home

Churchill Gets Standing Ovation from 1,000 At CU Speech

Embattled CU ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill received a standing ovation tonight at his speech at the University of Colorado. More than 1,000 people were in attendance. Take that, CU Regents, Colorado Legislature and Governor Owens!

A University of Colorado professor who ignited a firestorm by likening the World Trade Center victims to Nazis received a standing ovation Tuesday from a crowd of more than a thousand who packed a ballroom to hear him speak.

..."I do not work for the taxpayers of the state of Colorado. I do not work for (Gov.) Bill Owens. I work for you," he said to thunderous applause.

Churchill explained his "Eichmanns" comment:

The ethnic studies professor and American Indian Movement activist called some Sept. 11 victims "little Eichmanns," a reference to Adolf Eichmann, who organized the Nazi campaign to exterminate European Jews.

Churchill said he was referring to "technocrats" who participate in what he calls repressive American policies around the world. He said those include Iraqi trade sanctions after the first Gulf War that have been blamed for the deaths of 500,000 children.

Churchill and his lawyer, David Lane, were interviewed before the speech:

Before he spoke Tuesday evening, Churchill was asked why he felt his message should be heard.

"That's the function of a professor. That’s the function of the institution. That seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle of whether people like what I said or not. I'm supposed to say what they don't like to hear in order to force them to confront it," Churchill said in an exclusive interview with 7NEWS.

Churchill attorney David Lane said CU was obligated to provide security for Churchill -- and that the real reason officials canceled the lecture was because they're embarrassed by him, and don't want to deal with the controversy.

Other reports on tonight's speech:

Denver Post :

"If someone were to ask me, 'Do you feel sorrow for the victims of 9-11,' of course I do," he said. "Let's begin with the children. Yes, they were innocent. And I mourn them. But they were not more innocent than those half-million Iraqi children."

...In the interview with AP, Churchill said he did not mean to say the World Trade Center "technocrats" were Nazis but were, like Eichmann, bureaucrats who participated in an immoral system.

"He did not necessarily agree with the goals of the Nazis with regard to the Jews, but he performed his functions brilliantly," Churchill said. "This is Eichmann: He's integral. The Holocaust could not have happened without him." Churchill, an American Indian Movement activist, said he shares some guilt because he participates in the system he accuses of wrongdoing: "I could do more. I'm complicit. I'm not innocent."

..."The regents should do their job and let me do mine."

[Comments now closed at 130. Thanks to all for participating. ]

< Karl Rove Promoted | VA Introduces Anti-Underpants Bill >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    and you think he deserves the standing o maybe he can get 20,000 next time if he says all jews, blacks and gypsies killed by muslim extremists are hitler, eichman and goring stick to being anti bush and rove - this is a disgrace

    and you think he deserves the standing o You see this where in the original post?

    I don't think this site is endorsing what he said, but the notion that he has the right to say it. I don't agree with his premise, and I don't believe that professors should be able to get away with anything. But I think it heartens many people to know that there are still a lot of folks out there who admire our country's history of encouraging the free flow of ideas, even the crazy ones.

    Quaker's right. I didn't say he deserved the ovation. I reported the news. And my view that the ovation is a deserved slap to Colorado politicans and Regents who want to oust Churchill over his views. I don't endorse Churchill's views, I endorse his right to express them and the students' right to hear them.

    Freedom of speech trumps all. Unless his speech is meant to incite defined violence against defined people, it is protected under the 1st Amendment. No matter how offensive the speech, once a society begins to censor, it's downhill from there.

    TL and Quaker You are right - you did not endorse him or say that he deserves it - my apologies I do agree that there should be free speech, as well - however, in the classrooms of America, there should be some guidelines. I am not using the "unfair approach" that the academy is made up of 90 percent liberals - rather, there are times when speech is bordering on hate and racism and anti-american. There should be some and i repeat some (dare i say) restrictions.

    Re: Churchill Gets Standing Ovation from 1,000 At (none / 0) (#8)
    by DonS on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 05:00:49 AM EST
    Is there something about the concept of free public speech as the very basis of democracy that I'm missing here? How can anyone with a democratic bone in their body, albeit they may disdain the content, oppose free speech ( within the bounds on non-incitement, etc, etc?)

    That, is one sick - sick puppy. Demonizing the victims of September 11, and not the 19 crazed jihadist, is absolutely profane and inmoral. Sedicioius Bastard.

    et al - "..."I do not work for the taxpayers of the state of Colorado...... I work for you," he said to thunderous applause. Okay, CU. Fire him and let the students who are applauding, pay him.

    Re: Churchill Gets Standing Ovation from 1,000 At (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 06:13:34 AM EST
    They already do Jim, it's called tuition.

    Very encouraging to see that the students appreciate the importance of free speech. Also, the standing ovation and support from students suggest that Churchill may be a popular and effective lecturer, teacher. Try to fire him CU. You make his day. The attorneys would line up to defend and get him reinstated. It just makes him more notable and gives his idea more exposure. There is a truism that in this universe you get more of what you pay attention to. The right wing crazies are making Churchill much more popular and giving him a greater forum than he would have had without their vilification. That is also a problem for progressives. As we experience fear and loathing of the right we lose sight of our values and agenda. Attending to our values and agenda for the country will put progressives back on their feet. It's hard work. But a vision of a country of justice, environmental leadership, oil independence, open education and medical care, committed to peace is a powerful vision.

    The issue is not only Free Speech. It is also about expanding the liberal base. We must find and support Outspoken, Outrageous and Poetic left of the leftists types that are an equal match to the likes of Coulter,Hannity,and Novak and their elk. This will help push real "Liberalism" back in the center of political discourse. where it rightfully belongs.

    Re: Churchill Gets Standing Ovation from 1,000 At (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimcee on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 06:46:01 AM EST
    Churchill can preach whatever crap he wants but it doesn't mean that the U of C has to give him a forum. He really is an academic fraud and if his students want to hear him speak they can go to the off campus coffeehouse and suck up his inanities all they want. What I found interesting about the article that you linked to is the fact that those who claimed that there were death threats admitted that there were none which again proves my point that the Left is willing to outright lie about threats to get their way. To be honest I'm more offended by the students who fabricated the threat story than I am about Professor Churhill's unintelligent diatribes. Afterall, let him speak all he wants he is only going expose his fraudulent theories. Give him enough rope....

    I'd love to lock Ann Coulter and Churchhill in room together! Ooooh Boy! Fun fun fun :)

    ED, and their elk That´s funny. An Elk is something you make venison burgers out of.

    Sorry Bosq for the typo. It's nice to know that spelling counts. I think I'll go Elk hunting now. :0

    Re: Churchill Gets Standing Ovation from 1,000 At (none / 0) (#18)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 07:21:56 AM EST
    Are his calsses elective or required. If required, then students with opposing viewpoints can criticize and challenge him all they want. If he shows a pattern of giving lower grades to students with opposing views, then this should be resolved rather easily. If elective, then we should all STFU.

    A standing o? Hummm... nothing that a few well placed tomatos wouldn't cure.

    jimcee, "He really is an academic fraud..." Not necessarily. He might be a brilliant instructor in the courses he teaches. And his theories may never come up at all. Don't assume that just because he has a viewpoint with which you disagree means he is a bad person/bad teacher/bad anything. His value as a teacher comes only in how well he performs his primary duty to instruct students fully in the courses he is designated to teach. I don't remember hearing anything about him using his classroom as a forum for these theories of his -- this all comes from an essay he wrote outside of school Man, this trend toward silencing and dumbing down intellectual pursuits in academia amazes me. Universities are places of ideas. Just because most people choose nowadays to view them as degree mills doesn't mean that's their real or true value. The day academics and intellectuals stop thinking, whether or not you like their conclusions, is the day civilization dies. -Bri

    Right on Bri! "Surfs up!"

    Re: Churchill Gets Standing Ovation from 1,000 At (none / 0) (#22)
    by Dick on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 07:59:40 AM EST
    I guess most of you think that falsifying your CV is fine and claiming a heritage that is not yours to claim in order to get a job you are not qualified for is also just fine. Then when you make outrageous claims and anti-semitic remarks you will be protected by free speech in the classrooms you are not qualified to teach. At the same time you are all in favor of PC speech rules so that those who disagree with you can be silenced. Yep, makes perfect sense to me! I think the whole PC speech code is just an example of the Red Queen from Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. Tell me again why Churchill should be protected and the Jewish students who had a display of a bus bombed by Palestinian terrorists and talked about that incident should not be protected. That was at that bastion of free speech (as long as you are anti-American) called Berkeley.

    This is only great news for the Right- The left has once again tainted itself by associating with and supporting this anti-american fraud who substitutes venom and rage for academic discourse. You guys need to learn to pick and choose your fights if you ever hope to be relevant again.

    The crowd Tuesday night was loud and orderly as Churchill spoke: "I do not work for the taxpayers of the state of Colorado...." he said. uhh, Ward, I got news for you...

    Churchill does teach work similar to that presented on Tuesday night. The work is hardly wild (though it is controversial); it is peer-reviewed and publicly available. As far as the disgusting attacks on Churchill's ethnicity, I have to wonder how those who question Churchill in this regard would react to someone playing the same game with a Jewish professor. dick [sic] seems to be under the mistaken impression that "PC speech rules" are enforceable; I would be very interested to see a case where a speech code was successfully enforced.

    Gerry, Ann Coulter trumps Churchill any day anywhere. I guess when it come to free speech both sides can't pick thier fighters or their ennmies can they! So lets set back and let the fights begin!

    Re: Churchill Gets Standing Ovation from 1,000 At (none / 0) (#27)
    by glanton on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 08:30:13 AM EST
    Some things I wonder this morning: 1)Does Churchill understand that the standing ovation stemmed not from what he said but in support of his right to say it? And I wonder what in his heart he feels about that? 2)Do the anti-Churchill contributors on this thread understand why the students gave him the ovation, and what do they feel about that? 3)How many points will UNC beat DOOK by tonight?

