HE'S NO RICHARD T. ELY. The best person the University of Wisconsin could find to cover some Middle Eastern Studies courses was ... Kevin Barrett, who has attracted all sorts of attention for offering untenable conspiracy theories about the September 11 terrorist attacks. I saw his interview on Hannity and Colmes last night. Ann Althouse, who is more au courant with Internet tricks, has the video. (The comment section is tending to infinity.) She's also keyboarded the best characterization of Mr Barrett's national TV appearance.

From the moment he begins speaking, Barrett twitches and jerks around quite oddly and speaks in a breathless, excited way. He tries to unload a torrent of words about the theory and won't stop to give Colmes a chance to get through his series of questions, which are quite clearly designed to put Barrett in a positive light. Barrett, however, is so keen on his theory, he'd rather spout conspiracy. He looks nutty even before Hannity starts the questions that are meant to trash him. That is, Barrett's a witness who mucks up the direct examination. It doesn't take cross-examination to bring out the problems.

When Hannity takes over, Barrett interrupts him in the middle of his first question. When Hannity insists on finishing the question, Barrett smugly goes "Yeah, yeah, finish up." On Hannity's show! As if he thinks the only people who are watching are folks who think Hannity's a jackass. Hannity asks him if he really believes 9/11 and other terrorists attacks were "an inside job." Barrett, inspiring no confidence that he will allow students to debate with him, says sharply, "I don't believe, I do know that 9/11 was an inside job." Barrett then tries to lay out the details of the theory.

One hopes this man's class presentations are more coherent. But to invoke Morgan Reynolds as an authority on building collapses and to then cite polling data as a justification for his position? Professor Reynolds had some standing as an expert on health economics. I know just enough about polling to understand that one can design questions to elicit just about anything (a good pollster could design a survey in such a way that 80% of the respondents would say the Moon landings were staged in the Mojave Desert) and suggest that argumentam ad popularum might convince a few sixteen year olds.

Why does Wisconsin continue to do such embarrassing things? It's sad having to tell the kids who ring me each year on their fundraisers that their administration is doing things that I cannot support. Donna Shalala, viewpoint diversity, now a lecturer in Middle Eastern Studies who is clearly out of his depth.