?

Depends. What are you going to do with that knowledge? :) If you'll use it as part of an argument for further revisionism, I'd say it's not a good thing.
posted by aberrant at 1:05 PM on March 10, 2006

Guys, matteo has already declared that we all think it's cool to be a nazi, so we should just drop it.
posted by trey at 1:07 PM on March 10, 2006

Aberrant, would you support enacting laws which make denying the Holocaust a crime, similar to the laws in Canada and Austria? I'm genuinely curious.
posted by fandango_matt at 1:08 PM on March 10, 2006

But much like MetaFilter I think we are better off allowing for a fair bit of both in universities.

Um, but we DON'T allow that here. How many posts on perpetual motion, room-temperature nuclear fusion, and astrology have we seen deleted? I'm not arguing that the deletions weren't appropriate, but much of the controversy here is not factual in nature; it's based on differences of opinion. Metafilter is very good at exposing (and, where appropriate, expunging) real untruths.
posted by aberrant at 1:09 PM on March 10, 2006

fandango_matt: if you read my first post, then you would see that I'm not in favor of any state-sponsored suppression of speech or ideas. This is absolute (so far; I haven't heard anything that would cause me to deviate from this belief).

However, we're not talking about state-sponsored censorship here; we're talking about a private university deciding whether or not a professor who is deliberately spreading lies should be supported by the university to continue doing so.

Forget the controversy of the idea for a second; here's a question for you: would you support the University's decision to keep on staff a physics professor who publishes that the sun revolves around the earth, which is supported on the backs of turtles? (note that I deliberately chose a subject that is different from the hypothetical professor's field of teaching.)
posted by aberrant at 1:13 PM on March 10, 2006

How many posts on perpetual motion, room-temperature nuclear fusion, and astrology have we seen deleted?

Not many. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

In fact I'm sure we'd love to see a good post about those topics. I'm completely missing your point. Posts here on perpetual motion seem to rarely get deleted, and tend to encourage some interesting discussion.
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:22 PM on March 10, 2006

ah, y6y6y6, touché. You have me at a disadvantage, as it would take a lifetime to use the "detect deleted metafilter threads" script to provide counterexamples.
posted by aberrant at 1:25 PM on March 10, 2006

would you support the University's decision to keep on staff a physics professor.........

Butz isn't a history professor. And apparently he isn't talking about this stuff in class. If your question was about a lit professor who, outside of class, spends a great detail of time talking about how the sun revolves around the earth on the backs of turtles, then you're darn right I would support that. Sounds cool. I want to take a class from that guy.
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:26 PM on March 10, 2006

y6y6y6: (note that I deliberately chose a subject that is different from the hypothetical professor's field of teaching.) Interesting difference between us. I'd probably disregard anything this particular professor had to say.
posted by aberrant at 1:29 PM on March 10, 2006

Well, there you go.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:30 PM on March 10, 2006

I'm not sure what Holocaust denial has to do with the sort of intellectual freedom we afford university professors within their job. Just because he shouldn't be thrown in jail for saying this kind of stuff doesn't mean he deserves to keep his job.

His views on the Holocaust do not matter in electrical engineering. The fact that people are giving this guy attention worries me more...
posted by j-urb at 1:30 PM on March 10, 2006

I don't think he should be fired because he's a neo-Nazi. He's entitled to his views. I do think he should be fired for being a Holocause denier, because it shows that he's not intellectually competent enough to teach at a university. It's like having a teacher who really, really believes 2+2=four gajillion, and argues that he's got a right to his opinion. Sure he does, but the university has a right to hire people who can actually do math and fire people who can't.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:33 PM on March 10, 2006

as it would take a lifetime to [...] provide counterexamples

Ummm...... No, not really......
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:33 PM on March 10, 2006

y6y6y6: then I concede your point - Metafilter does not have a history of disassociating with provably-false ideas.
posted by aberrant at 1:42 PM on March 10, 2006

What Astro Zombie said (in far fewer sentences than I did - thank you).
posted by aberrant at 1:43 PM on March 10, 2006

note that I deliberately chose a subject that is different from the hypothetical professor's field of teaching

So...... Cosmology isn't a branch of physics?