    Re: Churchill Gets Standing Ovation from 1,000 At (none / 0) (#28)
    by Kitt on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 08:31:30 AM EST
    Ann Coulter trumps Churchill any day anywhere. Ann Coulter is a lying, ignorant dolt who does best trumping herself.

    On the bright side, It is obvious he dislikes the UN more than most people.

    Look, a) Churchill has a right to say what he wants, but b) Churchill should be fired. These are not inconsistent thoughts, and they're both correct (in my opinion).

    I pity the taxpayers of Colorado who shell out to pay the salary and benefits of a pompous, tenured dick like Churchill.

    Hell MB, Lets fire anybody (We disagree with) who claims their constitutional right of freedom of speech. Yea, lets make them pay. Off with their heads! Off with their heads!

    Ed- if Churchill said, all black people in 9/11 deserved to die because they were contributing nothing to society, wouldn't you support his firing then? Because, I gurantee you, he would be fired.

    glanton- NOBODY will put that much thought into it. all they see is this proud Anti- American fraud getting a standing O from a bunch of lefties. Guilt by association. This isn't a freedom of speech issue- he has a right to his opinion, no matter how misguided or vile others may see it. Churchill wrote a piece defaming the dead. His article didn't take a position and use scholarly technique to defend it- he just used his scholarly name to spread venom and trash his country. There was no Academic thought in his article (which is unfortunate, he throws out a couple of suppositions that would have been interesting to see supported and followed through on). The University of Colorado is well within its rights to fire him. This isn't Gallileo challenging the church on whether or not the Earth is round here. If the Ethnicly confused Professor had written a thoughtful paper with supported arguments that reached conclusions that challenged the norm and upset the great unwashed public, I would be one of the ones defending him, even if I disagreed with him! That is Academic discouse and freedom. What he has been spewing, however, is nothing more than run of the mill hate speech and venom as many consider Ann Coulter to engage in. If what he wrote rises to the level of legitimate Academic Discourse, we are in bigger trouble than we realize. Fire him.

    Colorado will remain a red state in 2008. But at least we made a point by defending this loser. Well done!

    Kitt - Ann Coulter is not a public employee. No one is forced to buy her books, read her columns or watch her on TV. See the difference? glanton - Why did the students do what they did? Young and dumb sums it up for me. HawaiianBrian - You might be able to sell that "his personal views" don't conflict with his "professional behavior" if he teaching was a hard science course. But in Ethnic Studies? Not hardly. Che - Why should we shut up? This guy is being paid with tax payer dollars, and is spewing hate speech. kdog - I was thinking of more direct payments. Like from them to him. In a purely private transaction. All he needs is a 1000 and he'll have his salary. Of course there is the cost of space, heating, medical insurance, retirement saving, etc. And surely you aren't arguing that tution covers the cost of running a university? Eddieb - I'll take Coulter and give 7 points. CA - If you think defending this guy aids the Left.... Just keep on doing it.

    As far as I'm concerned, if Larry Summers stays (as he certainly seems to be) then Churchill stays. To all of you taxpayer entitlement fans out there, the taxes you give the government don't necessarily come with a string you get to pull every time money is spent on something you disagree with. You have to spend extra and form a PAC to get a string. You don't get to decide which artists the National Endowment for the Arts funds anymore than I get to decide whether we need more Military Weapons research. Churchill's statements are definitely provocative and inflammatory. In many countries he would be jailed or executed for anti-government sentiment. At least we don't live in one of those countries. Yet. Actually, considering his area of expertise is ethnic studies, his conclusions are probably not way out of line with the general thinking in that field. There is actually a lot of truth to many of his statements but his conclusions are badly argued and use examples that don't hold to close study. In particular, he seems very angry at the devastation to the Iraqi citizens we love so much of our Embargo, which, in fact, caused harm and death to countless Iraqi's, especially children. He also appears insulted and affronted at our distain for the facts of this while we indulge our own children. He claims (most controversially) that the victims of 9/11 in the WTC were justifiably executed as unwitting parties to our corrupt capitalist Middle Eastern policies that have contributed to the inflammation of the fundamentalist revival. We may not like this. It's not true in the literal sense. I have a relative who was on one of the planes and he was a really nice guy. But they bombed our perceived financial center and our defense center, arguably military targets. Our just desserts? Most Americans wouldn't think so. We pillory Churchill for saying so. I would argue that the facts support his theory than they did the WMD theory.

    Unlike many people commenting on Ward Churchill, I’ve read his entire essay and his follow up comments. Like everyone I’ve shared these two documents with, I whole heartedly agree with his analysis – which is an incredible first take of the attack penned on the same day of the attack in 2001. The essay’s Adolf Eichmann comment is an interesting double edge sword. Without it would anyone be talking about this essay at all? With it we get the knee jerk responses of Mr. Churchill being an anti-Semite, anti-American, we get a sound bite to play over and over, we get something inflammatory to dangle before the public eye, and we get a much larger number of people to actually reading his writings. Basically he’s asking us to answer a simple question: how many people in foreign lands can you maim or kill in the name of America, and not expect a response? And the problem in answering this question is that a big segment of America believes that we’ve never harmed a hair on a single head in any other land ever. Then we have another big segment of America who reads. Not only do we read, but we may even watch C-SPAN, and we may even remember past world events. Oh My! We’re the folks who believe what we see with our own eyes. We’re not the folks who believe what we’re told to believe. To me the biggest problem with Ward Churchill is that not enough Americans share his knowledge or frame of reference. I am certainly not talking about agreeing with him, but just sharing a portion of his understanding of our actual history and in particular our treatment of Iraq and other middle east countries leading up to that awful day in September. When you look at September 11, 2001 in a vacuum, you know like you’re the proverbial Martian, you just landed in New Jersey on 9/11 and BAM! Compare that to your being pretty aware of the various genocides that America has participated in and turned its collective back to over the years. In Churchill’s rambling essay, “Some People Push Back, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens“ he invites us to discuss and become aware of our own foreign policy and given that understanding, to then comment on 9/11. Let me say there is so much he’s leaving out, he’s actually being very conservative in his view of our history. Imagine that you are aware of all the weapons of mass destruction we sold to Iraq under Bush the elder; you are aware of our dealings with Iraq regardless of their internal torture and genocide – witness Rumfield’s visit; you are as aware of Iraq funding for terrorists in Palestine as you are aware of the Saudi’s funding terrorists in America, yet you know we continue to protect and do business with Saudi Arabia and to some extent Iraq. You are aware that America has thwarted democratic movements in the middle east for decades – causing many to pay the ultimate price; you are aware that America trained and funded some of the very people behind the attack on 9/11; you are aware that representatives of our government have acknowledged the truth in Churchill’s assertion that we’re complicit in the deaths of 500,000 children in Iraq. You are aware that unlike the American public at large, the survivors of the dead and injured in foreign lands know that America is the perpetrator. Now imagine that you’re discussing Mr. Churchill essay with someone who has never actually read his essay, and who only understands the world thanks to Fox News and the 700 club. References: Original essay: Commentary by Mr. Churchill: [urls deleted, must be in html format, see comment box]

    As far as I'm concerned, if Larry Summers stays (as he certainly seems to be) then Churchill stays. Somebody on this earth is going to equate (presumably with a straight face) what Summers said with what Churchill said. Unreal.

    mfox.... But they bombed our perceived financial center and our defense center, arguably military targets. You would lose that argument. I don't care what ideoligies you might follow, the WTC could NEVER be considered a military target. I would argue that the facts support his theory than they did the WMD theory. Not sure where you were in the 80's, (a cave?) but Saddam did gas thousands of Kurds. Do you remember that? That makes his use (and possession) of WMD's more than a 'theory'.

    mfox, You are close. But Churchill did not claim the deaths at WTC were "justified" (or "deserved") as others have said. His claim is that they were no less justified than any number of other deaths caused by US military attacks and other means. This is significant because the remaining body of Churhill's essay and comments makes very clear that he does not consider either side to be "justified" in their actions. Churchill finds our actions as loathsome as those of the WTC attackers. That's what he wants us to confront.

    BB You're right, of course. And that was Churhill's point. The WTC could NEVER be considered a military target. And why not? Because it's ours!

    Re: Churchill Gets Standing Ovation from 1,000 At (none / 0) (#43)
    by glanton on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 11:27:22 AM EST
    I challenge anyone on this site who's been going after Churchill since this thing began: Do something genuine with Bill in Denver's post. No smug soundbites, no turning one of his sentences into a soundbite. Instead, read the post, think about it as a reasoning human being, and then offer up a rebuttal. Yeah, right, like THAT's gonna happen.....

    "It is not anti-Semitic to criticize the policies of the state of Israel." -- Colin Powell "It is not anti-Patriotic to criticize the policies of the United States." -- PatriotCitizen kdog at February 9, 2005 07:13 AM They already do Jim, it's called tuition. it hurts sometimes to point out the painfully obvious. conscious angel at February 9, 2005 07:27 AM ...That is also a problem for progressives. As we experience fear and loathing of the right we lose sight of our values and agenda. Attending to our values and agenda for the country will put progressives back on their feet. It's hard work. But a vision of a country of justice, environmental leadership, oil independence, open education and medical care, committed to peace is a powerful vision. i'll forward this to dean over at the DNC. dick at February 9, 2005 08:59 AM i see your were adequately named. the issue is free speech dick Bill in Denver at February 9, 2005 11:29 AM excellent post. what were the economic repercussions of the WTC attack. i don't believe this country has truly recovered, several trillion dollars in debt and growing, dollar devaluation, unemployment rising, travel industry has not recovered, the airline industry, and this is a short list. hit'em were it hurts, in america its our pocketbooks. from that truism the WTC's were an ideal military target.

