"Tis a Fair Court"

This story continues to bother me.

To review: Professor William Woodward at Wisconsin believes certain conspiracies about 9/11 (For a review of conspiracy theories, go here. For refutations of the conspiracies, go here.) According to Inside Higher Ed, the professor believes that, "U.S. leaders have lied about what they know about 9/11, and were involved in a conspiracy that led to the massive deaths on that day, setting the stage for the war with Iraq." Sometimes, he expresses these views in class (the article states that when he discusses his views, he makes clear to students that his views “are controversial” and that most people disagree. (Local press reports, quoting students of a variety of political views, back Woodward’s summary of his class approach on the issue.) However, the article does not say how he presents these views, especially if he offers his students a chance to refute them or if he mentions other views. Academically, Woodward studies psychology, focusing on political psychology and psychology of race. This semester he is teaching a class on Islam.

State and Congressional Representatives, mainly Republicans, want the University to fire Professor Woodward. According to Inside Higher Ed, one representative wants to fire Woodward because, "“there are limitations to academic freedom and freedom of speech” and that “it is inappropriate for someone at a public university which is supported with taxpayer dollars to take positions that are generally an affront to the sensibility of most all Americans.”

My question is simple: instead of trying to refute the arguments by using, oh, I don't know, evidence, why do politicians employ red herrings? And further, as one commenter to the post said, why are these officials concerned about offending the sentiments of the people when so many things legislators do offend the people?