Hipster: "Bob? You are *always* wrong."
Bob: [looks around quizically] "What? How am I always wrong?"
Hipster: "Okay, let's recap...."
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:43 PM on March 10, 2006

y6y6y6: I was focusing on a distinction between astronomy and physics. You could argue that ALL science is a branch of physics, I suppose, but I hope you wouldn't be disingenuous enough to suggest that the two subjects are not distinct enough to make the analogy work.
posted by aberrant at 1:46 PM on March 10, 2006

“What a putz.” - posted by dhartung

Butz the putz....yeah, nice ring to that. Much as I loathe to step on anyone’s speech, ridicule is ok by me.

“Even though it does not contain sexual content, perhaps links like this should also be labelled as NSFW, yes?” - posted by davejay

I concur. I apologise for my sloppiness and not giving that due consideration.

How do I get some admin on this?
( I did flag)
posted by Smedleyman at 1:55 PM on March 10, 2006

posted by aberrant However, we're not talking about state-sponsored censorship here; we're talking about a private university deciding whether or not a professor who is deliberately spreading lies should be supported by the university to continue doing so.

1. The man's job at the university is teaching engineering, not history. Their employment of this individual does not mean tacit approval of his (odious) beliefs. Further, the university does not support, condone, or participate in promoting his beliefs. If a private university decides to employ such individuals, they're free to do so.

2. His personal beliefs have no bearing on the job for which he was hired. Try this: replace all the "Holocaust denier" stuff in your argument with "Catholic" or "Gay" and you'll see what I mean.

would you support the University's decision to keep on staff a physics professor who publishes that the sun revolves around the earth, which is supported on the backs of turtles?

This is a red herring, since--as I stated above--the professor isn't teaching history, he's teaching engineering, and the university does not support his beliefs regarding the Holocaust. But I will say I would expect a university which employed such a professor would be ridiculed, panned, and dismissed by noted physicists, so I would have no interest in the seminars, classes, or papers to which this professor contributed, nor would I attend a university that presented such notions as scientific theory. If Bob Jones University wants to hire Ralph Reed and David Duke to teach Philosophy and Social Studies, more power to them--I won't be attending. (MIT hosted a seminar taught by the Time Cube dude.)
posted by fandango_matt at 1:55 PM on March 10, 2006

You could argue that ALL science is a branch of physics, I suppose,

No, that would be Physical Chemistry, physics - the study of energy, chemistry - the study of matter, physical chemistry - the study of everything.
posted by 445supermag at 1:56 PM on March 10, 2006

445 supermag: heh, not to derail, but given that energy and matter are interchangeable, it seems that either subject would suffice as the study of everything :) (Though I don't see where comparative lit comes into play, despite having just finished On Intelligence).
posted by aberrant at 2:03 PM on March 10, 2006

matteo: no, because it's cool to be a Nazi, as this thread in this allegedly liberal website demonstrates

Grow up.
posted by Chuckles at 2:04 PM on March 10, 2006

I always have to wonder how smart a smart guy really is if he believes something truly deeply whacky -- like Burt Rutan and his idea that the pyramids are copies of earlier, alient-built structures built on the same site before they got wiped out by glaciers. Or Jack Kirby's idea that the Earth is continually expanding, because more matter is being continually generated at the core.

Or some lunatic physics professor who thinks that millions of people have colluded in a vast conspiracy to fake the holocaust. Or some veterinarian from Kansas who thinks the world is 10000 years old.

You have to wonder where the boundaries are. Presumably Rutan applies physics when he designs planes; but he's not willing to trust geology sufficiently to be told that the ice didn't get that far south and primitive people are quite capable of insanely complex and wacky ideas of their own, thank you very much.

Anyway, I don't really have a joke here. I just thought I'd mention that a lot of smart people say a lot of really insane things.
posted by lodurr at 2:06 PM on March 10, 2006

fandango_matt: Gene Ray was invited to Ga Tech by students, not by any academic body. The wikipedia article makes no mention of who invited him to MIT.
posted by aberrant at 2:06 PM on March 10, 2006

Um, but we DON'T allow that here. How many posts on perpetual motion, room-temperature nuclear fusion, and astrology have we seen deleted?

That's not the right analogy. If Butz were teaching this crap in class, that might be the right analogy.

A better analogy would be if Jessamatt routinely deleted posts about engineering because their posters were also Holocaust deniers.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:06 PM on March 10, 2006

no, because it's cool to be a Nazi, as this thread in this allegedly liberal website demonstrates

Nonsense. However it is cool to read Marinetti, Celine, Hamsun, Wyndham Lewis, and Pound, and they were all fascists/nazis/sympathizers for some or all of their lives.