    Summers made his statements in an academic format and without using vile inflammatory rhetoric. Churchill's essays in question (which I have read) jump to conclusions built off his own supposition, and primarily serve as a vehicle for him to spout venom designed merely to incite emotional response rather than critical thought. I disagree with both Summers and Churchill, but would argue Summers should stay and Churchill should go find a publisher or start a newspaper column. This isn't a matter about what he said, but more the form and venue he used to say it. As an employee of ANY institution should know, he is a representative of that body- and his lack of academic decorum and supported arguments reflects badly on that institution.

    Thumbs.... The WTC could NEVER be considered a military target. And why not? Because it's ours! No...because it isn't...period. Someone saying (or thinking) so doesn't make it one. Patriot... from that truism the WTC's were an ideal military target. With that logic,.... your average shopping mall can (& will) be considered a military target... yes?

    Re: Churchill Gets Standing Ovation from 1,000 At (none / 0) (#47)
    by glanton on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 12:08:32 PM EST
    Actually, Gerry, for what it's woth Summers spoke as President of Harvard University, and thus represented it in far more of an official capacity that Churchill, even as head of a department, ever could. Summers is a beauracrat, not a tenured Prof (no Prof at Harvard has tenure, actually). I'm not saying Summers should be fired but I am saying you're falsly representing the roles and affectations involved with these two figures. And from what I gathered from Churchill's article, he published it as an academic voice, not as a beaurocrat of any kind. BTW: still waiting for one of you crying for Churchill to be fired to show some integrity and deal with Bill in Denver's post.....

    There should be some Free Speech discussion about the World Trade Center Tragedy. Few people have talked about, how 9/11 could affect the economics of the United States. We live in a Telepathic World, and one with increased emphasis in religion. Is the world Telepathic? Where is the proof? Science maybe able to understand Telepathy and the human brain more with in the next ten years. The problem is that conservatives tend to shrink the economic system when people engage in the spiritual, such as telepathy. As if the increased Mental Energy Field is an intrusion into the privacy of the wealthly. This is all unconsious, because ESP energy fields pass freely through the brain. The attack on 9/11 was religious in nature and as a result the money supply could shrink as conservatives respond to the increased exposure to Telepathic energy in the world of mankind. Try to access the U.S. government in ESP under DARPA, Programs, Defense Scientific Office, Human Activated Neural Devices, or DARPA, Mind Control on the Internet. Another unrelated problem is the huge increase in radio waves in the public enviornment, due to cell phones, satellite TV, and new digital TV. No one knows how this will affect the public health. Current ESP research shows we can sense the Telepathic energy of other people, radio waves may have unkown affects on our brains, due to the high power levels of radio waves. Brain Fields can freely communicate with other brain fields, but how do radio waves affect our overall mental health. ESP may csuse the money supply to shrink. That's why the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. If there is too much Telepathic energy in the air conservative attitudes take over. Their Here!, The United States economy, and government is about to shrink.

    You people have got to be kidding me. Churchill said those (white-collar finance) people in the WTC's deserved to die, that they were like little Eichmans. How in the world does anybody think that's on the same planet as what Summers said? This comparison is absurd.

    Can someone tell me how comparing business people to a Nazi Bureaucrat is in any way anti-semetic. Does this somehow defame The jewish victims of the holocaust because they weren't persecuted by a "unique" bureaucrat? I think this is extremely disrespectful of the WTC victims, I just don't see the anti-semitism involved here.

    I'm struck by the fact that those willing to crucify Churchill can't even articulate his position. As noted above, they latch on to a controversial sound-bite and let the "patriotic" knee-jerking begin. Fascism, anyone? linked text

    "I'm struck by the fact that those willing to crucify Churchill can't even articulate his position." If some klansman went off on a rampage about how blacks deserved to die for a variety of reasons having to do with society, would you sit there and try to understand his point or would you dismiss it as ranting hate speech? I would assume you would dismiss it, as you should. It's not fascism, it's common sense. Churchill and his hate should get their ass kicked out the CU door.

    Ken.... That's why the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. If there is too much Telepathic energy in the air conservative attitudes take over LOL... ok... this is a new position from the left. Maybe this will work? LOL

    Actually, less that 1/10 of Ward Churchill works for the state, as you can see in the following: [link deleted not in html format] If I were looking for a scandal in higher education on the Front Range, I'd look at the disgraceful underfunding of what could be one of the country's great schools. But, the right apparently feels that it is far more important to bring national attention to one loudmouth, instead of worrying about the education of our children.

    Re: Churchill Gets Standing Ovation from 1,000 At (none / 0) (#55)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 12:53:10 PM EST
    "I'm struck by the fact that those willing to crucify Churchill can't even articulate his position." I think I have a handle on his position; clever as it is. A mediocre academic secures his position permanently through what can only be described as a stunt.

    AOL users and those with RealPlayer One & CNN passes can log on to access and view video clips from the 35-minute talk at U of Colorado Boulder last night here and here. Around 3:40-3:45 p.m. MSNBC showed a brief clip and had Joe Scarborough debating a young "political commentator" named Joshua Frank from Albany, NY (speaking from Channel 13) about the "Ward Churchill controversy" under the rubric "Are Universities too Liberal," and it will also be covered on his show Scarborough Country, when "Joe Scarborough will be talking to Colorado governor Bill Owens" at 10 p.m. ET tonight. (MSNBC extended its coverage of free-speech issues with another controversy brewing in Sacramento, Ca.)

    Here's his position: I'm a bigoted idiot, but since the target of my bile is white professionals instead of minorities, I can cloque my hate under the protection of "acadmeic freemdom" and "freedom of speech". I seriously don't understand how one person (left, right, whatever) defends this guy.

    PatroitCitizen (???) - As I pointed out to kdog, tution is just a small portion of the cost of a university. taxpayers pay a huge portion. BTW - CU is a state school. Were you really unaware of this, or did you just think it made a nice snarky remark? glanton - The problem with Bill in Denver's comments is that he agrees that the US has done things in the ME that justifies terrorists attacking us on 9/11 and killing thouands of people who have merely came to work that morning. Neither Churchill or Bill offer any real proof. It just "given" as a fact. So what. So we helped Iraq in their war with Iran. Does our attempt to play two of our enemies off against each other, thus preventing the conquest of Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia give give Church or Bill, the right to condemn the victims of 9/11? Why do they both act like the 1956 Suez Crisis never existed? Do they not remember how France and England wanted to take military action against Egypt for nationalizing the Suez Cannal? And that we said no, thus insuring the existence of the first modern Moslem state? And Kosovo. Wasn't the safety of Moslems one of the driving issues? Yet they say nothing. How about Desert Storm? Do we get no bennies for pushing Iraq out of Kuwait and this saving Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? How many would have died had we let Saddam have these two countries. An then we have the Afghanistan fighters against the Soviets. Of course our help there helped us. But might we not just get a nod and a "thanks" for the weapons that ran the Soviets out? But what do we hear? That our policies have killed. What policies? We were instrumental in establishing the Oil For Food Program that the UN, that idol of the Left, in conjuction with France, Germany and Saddam, corrupted totally. Outside of direct conquering of Iraq, how could we have prevented that? And then there is always "Israel" and our support. Don't we also give $3B a year to Egypt? I challenge you, or anyone else, to provide a list. We can then debate the list. BTW - Don't include anything prior to 9/11. This America the Wrong belief is further demonstrated by Churchill's comments: "I'm supposed to say what they don't like to hear in order to force them to confront it," Churchill said in an exclusive interview with 7NEWS." Confront what? His belief that the US is evil. But again, no specifics. His while argument hinges on a his stated belief that we have killed thousands upon thousands. With that gone, his argument falls apart. Glanton, if you can't see the much good that we have done, but only the bad, you have becomem just another America hating Left wing academic.

    I would suggest reading Chalmers Johnson's "Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Foreign Policy" to get the basics on the concept of blowback. Some of Churchill's remarks were inflammatory, but the underlying themes -- the limits of American hegemony, the fallout from empire building, etc. -- are worthy of serious debate, right, left, or center. For me, the exploration has taken me back to this country's roots -- Franklin, Paine, etc. -- and left me wondering how we got from there to here...

    "Some of Churchill's remarks were inflammatory" The problem is, in this case, the remarks were beyond inmlammatory, and whatever point anybody wants to legitimately discuss here is completely secondary at this point to the remarks at issue.

    "The problem is, in this case, the remarks were beyond inmlammatory, and whatever point anybody wants to legitimately discuss here is completely secondary at this point to the remarks at issue." I guess that's one take. I have to admit to caring more about the core issues at stake than the scandal of the day. Maybe after we tar and feather Churchill we can ponder our country's future together.

    For those wanting to see video of Churchill's talk and discussion afterward: Denver's 9News.com has updated links offered earlier by TL, adding to the "Top Stories" the video here. (If that doesn't work, just go to 9news.com's home page to follow its links. Traffic to the video links may be rather heavy.)

    Answer Bill and Ward? Easy. The US is not complicit in any genocide. Iraq didn't comply with the Resolutions imposed By the WORLD COMMUNITY THROUGH THE UN, and the Oil for Food program that was set up to alleviate the effect of the sanctions was quickly and thoroughly corrupted by the UN officials and the Baathist regime to the detriment of the very people it was supposed to help. Perhaps the terrorists hit the wrong building in NYC? Should they have aimed for the UN? Misguided, misinformed perhaps? All the concern for the poor starving half a million Iraqi children seemed to disappear when the removal of the regime causing the crisis came to fruition. Unsubstantiated, unsupported and debateable supposition by Prof Churchill in regards to Genocide in Iraq. And yet he continues to build on this shaky base. How many people can you kill and maim in Foriegn Lands and not expect a response? Outside of Somalia, the only killing and maiming we had done in the previous 10 years was Serbia, and that was IN SUPPORT OF MUSLIMS. Ward fails to substantiate this premise as well. I have my doubts that the terrorists were in anyway concerned about the near extermination of the American Indian, or were making a plea for help because of the various genocides we have purportedly turned our back on (although I won't deny we could have done better in many cases). His linkage is tenuous at best, and again unsubstantiated. Bill's post is far closer to legitimate Academic discourse than the inflammatory ravings of Churchill. That is the major malfunction that U of C needs to correct, as he has become an embarrassment to the standards and faculty of the university. He can go and write whatever he feels like.

