home

Professors Take Out Ad Supporting Ward Churchill

All eyes should be on the Monday print edition of the Boulder Daily Camera. 200 professors have paid $1600.00 for a full-page ad demanding the University cease its investigation into Professor Ward Churchill's writings:

The ad says the review of the professor, expected to complete by the middle of March, should be stopped immediately. The ad says the inquiry is the result of political pressure and not based on "any prior formal complaint of specific professional or academic misconduct on his part."

The 200 faculty members' statement defends Churchill's "right to speak what he believes to be the truth" based on academic freedom rules designed to prevent faculty members from being fired for unpopular views.

On February 10, the University's Arts and Science Council passed a resolution protesting the investigation, calling it a witchhunt.

Margaret LeCompte, an education professor, said, "It is going to be extremely difficult, if academic freedom is on the block, for us to hire and keep good faculty members.' "We're all thinking twice about what we're saying," LeCompte said, recalling the climate in the McCarthy era when professors were fired for alleged communist ties.

< Abu Ali: Some Law Enforcement Agents Predict He'll Walk | Clara Harris Interview >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Professors Take Out Ad Supporting Ward Churchi (none / 0) (#1)
    by roy on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 11:32:04 PM EST
    If they stop investigating his essay, can they still investigate his plagiarized artwork?

    His right to speak is not being threatened, only his unqualified right to remain a liability to his employer.

    Y'know, if the regents want to use the artwork issue to unload Churchill, they might be able to make that stick. But I'm guessing. I'm no expert on IP law. But let's not kid each other. There's only one reason why anybody wants him fired: because you don't like what he said. If Churchill is fired because of what he said, everybody on both sides of the question will lose as a result.

    I don't want him fired because that would make him a martyr to a bunch of moonbats. He should be reduced tottering greasy-haired hang-out at the school. The only crime he commited was sell obvious dyslexic copied sketches to wannabe hip willing buyers while claiming it was his artwork. He should give the money paid and a fine to the family of the original artist.

    He should not be penalized for anything he's written, and finding another pretext to fire him is capitulating to the witchhunt. We're so busy giving up our rights that Osama Bin Laden must be shaking his head in wonderment. How did he get so lucky?

    et al - Gee, I wonder if the professors could afford the $8.00 each? fools - Again. He has the right to say, write or paint what he pleases. His employeer has the right to fire him for certain activities. I think the history of tenure goes back to schools wanting to keep the church out of studies and research. A reasonable goal, at that time. Like many other customes, it has outlived its usefulness and needs to be changed. Perhaps Churchill's folly and hate speech will serve that purpose.

    Like we used to say back at Nortel when they'd introduce another "reorg for efficiency" intiative:
    Ready, Fire, AIM!
    Didn't this guy also make up a bunch of his research out of whole cloth? (Great expression, that!) Didn't he, apparently, make up the ethnicity that got him the job in the first place? I kinda wish I still lived in Boulder just to watch this circus close up! -C

    ppj--first, part of his crime is being more bombastic, perhaps clearer than others--i'm sure we could find 100 essays that say much the same thing Churchill said, but in obtuse, obfuscatory and otherwise pretentious language. I have tenure. I would be stupid not to like it. However, I still hold that same opinion that I had before I got tenture--that tenure will fall at the academy sooner rather than later, and that its effect will be marginal, but the effects will be positive--the capacity to schluff off a lot of dead weight by insisting that one should be productive (and ethical) throughout one's career, not just the first six years. Does Ward Churchill do his job? From what little I have observed, it seems that is so. Will this incident be an event to bring on the end of tenure? That would be interesting to see.

    Quaker, how one feels has no bearing here. Professor Gasbag has defamed innocent people, calling them "Eichmanns". The fact that the left defends this nonsense, while refusing to apply the same logic to Larry Summer's recent statement clearly demonstrates their morally bankrupt hypocrisy. Doesn't matter how you feel about it; there it is.

    Defamation is a cause of action. Those who feel defamed are able to hire those awful lawyers and have their day in court. That's a proper avenue for the eichmanns comment.

    I defend this guy's right to say what he said. Just as I will defend Summers for his ill-advised remarks. They have the right to say these things. It's called freedom of speech. Very important part of this country's fabric. Both Summers and Churchill have put their employment in jeopardy by expressing their thoughts. Due process is important in both cases. Churchill is tenured, do he is somewhat hard to fire. That's just the facts of the matter. Sumnmers is pres of a university, that job is not tenured. He serves at the pleasure of the regents or whatever Harvard calls its board. He may be easier to fire in that job capacity. Apples and oranges. Facts and findings.

    Re: Professors Take Out Ad Supporting Ward Churchi (none / 0) (#12)
    by soccerdad on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 06:59:17 AM EST
    Dr Ace, The "left" defends Churchill's right to speak given the precepts of academic freedom and the rules of the tenure system. Doing so doesn't necessarily imply approval of what he said or how he said it. Larry Summers is president of a university and is not a faculty member. He speaks as essentially a CEO whose words could be construed to affect hiring and firing policies for example. Now on to the glass house. Its interesting that the right is up in arms about Sponge bob or the downfall of America because some gays married in Mass (seecomments by Romney), but remain incredible silent on Gannon or whatever his name is.