I'm not entirely sure what my point is. But hey, name checks!
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 2:09 PM on March 10, 2006

A better analogy would be if Jessamatt routinely deleted posts about engineering because their posters were also Holocaust deniers.

Exactly.

aberrant - You just aren't smart enough to be a member here. I know being smart doesn't technically have anything to do with being a member. But you are wrong, and we just can't have that. I'm going to support banning your account.
posted by y6y6y6 at 2:13 PM on March 10, 2006

y6y6y6: excellent. Here's hoping your impotence in that endeavor is equal to your impotence in this thread.
posted by aberrant at 2:20 PM on March 10, 2006

(and let me get this right - you argued with me until I conceded your point, and then turned around and agreed with ROU_Xenophobe that the original premise was flawed? Wow, what a productive use of your time. You must be very proud.)
posted by aberrant at 2:21 PM on March 10, 2006

swissshhhh
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:21 PM on March 10, 2006

Ouch. Rereading your last comment, it appears as if it's designed to elicit the response I provided to provoke me into contradicting myself - but it doesn't do that, fortunately, despite my hasty response. The problem is, of course, that you have no power to ban me - you have every right to "support" it (with the same effect, I would imagine, that I would have "supporting" Butz's termination), but my impotence comment stands.

If Matt/Jessamyn decided to ban my account for something unrelated to the rules ("not being smart enough", perhaps, which is likely true), then how could I object? Their system, their rules. A bit of a parallel to the askme thread about restroom privileges. :)
posted by aberrant at 2:33 PM on March 10, 2006

Put me down as a vote for allowing college professors to have wacky ideas that challenge your comfort zone.

Me too.

What if someone does honest research and finds that not 6 million people were killed in the holocaust, but 5.5 million?

As I pointed out here, the most authoritative study I know of, Raul Hilberg's The Destruction of the European Jews, came to the conclusion that approximately five million Jews were killed rather than six million. Nobody's ever really acknowledged that, I guess because if you do it sounds like you're saying "only five million" and whoa, next thing you know you're a revisionist. So six million is the sacred, unchangeable figure.
posted by languagehat at 2:33 PM on March 10, 2006

languagehat, it's an interesting point. Though in my mind, it doesn't really matter whether it was 5 million or 6 million - they're both incomprehensibly large numbers when we're talking about systematic murder of humans. I don't know that there's a lower limit below which my repugnance and horror would be affected, but that's an interesting question.
posted by aberrant at 2:41 PM on March 10, 2006

If Matt/Jessamyn decided not to ban your account for something that makes me feel yucky but doesn't break the rules, then why would I object? Their system, their rules.
posted by badger_flammable at 2:41 PM on March 10, 2006

And NWern didn't ban Butz.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:45 PM on March 10, 2006

badger: exactly. I don't agree with Northwestern's decision, but it's their decision. They have to live with the consequences, whether that means that they're lauded as an institution that supports freedom of expression whatever the message, or whether it results in financial or reputational harm (or both).

Would I give money to the school knowing that they're supporting a holocaust denier? Nope, but that's not a decision I have to make, as I support my almae matres*, neither of which is Northwestern. Would I shed any tears if Butz lost his job as a result of the pressure? Nope. But to presume I have a say in the matter is preposterous.
(*hey languagehat, did I get the plural right?)
posted by aberrant at 2:52 PM on March 10, 2006

Wow, whatever happened to, 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'?
posted by tew at 3:19 PM on March 10, 2006

tew: it went out of fashion when asshats started abusing it. Also, note that Voltaire apparently said (or wrote) no such thing.
posted by aberrant at 3:24 PM on March 10, 2006

He can say whatever he wants. I'm not advocating locking him up. I'm just saying that he has demonstrated that he is too freakin' stupid to make a good teacher, which seems like grounds for firing.
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:25 PM on March 10, 2006

So six million is the sacred, unchangeable figure.

somebody sue those lying Jews for libel -- they're unjustly smearing the Nazis!
posted by matteo at 6:31 AM on March 11, 2006

I have been told stories about Butz trying to recruit at least one student when he went to the professor's office hours. Would using his position as a professor to recruit students be a good enough reason for NU to fire him?
posted by debgpi at 9:44 AM on March 11, 2006

I’d be for that. Different thing than speech tho’.
One observation on the free speech = only truth thing: the weekly world news
posted by Smedleyman at 3:42 PM on March 13, 2006