    God so much freedom here, i can't stand it, soon we will have talk about civil rights, we as a nation must stop this talking, "thing right now". and become more like that loving land of murderous rat north korean... after you get it all in one in a red nation state. and bush will be free to send 10 million jobs to Red China "right now" lets all stop talking about right's, and live that idea.

    B.B. at February 9, 2005 01:06 PM yeah, if them mall houses an internatinal contingent of capatilist. duh... btw we are not fighting a military, but a band of guerillas warriors, all things are psychological(military) targets in guerilla warfare. to win a war you break the enemy countries will to make war. do you believe the iraqi insurgents will break our will to make war, i know W says he has "resolve", not so keen on america's resolve, 48% of the voting population thinks he is the devil encarnate. i'm thinking viet nam, a little nastier.

    Re: Churchill Gets Standing Ovation from 1,000 At (none / 0) (#66)
    by glanton on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 02:12:15 PM EST
    PPJ: Of course we have done plenty of good in the world, both before and after 9/11. And I condemn the attacks on our soil as stringently as anyone. That doesn't mean what we're dealing with here is a modern day Lord of the Rings movie, however. What I like about Bill's post is that he suggests, first of all, that we read all of Churchill's article and engage it holistically, rather than ferreting out a passage or phrase. This you have done rather handily. Re your response to the Israel issue: how much we give Egypt or anyone else isn't the point, in that context. The point for me is that the Israel/Palestine conflict is as ridiculously complicated as it is tragic, and our direct financial and military involvment in that situation over the decades has indeed, whether you want to admit it or not, exaserbated a plenty of hatred against us. And saying so don't make one anti-Semitic.

    I have only read parts or Chalmers "Blowback". He is usually good about fomenting academic debate and making substantive arguments. I mean to read it at some point ( I'm reading Niall Ferguson's Colossus currently). A Professor should stimulate academic debate with his musings rather than inflame and incite. I find it amusing Bill did a decent job trying to outline Churchill's Arguments without the pointless venom and inflammatory remarks. Why the Prof couldn't do that is THE ONLY REASON I THINK HE SHOULD BE TOSSED.

    Everyone is rightly incensed at CU professor Ward Churchill for his outrageous post-9/11 comments. In those discussion, though, I have yet to hear a single mention of the grotesque exchange on The 700 Club between Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson after 9/11: "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'" The obvious hypocrisy is just another example of the victory of "The American Taliban."

    Churchill's argument, so far as he makes it (I can't really tell from what i've read of him whether he's finger wagging sarcastically or endorsing the logic), that the WTC was a military target isn't legit imo, outside the CIA office therein. Destroying civillian infrastructure is a war crime, unnecessary collateral damage is heinous, etc. Gerry Owen: "Iraq didn't comply with the Resolutions imposed By the WORLD COMMUNITY THROUGH THE UN, and the Oil for Food program that was set up to alleviate the effect of the sanctions was quickly and thoroughly corrupted by the UN officials and the Baathist regime to the detriment of the very people it was supposed to help." It's right to spread the blame around to all veto-holding members of the UNSC for the construction of the sanctions regime, I suppose, but that in and of itself wasn't the crime. The primary fault for blocking of humanitarian supplies in the 661 committee, destroying essential civillian infrastructure, the prevention of its reconstruction, etc. etc., lies squarely with the US. The humanitarian program itself wasn't established until long after reports of the massive loss of life and deterioration of public health was being reported. As far as corruption in the Iraq Programme office, 90% of the resources disbursed to to the humanitarian project reached the population (most of the Iraq Programme funds from the sale of Iraqi oil went to pay reparations to Western corporations and neighboring states). The level of corruption in humanitarian sales impacted the program relatively little. It was quite efficient. Voker's and other investigations have come up with some $2 billion that could be traced back to improper auditing of the contracts - something for which ultimate responsibility falls on member states of the 661 committee that oversaw those contracts. Benan Sevan is charged with accruing over 4 years something like $200,000, more or less fiddlesticks. The total bill is something like $20 billion: there are perfectly public embassy reports that describe US condonement of black market sales direct from the regime to US allies in the region that add up to most of that $20 billion, and the US Navy group patrolling the Gulf - under UN auspices responsible to intercept black market shipments - were ordered by the US not to interfere. I won't get into the genocide charge - the term means different things to different people - other than to say that the most conservative estimates I've seen are by Garfield who put the figure at 350,000 Iraqi children, which is the usual estimate for Saddam's campaign against the Kurds. A serious crime, whoever you assign the blame to. Etc. etc., if you care about the details: http://www.oilforfoodfacts.org/

    Patriot C... yeah, if them mall houses an internatinal contingent of capatilist. duh... Well duh.... them saying it's a military target doesn't make it so do you believe the iraqi insurgents will break our will to make war, To those of us on the right ... I would say a resounding NO! However, they have already bloken the will of most on the left. i'm thinking viet nam, a little nastier. Yes, if the left is allowed to de-rail the effort like they did in Viet Nam...the results will be the same!

    No one has answered Bill in Denver's point: how arrogantly can the U.S. act on the world stage before there are repercussions? The US role in the Middle East has been ghastly -- shoveling $10 million a day to Israel while it flaunts international law; arming both sides of the Iran/Iraq conflict and then pretending we had no role in Saddam's rule; overthrowing democratic elections in Iran; propping up undemocratic regimes in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait; etc. etc. This all has impact. Remember, Osama bin Laden specifically referenced grievances over Israel and Saudi Arabia in explaining why he attacked the U.S. Doesn't make it right, but to pretend 9/11 happened in a vacuum is to be naive beyond belief.

    Yes, if the left is allowed to de-rail the effort like they did in Viet Nam...the results will be the same! Hunh? The old leftists-made-us-lose-the-war canard? What year is this, Dude? I think I'm having a flashback.

    Paula Zahn is devoting a show to "The Ward Churchill Controversy" tonight at 8 p.m. ET on CNN.

    B.B. at February 9, 2005 03:56 PM To those of us on the right ... I would say a resounding NO! However, they have already bloken the will of most on the left. "talking head" stuff. the left never wanted to enter this illegal action. were lied to, no connections, no wmd's, ok, we know all that etc., etc. get an original(or factual) opinion/thought/idea and get back to me.

    "'m thinking viet nam, a little nastier." "Yes, if the left is allowed to de-rail the effort like they did in Viet Nam...the results will be the same!" To bad we derailed your efforts in Auschwitz and Dachau, you Nazis. The murder of 2-3 million civilians, the secret illegal bombing of Laos and Cambodia -- these are racists acts no different than the Holocaust. When you go to Poland, don't forget your 'Auschwitz Staff' beanie. Tell them Dick sent you.

    I'm not sure that many people use their freedom of speech as well as they might. If the shoe fits, wear it.

    I think Mr. Churchill's comments are fair in the sense that we feel an unbalanced sense of outrage for the loss of innocent life only if it occurs domestically. Where was the compassion while our government directly caused the suffering and death of half a million Iraqi children? The tone is certainly disturbing and extreme. but maybe it's time to start accepting more frank language about U.S. foreign policy so as to recalibrate the debate that has been so skewered by the 'right'.

    Right on Ward, go man go!

    Two words undermine Paul's rant: Pol Pot. Churchill will be cashiered from his post. And for a reason that the best lawyers will be helpless to defend him against. Incompetence.

    Back on Dec '41, would anyone have ever conceived such sedicious thoughts against our citizens residing in Wake, The Phillipines, Hawaii or Guam? Why must we ponder the motivational impulses of a mugger that assaults us in a dark corner? When such a horrible crime occurs to you, the criminal's deprived background is none of one's concern. To reflect otherwise would be to blame the victim for the agressor's actions. Agression of that barbaric kind, can't be reasoned with. You can't cuddle our current enemies into submission. In our society, when a sociopath goes out on a rampage we take him out. We only introspect on his psycho/social illnes only when he is either behind bars or pushing up daisies. In the meantime, we as a society, prosecute him without mercy. The same is said for our foreign enemies. The cuddling and healing will come after they are utterly destroyed. Witness The Marshall Plan in Germany and Japan. There was no stone left over stone in those two countries in '45. Only when the global threat of fascism was done and over with, did we focus our attention to healing those societies. It is beyond words, to see a fellow citizen blame his own flesh and blood for the atrocities of September 11th. An atrocity of foreign aggression, on our own soil. Shame Dr. Churchill.

    I'll remain proud to be in this country only as long as there are people like Ward Churchill in it who force Boquisucios to face the fact that the sins committed by our government in our name on the soil of every country in the world have consequences and we haven't even begun to see them yet. Flash said it well. Ward is an authentic hero being pillaried for speaking the truth by poltroons who should be billed for the oxygen they consume.

    glanton: I appreciated the thoughtfulness of the perspective posted by "Bill from Denver" too. I've watched what Ward Churchill said at CU Boulder last night and the coverage on various tv news programs (via 9Denver.com, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, and sampled a few of the comments here--most, in my view, are rants indicating that the people haven't read Churchill's short essay in its full context, the longer one, or listened to his later remarks attempting to contextualize and clarify his own view, in his own words. Here's the link to the transcript from Paula Zahn Now. Governor Bill Owens, in my view, doesn't know what he is talking about. Just a couple of examples (in two parts):
    OWENS: Well, certainly on the grounds of falling below the grounds of professional integrity or competence. [para.] There are scholars in Texas, scholars in New Mexico who are calling into question his competence as a scholar. They are alleging plagiarism. There are also scholars who say he has made up his background as having partial Indian heritage.
    Somebody in his office has been doing the same kinds of google searches and blog-reading that some of us have been doing. (I cite the essay by the Lamar U assistant prof. of sociology earlier in TL.) What "scholars" say (allegations and arguments) and what is verifiable proof are two different things. CU Boulder has the burden of proof here. In terms of his professorial duties on the basis of CU's own criteria for promotion and tenure--involving teaching, scholarship, and service, Ward Churchill long ago was vetted by his peers and their decisions were upheld by the president of his institution in terms of their guidelines in place at the time of those decisions. As the governor already has gone on record making his own "inflammatory" and prejudicial statements such as this one and the next, it is hard to believe that he would be considered a fair arbiter of this case in any court proceeding (and, as Ward Churchill has promised, it will go to court if CU tries to fire him for such "cause" as the governor claims (lack of "competence," lack of "professional integrity") without actual due process or fair hearings. The whole "integrity" issue is a wildly-subjective matter the way the governor is presenting it. From what I've heard and read so far, one of the few people with "integrity" in this controversy is Ward Churchill himself. He may be "wrong" or "wrong-headed" in parts of his argument and not judicious (to say the least) in his choice of hyperbolic metaphors, but he is not without "integrity," in my view. His students speak to issues of competence: they seem to find him a competent teacher; many of his peers who have published his articles and books appear to believe that he is competent as a scholar; if they are wrong, that speaks to their incompetence in vetting his publications. In terms of administrative service, he probably has many years of dedicated service to the university, inc. his development and directorship/chairmanship of the ethnic studies program--hard to get him for "incompetence" there. A sign of his "integrity" is his resignation as chair when the controversy began to threaten his viability and effectiveness in leading that program.

    Part Two--other example from Owens on Paula Zahn Now:
    GOV. BILL OWENS (R), COLORADO: I think that every American under the First Amendment has the right to say almost anything, but I think most of us understand that you don't have a right under the First Amendment to yell fire in a crowded theater.
    He claims that that is literally what Churchill has done. (I actually used the example earlier in a TL thread to point out that Churchill is not doing that! The neo-cons and right-wingers here jumped on that to scream and name-call "hate speech" and "yes-buts." Butts indead.) Like so many who can't see the metaphorical comparison in "little Eichmanns" (those who call it "hate speech" or name-calling--often calling Churchill names in the process), just don't "get" the difference between shouting fire in a crowded theater--literally causing a riot and deaths--which is why it's considered a crime to do that--causing murder; and saying something in an essay or a book or a lecture. Churchill was way too optimistic to suggest that Governor Bill Owens "gets it": he (and many, many others) don't "get it" at all. Just as the student who countered with the charge of "hypocrite" when, as Churchill says, Churchill had just taken full responsibility for his own (and our) lack of "innocence" and his and our own "complicity" in the crimes committed by our government "in our name," and thus had demonstrated the "opposite" of "hypocrisy." In my own view, the hypocrites are those who tout "free speech" and "democracy" for Iraq and all the rest of the world, while shouting shibboleths like "moral values" to protect heterosexual married couples and families by advocating Federal Marriage Amendments from the perceived "immorality" of those who want to share in such protected rights while building their own relationships and families legitimately within current laws. Who is being "inflammatory" and "inciting violence" again? What about the real violence that we see going on daily in Iraq and with which the new Sec'y of State and Pres. Bush are now attempting to threaten Iran? And who is it again who created atomic and hydrogen bombs and the need for nuclear disarmament? Ward Churchill begins to make more sense when one puts American history in greater contexts from colonial America to the present. Not everyone agrees that Truman needed to incinerate millions of Japanese to end WWII. There are "violent" "fiery" words and there are violent and fiery deeds. Words are not bombs. Words are only weapons metaphorically. It takes people to commit the violence. (And, Governor Owens, quoting Ward Church out of context and starting another rumor that way to support an unfounded claim that Churchill is advocating "violence" or "armed conflict": Ward Churchill probably did not say that he had participated in "armed" conflict: he probably said "AIM." The governor did not bother to document any of his own wild and potentially "inflammatory" claims. So watch out even for governors spreading false allegations on nationally-broadcast news programs.)

    Note to "armed struggles" allusion by Gov. Bill Owens: book reviews of Ward Churchill's early writings suggest contexts for Gov. Owens' allusions to Ward Churchill's advocating/participating in "armed struggles"/violence (alternatives to "non-violence"). Here is one relating to a 1986 publication (approx. 20 years ago--the "20 years" of Gov. Owens' allegation? For others, try googling "Ward Churchill armed struggles"--or variants thereof. The relevant whole texts will come up. Gov. Owens may have forgotten that one of the founders of our country, George Washington, was a revolutionary. As Churchill has been arguing, "what goes around comes around?" Earlier I questioned where Ward Churchill stands relating to non-violence/violence as forms of protest against the "status quo": some of these writings answer those kinds of questions. Gov. Owens argues for firing him now for having taken those positions then too, apparently. But his colleagues who recommended him for tenure and promotion could hardly have been unaware of such arguments in his writings throughout his career. Somehow Owens also tries to make it appear that the First Amendment right to free speech supported by the AAUP and criteria for the retention of tenured professors built into their contracts doesn't matter at all? He says, in effect, "well, Churchill's not being thrown in jail for his views." That's not the issue. Not being fired because of his views and how he expresses them is the issue from the perspective of tenured professors' civil rights and civil liberties guaranteed not only by the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, but also by his (AAUP-sanctioned) contract written by his university and the state in which it is issued. I don't see how Churchill has committed offenses justifying firing or some other kind of "retribution." (The essay appeared in 2001. If it didn't justify his firing etc. in 2001, then it doesn't justify his firing now, in 2004-5. CU Boulder may have been able not to tenure and promote him in the past on the basis of arguments against the content and quality of his scholarship; but how can they do so now, ex post facto?

    Let's see if this passes your free speach test. A conservative professor (OK...this is just hypothetical) writes a book on how minorities are harmed by affirmative action policies everywhere. Then during class, he pushes conversation around this topic. How quickly would he be fired? How quickly would media demand he be fired? How quickly would Jesse Jackson (et. al) demand he be fired. How many of you would be willing to defend him? When I begin to see agendaless defense of anyone regardless of which side of the political fence you speak on, then I'll be much more willing to listen to the Churchill's of the world. OK. How many of you had a heart attack about the story of the Harvard school administrator suggesting that differences in the make-up of men and women may explain why women were not as well represented in numbers in science departments. Didn't he have the right to say that? He was so demonized by the media and womens groups, that he had to apologize (numerous times). Did anyone in this blog defend him? How was his point of view protected? As long as you tow the liberal line, anything else you say (no matter how outrageous) will be defended. However, cross that line and you will be attacked as harshly and quickly as any right wing "crazy". Please see the hypocracy.

    Well, I give up. No matter what anyone says or how anyone explains it, the Left marches on with "Free Speech!" Chants in their ears when this is not a case of Free Speech. The Left now gives credence and absolution to a man of whose writings one would have to merely change a few words and you all would scream "Hate Speech!" Standing Ovations are delivered to this loathsome, lying Prof- Meanwhile, what does the rest of America see? A bunch of liberal college kids applauding a man who defamed the 9/11 dead and calls for more of the same type of attacks. America sees the Left closing ranks around someone who appears to be an apologist for terrorists. America sees the Left fighting for a Professor's job despite him lying on his CV- but mainly because of their apparent support of his stands! I really don't think the Democrats will win anything of significance for a long long time as long as they keep falling into inane traps of their own making. The Left wing has truly gone off the deep end. Enjoy irrelevancy!

    Susan - Nice string of "YesButs." This can be distilled down very simply. Churchill has free speech. His excercise of this free speech as made his employer(s) angry with him. They are now examining his past actions to determine if they can fire him and not lose a wrongful dismissal suit. I think they can, and hope they do. You think they can't and hope they will. BTW - I saw Paul Campus, a well known CU facualty member, on TV last night. Paul indicated no support for Churchill and said he knew no CU facualty who did. Paul is very level headed. His comments were bad news for Churchill.

    Copperhead & Flash: I'll remain proud to be in this country only as long as there are people like Ward Churchill... Flash said it well. Ward is an authentic hero being pillaried for speaking the truth by poltroons who should be billed for the oxygen they consume. Good thing that you bring up the word hero. Hero (From Greek heros): Any person admired for his qualities or achievements and regarded as an ideal or model. Mr. Churchill clearly cannot be admired for his qualities. He is nothing but an appologist for those who wish us dead. For this he should be admonished, not admired. The only thing that he has achieved, is to poison the minds of the intelectually infirm. Surely he can't be an ideal or model to be copied; for that will ultimately bring fourth our deaths. Dr. Churchill clearly can't distinguish the difference between right and wrong; as he can't seem to comprehend that the atrocities of 09/11 were wrong. As such he is inmoral, and should be condemned as such. A Poltroon is a pillowy idle coward. As I said before: a coward will gladly give his rear end for an agressor to take. That by definition, is a Poltroon. A man of courage, on the other hand will face up, and destroy an agressor. Foreign agression in our soil is to be tackled with, not cuddled by pillowy minds.

    The above was mine - Boquisucio

    Churchill? A HERO? That's asinine. This guy spit in a Grandmother's face for cryin out loud! What has Ward done other than write some vile blather then hide behind his tenure when the heat got turned up? Yeah, real heroic...

    Darkie Firing people for what they write... Art III Sect 3 of our Constitution reads: Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against...or adhering to the enemies... By his comments Dr. Churchill has adhered to the enemies of The United States, at a time of open war. Such idle talk is fine during time of peace; however, in peace, we are not. If you want to propose a Constitutional Ammendment to abrogate ArtIII of our Constitution, go ahead. Until that happens, Our Constitution - The Supreme Law of the Land will trump any minor Human Resources Policy that a University man have.

    Dark Avenger- Colorado can fire the guy. He is a Professor and a representative of the University. He made inflamatory remarks that defamed the dead- completely unnecessary to whatever point he was trying to make. That is a poor representation of his institution, and of their scholarship. It shows a lack of any standard for Academic Debate. There have been people posting here who have put forth his arguments without the vile rhetoric, but that is apparently beyond Ward's capablities. There are venues for what he does, and he should move to them. By the way, People were not "fired" from there jobs in the Soviet Union, for what they wrote or said, they were shot, re educated, or imprisoned. There is a big difference. Everyone has the fredom to speak to mind without fear of being shot/imprisoned/fined etc. But there is nothing that says people shouldn't face reprecussions for what they say or do. A Teacher can't walk into her first grade classroom and do a rendition of Carlin's "7 Dirty Words", A Salesguy can't tell people the competitor is better, and your HR dept cannot release a memo saying spics and Jews do better than the damn wagonburners at showing up for work. These things will get you fired. Do people have a right to say these things? SURE. Does that mean their employers have to keep them on? NO. No one on this site has been able to get the point that it ISN'T about whatever intellectual point he was trying to make, but the Rhetoric he surrounded his weak arguments in. An earlier post mentioned Chalmers- he makes some of the same arguments. Does he resort to defamation and hate speech to do it? I have not read "Blowback" yet, so I am shooting blind here, but I would be surprised if he did. By my read of what you all defending this man say, Ann Coulter should have a chair at the University of Colorado, and you all will give her standing O's because of her Heroic display of freedom of speech. Or, worse, perhaps David Duke. or, even worse, Charlie Manson.

    DA - FYI "The rules established by the regents state that a tenured professor can be fired only for professional incompetence, neglect of duty, insubordination, conviction of a felony or any offense involving moral turpitude, sexual harassment, or "other conduct" that falls below minimum standards of professional integrity." I suggest that CU follow them. Gerry Owen - Well said.

    By the way, People were not "fired" from there jobs in the Soviet Union, for what they wrote or said, they were shot, re educated, or imprisoned as well as just getting fired from their jobs. And your point is? If nobody here can provide a link to any laws or legal procedures to back up the assertions that Colorado or the University can fire him, then you're all blowing hot air. A Teacher can't walk into her first grade classroom and do a rendition of Carlin's "7 Dirty Words", True enough, but this isn't a first grade class under discussion here A Salesguy can't tell people the competitor is better, and your HR dept cannot release a memo saying spics and Jews do better than the damn wagonburners at showing up for work. That's the private sector, where employment protection is much more loose. You're presenting clear cases where no one assumes that freedom of speech would apply as a defense to the action in question. So your point is...........? By my read of what you all defending this man say, Ann Coulter should have a chair at the University of Colorado, How so? please explain? and you all will give her standing O's because of her Heroic display of freedom of speech. Sure, I'd like to see her get before the audience that Churchill spoke to and tell them that Tim McVeigh should've driven into the NYT Building instead of the Fed building in Oklahoma City. Be very interesting. I'd clap for that. Hell, I'd chip in for security so that she doesn't get pied at as happened last year or worse. Cheap at the price, I tell you. Or, worse, perhaps David Duke. As I said for AC, same for DD. or, even worse, Charlie Manson Firing people for what they write, unless the writing is the equivalent of the "Fire!" exception, and therefore criminal in and of itself I guess you missed that part of my post. Boquisucio, I suggest you if you seriously believe that Churchill has committed treason, it's your duty as an American citizen to inform the local Federal AG office of this fact, and include the names of the two people who witnessed his act, so that they have what they need to investigate this. For all you history buffs, it should be remembered that Norman Thomas, the Socialist leader, was thrown in jail for his anti-war speeches, and anti-war tracts were barred from the US mails during WWI. Some people say that folks are getting nostalgic for the past, and I guess some folks are correct on that one..........

    Boq, ever more heinous is the supposition that maybe Churchill CAN distinguish between right and wrong and that he uses his crafty little mind to garner $90,000+ to himself wothout having to earn it honestly. He may simply not give a damn about his moral superiors except to the degree to which he can use them to further his personal greed driven agenda. This would make him a true sociopath. Leftists please note, it is logically impossible to consider oneself smarter than GWB and also to buy Churchill's dogma.

    "fired only for professional incompetence, neglect of duty, insubordination, conviction of a felony or any offense involving moral turpitude, sexual harassment, or "other conduct" that falls below minimum standards of professional integrity." While you've located the rules over firing those with tenure, you've yet to make a convincing case that any of the above, other than the conviction of a felony or the sexual harrasment clauses, apply in Churchill's case. Nice try. You get a few more points than GO or Mr. B. Dr. A, some of us "America-hating liberals" might think that Churchill has the right to say dumb things like GWB telling us that he's 'not going to negotiate with myself', and not get fired for it. Freedom of speech only counts when it applies to speech one doesn't like, or it doesn't count at all.

    Dr. Ace, Rabble rousing at $90K? Whew, that's a great gig if you can pull it through. Why I din't think of that? Anonymous at 12:29 PM Unfortunately, we live in vastly different times. The '60's created a deep rupture between our historical groundings and today's disfunction.

    Dark, are you an America hating liberal? I didn't call you that. Re Churchill, he can say what he wants (within reason, of course). If he is deemed incompetent for it, so be it. If you think the issue here is "freedom of speech" then you miss the point by a country mile. Even in the asylum, you will find "freedom of speech".

    The way things are going, maybe Ann Coulter (whose rhetorical substance and style I find particularly repugnant and offensive!) will get a(n) (endowed) chair at the U of Colorado Boulder. (It just takes someone to endow it. Maybe she'll endow it herself by giving a big gift to the law school; it seems to have at least one professor whose political position re: Ward Churchill she could agree with.) Of course I support the free speech rights of conservatives as much as liberals. No, I would not support threatening with firing anyone arguing against affirmative action (the example given in an earlier comment). The right to free speech is defined in the Bill of Rights (First Amendment) attached to the Constitution of the United States of America. Like the rest of the Constitution, it applies to all citizens of the United States equally, no matter what their political viewpoints or expressions of them may be. Read constitutional lawyers re: those issues. (See TL's earlier thread on what some of them have said about the "Ward Churchill controversy.") Any person or group of people can deem another person's speech acts "offensive." Whether or not they are "criminal offenses" (e.g., "hate speech")--or "actionable"--is another matter. It really takes a court of law to decide that one. Yes, there is a difference between calling someone a "nigger" in a classroom and referring to people ("technocrats"/CIA agents/power and money brokers) as (if they were) "little Eichmanns" in an admittedly "stream of consciousness" essay written in response to the events of 9/11 nearly four years ago and expanded into a longer chapter of a book and later comments contextualizing and clarifying the allusion more recently. I do not regard Churchill's comments in the contemporaneous with 9/11 "chickens coming home to roost" essay as "name-calling" or "hate speech." (He is not attacking a race of people using epithets like "nigger." That is "hate speech" (by definition--see those cited in earlier threads). He is critiquing the ideology of the status quo in America and (rhetorically) those whose work supports it--which is, actually, most of ours, whether or not we currently have "jobs" in or out of the government. He has said (Tues. night) that he himself has not "done enough" to fight the ideology of the status quo, even though he has spent his entire adult life attempting to do so. It is still not enough. Many of us feel the same way. Given what has been going on in the United States since WWII, many of us feel enormously frustrated by our own inability (as voters and protestors/ as "dissidents") to change our country's apparently-ongoing course toward the greater and greater oppression of minorities and other disadvantaged peoples both in our own country and abroad. We have no solutions to the problems that Ward Churchill's critiques of U.S. policies and practices highlight. We are quite stymied. I regard Churchill's much-maligned short essay (later expanded into his book On the Justice of Roosting Chickens--which I haven't yet had an opportunity to read) as (as has clearly been established by now) injudicious or infelicitous use of language in the service of an otherwise-powerful rhetorical argument. He wrote as someone not cognizant enough of his (disparate) readers' responses perhaps; or, perhaps otherwise, as someone fully cognizant of his readers' responses but not caring enough about how his words might offend his countrymen and countrywomen and others sympathetic to the grievous ordeals of those killed and hurt by the 9/11 attacks (not only those in the Pentagon and the World Trade Center towers and their environs; there was a third plane too and many human consequences of that disaster). If he is guilty of lacking "sensitivity" to them, then he would probably be the first to acknowledge that. There is, however, a big difference between a lack of emotional "sensitivity" and a lack of professional "integrity." As someone has already suggested: maybe he needs "senstivity training." But in the "revolutionary" intellectual community that he is participates in "sensitivity" is not generally a revered quality. "Telling it like it is" brusqueness, shock tactics, and the fervor of urgency are more usually the rhetorical traits most valued. Reading "revolutionary" literature of that kind takes some education in its stylistic history: from that perspective, Ward Churchill may be in the "mainstream" of his "peers" and not so "alternative," "radical," and "out there," as people seem to be claiming or assuming. What surprises me is that Churchill claims not to be a "revolutionary." Perhaps he doesn't see himself as one; but others do. If he is a "revolutionary," then the reactions that he is getting probably do not surprise him. Indeed, he may be wondering why it's taken so long for these "chickens to have come home to roost." ("Why wasn't I noticed until now?") Yet, in his own coterie of radical "alternative voices" (Alternative Radio, Z-Net/Z-Mag., the Institute of Cultural and Social Change) apparently he is quite well known. He's just a "newcomer" to the rest of us who are more "mainstream" (status quo) ourselves, even some of us so-called "liberals" and "progressives" who are in other fields and happen not be be well educated or well read in American Indian/native American and ethnic studies.

    Regarding tenure and promotion decisions and post-tenure review proceedings: those are within institutional (CU Boulder) domains. That is why I have all along been urgning people (and that would include Colorado Governor Bill Owens) to allow the University of Colorado at Boulder to review Professor Ward Churchill according to its own established procedures fairly and equitably, without political interference from elected officials and non-University faculty and administrators (the "jury" of his "peers"). It's up to the latter (faculty and administrators) to decide his "fate." (Generally, boards of regents have to approve such "decisions." They go from faculty committees to deans to presidents to chancellors to boards of regents. (In that scenario, the Colorado Board of Regents may indeed be the ultimate arbiter of his case within the state university system; then it will be able to go to federal court.) Then it is Professor Ward Churchill's prerogative to respond to their decision. He can accept whatever it is (esp. if it pleases him), he can appeal it (esp. if it displeases him), he can resign in protest and accept a position offered elsewhere. (Columbia University has one in his field and at his level advertised currently, e.g.). Or, if their decision displeases him and he and his legal counsel advises him to proceed, he may take the University and the State (e.g., as represented by the governor) to court. Those are just a few of the possibilities that I can think of. From what he has said publicly thus far, in response to all these public and not-so-public pressures, it is doubtful that he will "back down" or "step down" or "out" of the fray. Not to be accused of understatement (the opposite of his rhetorical hyperbole), I point out the obvious: he appears to be a "fighter." This so-called "armed struggle" (war over words) will go on for quite a while. (30 day review at CU Boulder, then Churchill's responses to it, his possible appeals if it's not decided in his favor, suits, and so on, perhaps all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if it doesn't get resolved before it goes to court. A costly route for Colorado taxpayers, courtesy of their governor, Bill Owens. Churchill will say, "don't blame me"; "I was just doing my job." What will Owens say when re-election time comes?)

    Dark- First, my reply to your comparision to the Soviet Union was to show that this is not a Freedom of Speech issue- Churchill shouldn't be jailed, imprisoned, or fined, and he won't. My examples included Both private and Public sector jobs, and issues of speech surrounding them. As to your no one providing laws etc, PPJ posted the following: "The rules established by the regents state that a tenured professor can be fired only for professional incompetence, neglect of duty, insubordination, conviction of a felony or any offense involving moral turpitude, sexual harassment, or "other conduct" that falls below minimum standards of professional integrity." This definitely meets the "falls below the minimom standards of Professional Integrity". The ethnicly confused Prof's essays were mere vehicles to spew defamatory remarks and inflammatory rhetoric- not to make academic points or pose an academic question. As such, this reflects poorly on the University and the scholarship of the faculty. This is why they should fire him (not to mention lying on his CV). I would pay good money to see Coulter do that as well- but that isn't a tenured professorship. Ward can give speeches, write books, columns, weblogs, WHATEVER- and he should. The question is whether or not the University should continue to retain an educator and scholar in its employ that has used his status to spread inflammatory, unscholarly rhetoric. They shouldn't. If someone comes to cart the bum off to prison for voicing his warped opinion, I will stand with you- but he has made a mockery of academic debate and embarassed his university, and they are fully within their rights to fire him. By the way, If Manson's warped ideology is equivalent to screaming fire in a theatre, why isn't Ward's? Manson's ravings only led to the carving up of some suburbanites and a movie actress- a far cry less than the potential losses the "more 9/11s" Ward thinks we will need before we finally "get it". Perhaps Charlie could be a tenured chair (this wouldn't require him to get out, that do some cool things with Closed Caption TV nowadays). Sarcasm aside, he shouldn't- his writings and essays have little value in making academic points - they merely inflame and incite. Not much different than Ward's, now that I think about it. Out of curiouasity, would you rather have been one of Manson's "PIGS" or Ward's "Eichmans"?

    Let's not rely on a commenter's quotation out of context of CU's actual stated guidelines (as Gov. Bill Owens also did last night on tv): Please read them in context in the Faculty Handbook links posted on the CU Boulder website. Here's the one cited earlier.
    Dismissal for Cause, and Termination: The Laws of the Regents establish a provision for the dismissal of faculty members on the grounds of demonstrable profession[al] incompetence, neglect of duty, insubordination, conviction of a felony, or any offence involving moral turpitude upon a plea or a verdict of guilty or following a plea of nolo contendere, or sexual harrassment, or other conduct which falls below minimum standards of profession[al] integr[i]ty].
    [Key issue: What are the "minimum standards of professional integrity" at the University of Colorado at Boulder? Before claiming that Professor Ward Churchill "falls below" them, as people do in thread comments and on tv [Gov. Owens] wily-nily, define what they are. "Demonstrable" is an important word here too. In such arguments, there are pros and cons: one can demonstrate falling above such stated "standards" of "professional integrity" as well as falling below them. It's not a one-sided procedure. Churchill gets to "demonstrate" too.] If you explore the other links for guidelines relating to promotion, tenure, retention, and so on, you will have the larger picture of the review processes that Ward Churchill has already gone through and the contexts for the current 30-day review of his publications (which, by the way, Churchill says is not enough time to read all that he has published). It is already quite extraordinary (not in keeping with normal established review procedures) for a dean to be given the task of reviewing all that a faculty member has published and to report on that. It will take some time to find the post-tenure review procedures already existing at CU Boulder to which any faculty member, not only Ward Churchill, is subject to already on a routine basis. How often do post-tenure reviews take place, e.g.? When was the last time that Professor Churchill was subjected to post-tenure review? What were its results? Due to privacy laws, much of that is probably privileged and not public information. (Personnel files are generally confidential.) Point: based on prior reviews of his faculty and administrative performance, there is an already-established "track record" that the professor has at his institution, and a "record" that can be examined by those in the position to do so (and, subsequently, by courts, if it comes to that?).

    "What will Owens say when re-election time comes?" He won't have to say much- Politically, the right has already won this battle. Public opinion, rightly or wrongly, now is convinced that the faculty of Colorado and academia in general is full of lefty loose cannons, and the all out support of the left for him leads many to think that the Left endorses his positions as reflected by the rhetoric Professor Churchill used. Therein is the problem: this isn't a columnist writing for public consumption, he is an academic. He could of and should of made his arguments without the inflammatory rhetoric and defamatory comparisions. Then there would be no issue. The more Rovian elements of the right probably are still high fiving over the standing O he got.

    Colorado Board of Regents-approved principles of Academic Freedom at the University of Colorado Boulder, for people's edification. Explore the rest of the links within the document on your own. Cf. to the statements posted on the website of the AAUP.

    "D" in the link above is the key provision that Gov. Owens and others are referring to:
    (D) Faculty members are citizens, members of learned professions, and members of the academic leadership of an educational institution. When speaking or writing as citizens, they should be free from university censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As faculty members however, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and institution by their utterances. Hence faculty members should be accurate at all times, should exercise appropriate restraint and show respect for the opinions of others, and when speaking or writing as private citizens should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.


    DA - Actuially, it is up to CU, not this most humble blogger. But, last night I heard that he had made false statements in one of his books, which goes to work quality. He has offerred no support for his claim to be an Indian, although it is obvious that his claim allowed him to receive something of value. That's called fraud. And I think hate speech is obviously "other conduct that falls below minimum standards of professional integrity." There is also the interesting point he has resigned as Chairman of the Ethnic Studies Department. CU may now just thank him for his efforts in that position, and note that since there are no professor/pure teaching positions available, he should clean out his desk and leave. Wouldn't that be a hoot!? Susan - Again some well written "YesButs." Are you saying that it is hate speech to defame a race, but not to defame a specific group of people? I await your "YesButs."

    Thanks for the link, Susan. (D) Faculty members are citizens, members of learned professions, and members of the academic leadership of an educational institution. When speaking or writing as citizens, they should be free from university censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As faculty members however, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and institution by their utterances. Hence faculty members should be accurate at all times, should exercise appropriate restraint and show respect for the opinions of others, and when speaking or writing as private citizens should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution" Here is the Grounds- Lack of restraint, and respect for the opinions of others. He could have made his arguments without the defamations and inflammatory rhetoric. "...they should remember that the public may judge their profession and institution by their utterances." Obviously he didn't think about this, or care.

    Re: Churchill Gets Standing Ovation from 1,000 At (none / 0) (#109)
    by Kitt on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 01:38:25 PM EST
    A brief scan of the comments - have yu'll discussed Churchill's chairmanship and how he became chair? I know that at our college (private liberal arts) the chair of the dept rotated amongst the faculty members - regardless of the dept. However, I think at Boise State where I went a couple of semesters, the process was different. The chair was elected by their peers or chosen; can't remember.

    The University of North Carolina Law School offers definitions of the differences between hate speech and hate crimes and explains clearly distinctions at these webpages (one needs to explore the links and read what's posted in them to understand these distinctions). In response to these persistent claims that Churchill engages in "hate speech" (which I don't think he does), I already posted links to definitions of "hate speech" in an earlier thread. Please read them.

    Susan- I have tried to avoid using the term "hate speech" because I feel the legal concept is dangerous to Free Speech. People have every right to make bigoted and hateful remarks as long as they are willing to face appropriate sanction by society and possibly employment. Ward Churchill's remarks failed the smell test of decorum and legitimate academic discourse, and he didn't show restraint or represent his position as a Professor very well. Legally defined and liable "Hate Speech"? I would have difficulty pinning that one on anybody.

    Susan, Thank-you for the well thought off arguements; a welcomed relief.

    Re: Churchill Gets Standing Ovation from 1,000 At (none / 0) (#113)
    by Kitt on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 02:31:33 PM EST
    Another Day In the Empire says to forget about Churchill, there are others more worth our time....but yu'll keep arguing the same banal points. It's getting thru to someone; I'm pretty sure it is. It's time for 'Postcards From Buster' right now...gotta go.

    I believe that Ward Churchill helped to establish the current ethic studies program at CU Boulder: its history is accessible on the CU website. He served as its "coordinator" and/or "director" and/or "chair"; I think as the program developed, the title may have changed historically. From the perspectives of his colleagues in related departments (which provide faculty and/or curricula for the program), as an ethnic studies activist, he was probably one of the most obvious choices for those roles, but you can explore the program's website for more information. Whether he was chosen by his peers at the institution (elected) or selected by higher-level administrators is relevant perhaps, yet in most cases such appointments are then approved at higher levels too. (What the past and recent institutional "politics" at CU re: ethnic studies is, I have no idea (prior to this "controversy.") So his appointments in such capacities would most likely have been "vetted" by deans and higher perhaps. There should be faculty policy procedures re: administrative appointments available in earlier-linked material posted by the Regents on the CU website. While I read that he has a "38-page CV," I haven't actually seen it. His CV would list all those administrative appointments and the dates when he received them. Such appointments (and whatever he accomplished in them) are part of his "track record" at CU Boulder; his accomplishments in teaching, scholarship, and service would be part of his own self-evaluation reports for annual or other periodic reviews, which faculty generally have to submit by certain deadlines relating to contract renewals, salary and merit raises, etc.

    Those who sincerely wish to communicate by the written word probably shouldn't do so with loooonnnngggg sentances and/or thiiiiiiiick paragraphs. This style of prose unintentionally makes their comments difficult to read, and thereby does themselves a disservice in that their comments often may not be read. Again, no offense meant.

    No Offense, Though none was taken, I find it refreshing to noodle through a well thought arguement. Like the difference between an old-fashioned sit-down meal and a happy meal.

    No offense taken (I hear the same quite often from TL! She's just too busy to say so right now.) Though differences in posting are often functions of different temperaments and styles, in this case, given the stakes for Prof. Churchill and the students at the U of Colorado, I find it hard to let go by some of the more outrageous comments made both at length and in short above. As the following and earlier links to academic policies at CU suggest, the issues involved are quite complex. Sorry for the complex sentences. I'll try to be more concise in the future. Policies relating to personnel files pertaining to "open records" and confidentiality and privacy at CU Boulder. Scroll down and you will see how much stuff CU is going to be going through in such a review of a professor's several decades' record at the university.

    Churchill's a clown who has further polarized the electorate and reminded sane people how kooky the Dems can be. Please keep defending him, he's personally repugnant yet useful.

    Re: Churchill Gets Standing Ovation from 1,000 At (none / 0) (#119)
    by Kitt on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 04:28:16 PM EST
    Susan - One of the reasons I asked about how Churchill became chair of his dept (though I personally could give a sh*t) is it has been repeatedly brought up by those like O'Reilly in the context that he was undeserving of such. Prior to attending and graduating from the college I went to I was under the impression that one became chair of a department based upon merit, professional standing within the department, etc. The guy who was head of the history dept at BSU was just that...a published author whom his peers respected, although we thought him a bit of a smug pr*ck. However, the college I attended rotated the chairship of each dept every three years. Within the discipline of my degree (theology), all those within that department were more than qualified to be chair as far as I was concerned.

    For anyone who missed it, here's what CU Boulder is doing re: the review of Professor Ward Churchill. That public statement needs to be read in the context of the faculty policy manual linked earlier.

    Check out Michael Carrigan, sole lawyer on the U of Colorado Board of Regents, saying that what the gov. calls on them to do (fire Churchill) is "irresponsible" and politically motivated. He's on Paula Zahn Now (now; 8 p.m. ET). Transcript will be posted later on CNN.com. In his "opinion," "firing" this prof. for his "free speech" (because the gov. is making the Regents do that), would be "illegal." (He just said, when asked, that he's a Democrat. The "opinion" that he is giving, however, is a legally-informed one.)

    Re: Churchill Gets Standing Ovation from 1,000 At (none / 0) (#125)
    by Kitt on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 05:26:09 PM EST
    Susan wrote: (I also apologize for unintended typographical errors in my previous posts; I have to go offline now.) Well, I for one think that's a bit harsh over simple, unintended typographical errors.

    Re: Churchill Gets Standing Ovation from 1,000 At (none / 0) (#126)
    by Kitt on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 05:32:59 PM EST
    Here's the link from CSPAN with Ward Churchill's talk last night. Russell Means is up first. Listen to what he says regarding having to provide support/proof regarding one's bloodline in being an American Indian. He also takes to task the regents of the university for 'not sticking up its women' students. This I certainly agree with: "So what Ward Churchill's colleagues in his own program and colleagues in his own field and/or at his own institution think of him as a professional is more relevant than the charges of outsiders' (like us and CO's gov.) that he lacks "sensitivity" or "falls below minimum standards of professional integrity." Yep.

    Re: Churchill Gets Standing Ovation from 1,000 At (none / 0) (#128)
    by Kitt on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 06:22:43 PM EST
    Firstly Ace, you misinterpret what I wrote and secondly, you're full of it.

    Re: Churchill Gets Standing Ovation from 1,000 At (none / 0) (#129)
    by Kitt on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:41:13 PM EST
    Agreeing with Susan's comments about Mr. Churchill's peers and colleagues knowing more about his work and expertise as chair or a faculty member is not the essence of brainwashing. It's acknowledgement that I certainly don't know that much about him or his work and really have no way of gauging it other than reading it and offering my opinion. Most here as well probably do not have any way of gauging it either. Of course, we are certainly entitled to read whatever and give an opinion. However, I'm pretty sick of this entire discussion and taking a break too. North Korea is getting a little too crazy for my tastes and I'm on call this weekend. Off to watch 'The Notebook.' Oh..yeah - Russell Means did say 'sticking up for' rather than 'sticking up' regarding the female students at CU ....sometimes my fingers move faster than my brain. But then, so can my mouth. ;)

    Dark- "There's a world of difference between what Charlie did with the members of his cult and the hyperbolic language that Churchill used." Not in the perception of the general masses. Right or wrong, messages do not always convey their original intent in todays media overloaded society. "If you can't see the difference, then you're so scared that your fear of terrorism will probably take a decade off your life-span." Believe me I do. I think bad couscous and too strong Turkish coffee has done more damage to my health than anything Ward could write.

    Kitt--:-) [lol] I'm back online again, after having had to go offline to do other things. (Guess I shouldn't have used a semicolon!) Thank you for the CSpan link; the video is not only much better than 9News.com's (which had ridiculous visual static) but inc. the introd. by RM--will play it in full later, but I've watched the first bit. Speaking of typographical errors and funny conjunctions of thoughts: Russell Means said "sticking up for" not "sticking up!" (lol)

    Kitt--thanks for your question and your response. (I haven't yet had time to look into CU chairmanships further; perhaps someone else who is interested in the matter will.) Generally, from my perspective working as a faculty member or a visiting scholar in several different academic departments in several different types of colleges and universities over the past few decades, I would observe that departmental and program chairmanships are fairly thankless positions requiring great diplomacy, as one has to deal with other faculty members and their sometimes-competing interests. (Such academic politics can be "brutal!") Those lacking such diplomacy are not very well regarded by their colleagues whom they supervise. So what Ward Churchill's colleagues in his own program and colleagues in his own field and/or at his own institution think of him as a professional is more relevant than the charges of outsiders' (like us and CO's gov.) that he lacks "sensitivity" or "falls below minimum standards of professional integrity." His closest colleagues know him, his work, and his intentions better than a professor in the law school, let us say.

    Sorry: that Campos column cited earlier is actually dated Feb. 5; here's a link to the archive of his columns at the Rocky Mt. News; his later columns on this controversy are posted there too. (I also apologize for unintended typographical errors in my previous posts)

    this most humble blogger Yes, you're almost Ghandian at times, aren't you? I have no objection to any of the charges you have made being investigated, it just seems strange that the overwhelming 'reason' to fire Churchill seems to be anger at what he said, not that he's involved in academic dishonesty, which should always be a firing offense,(tenure or no). As for fraud, if it can be established that he lied in order to obtain preferment or perks, then he should clean out his desk. As for hate speech, my position is that of GO. CU may now just thank him for his efforts in that position, and note that since there are no professor/pure teaching positions available, he should clean out his desk and leave. Wouldn't that be a hoot!? If there are grounds to let him go because he doesn't have a position there anymore, it probably would be a little more civilized than when professors were fired from institutions for being too "Pro-German", which happened with a Democrat in the WH, FYI. Such delight in anothers' possible misery, PPJ. I'm glad you aren't a Christian, cause I heard some people saying the other day......... Dr. Ace, apparently you didn't notice that in months past, PPJ used to refer to "America-hating liberals(later leftists) whenever he needed a scapegoat to blame on whatever topic suited his fancy. By the way, If Manson's warped ideology is equivalent to screaming fire in a theatre, why isn't Ward's? Manson's ravings only led to the carving up of some suburbanites and a movie actress- a far cry less than the potential losses the "more 9/11s" Ward thinks we will need before we finally "get it". Perhaps Charlie could be a tenured chair (this wouldn't require him to get out, that do some cool things with Closed Caption TV nowadays). Sarcasm aside, he shouldn't- his writings and essays have little value in making academic points - they merely inflame and incite. Not much different than Ward's, now that I think about it. Out of curiouasity, would you rather have been one of Manson's "PIGS" or Ward's "Eichmans"? GO: There's a world of difference between what Charlie did with the members of his cult and the hyperbolic language that Churchill used. If you can't see the difference, then you're so scared that your fear of terrorism will probably take a decade off your life-span. Anyway, the answer is easy, Eichmann, because he got a trial. Something none of our current leaders will have to worry about for a while.