    Everyone in America -- at least according to most democrats and liberals -- has the right to say pretty much anything, barring inciting riots, etc. However, with rights come responsibilities and sometimes one's professional duties mean that a person's responsibilities preclude what they can say without suffering some retribution. Mr. Churchill was offensive in what he said, but nothing in a professor's job says they can't say something controversial -- unless you live in Ohio and they pass that ridiculous law. President Summers, as the leader and representative of the University, lives under a different set of rules. What democrats and liberals are arguing is that we enter -- or rather re-enter -- a dangerous time in our history if academics have to be careful of what ideas they express. Everyone must consider their words, but academics should not connect job security to political correctness. I thought conservatives and republicans despised PC-ness...I guess only when it prevents them from being racists, chauvanists, or homophobes. Then again, perhaps they see a chance for a win in what is quickly becoming a rather lame-duck presidency.

    Soc. Gannon is a nothing incident, however you try to blow it up. Too bad. Summers has the same right of free speech as anybody else and the technicalities of his employment situation would not mean the same to you if he'd said something else, or had not had a conservative record. Tenure means the guy can't be fired except after due process. It is true that Whitey Churchill brought the attention to himself on account of his mouth, but that doesn't mean that, having reviewed his publications and his plagiarism, due process might not see him fired. It might also be interesting to see who hired him sans PhD and why. Why should an investigation be halted unless there's something there the other profs don't want known? Possibly they're about as bad as he is and, so far, have lived with it because nobody cared. Now that people might be looking, more than Churchill might be in jeopardy.

    Re: Professors Take Out Ad Supporting Ward Churchi (none / 0) (#15)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 07:48:43 AM EST
    I'm not from CO. People can say whatever they want. It's none of my business.

    Re: Professors Take Out Ad Supporting Ward Churchi (none / 0) (#16)
    by Pete Guither on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 07:59:53 AM EST
    Speech is the greatest thing. And it's so vital to the health of a free democracy. What has come out of these controversial speeches? Lively debate about the issues (certainly in the case of the Summers speech you can see the incredible discussions all over that have been generated). Speech that is allowed (though not necessarily agreed with) generates more speech and keeps issues from festering below ground. And what better place for controversial speech than a university campus? How are students to really learn unless they're challenged at every opportunity? I've had to put up with faculty with bizarre views on both the right and the left -- or even what I consider bizarre views within their field (acting styles, for example). But they serve a purpose. I think every university should have at least one far-left and one far-right wacko on the faculty -- and give them both a regular column in the student newspaper to spew whatever they want. People will talk. Controversial statements stimulate heated and useful discussion. (something that is lacking in the simplified partisan opposition "debate" format of TV newsertainment.) The Churchill and Summers discussions would have been even more robust if less of it had been about preventing them from speaking again.

    He'll be terminated for fraud. Wanna bet???

    Didn't Falwell blame 9/11 on the gays, single parents, and non-Christians? Why is there no outrage over his comments?

    Daniel. Join us. We're on Earth, aka Terra, third planet from Sol. There was plenty of outrage about Falwell. You were obviously elsewhere at the time. But you could look it up. Falwell, as it happens, isn't paid by money coerced from taxpayers. Said taxpayers have a limited right to determine how their money is spent and they may decide to let Churchill talk his talk without their financial support.

    Re: Professors Take Out Ad Supporting Ward Churchi (none / 0) (#21)
    by pigwiggle on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 08:30:26 AM EST
    “We're so busy giving up our rights that Osama Bin Laden must be shaking his head in wonderment.” What right? I think what we are talking about is a contractual obligation by the employer. "It is going to be extremely difficult, if academic freedom is on the block, for us to hire and keep good faculty members.' " Perhaps, it is a pretty cush perk. However, most likely the quality of faculty members retained will be better.

    Re: Professors Take Out Ad Supporting Ward Churchi (none / 0) (#22)
    by soccerdad on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 09:10:30 AM EST
    Perhaps, it is a pretty cush perk
    No its fundamental to academics. Without you can be terminated at the whim of the president/dean because he/she doesn't like what you say. That is contray to the very fundamental tenets of academics and learning; of course unless you want indoctrination rather than learning

    Re: Professors Take Out Ad Supporting Ward Churchi (none / 0) (#24)
    by Pete Guither on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 09:34:55 AM EST
    Freedom of Speech is a cushy perk? Wow.

    Re: Professors Take Out Ad Supporting Ward Churchi (none / 0) (#25)
    by pigwiggle on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 09:38:59 AM EST
    “No its fundamental to academics.” Tenure in the hard sciences is based on publication record and faculty review. Anyone holding minority/unpopular views will be unable to publish in peer reviewed journals and will likely fail a faculty review. I haven’t given much thought to how this may effect the more subjective ‘sciences’, seems like they need to be saved from themselves. Peter- Don’t be foolish; his freedom of speech has not been infringed. We are talking about an employment contract, which I believe ensures his employment long after this controversy passes.

    "He should be reduced tottering greasy-haired hang-out at the school. " Isn't that basically what he was, before the right wing decided to make a national crusade out of this?

    Re: Professors Take Out Ad Supporting Ward Churchi (none / 0) (#27)
    by soccerdad on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 09:59:17 AM EST
    Tenure in the hard sciences is based on publication record and faculty review. Anyone holding minority/unpopular views will be unable to publish in peer reviewed journals and will likely fail a faculty review.
    For the hard sciences, this is way overstated. Usually you either have the data to back up your claims or you don't. People get in trouble when they make claims that can't be backed up or can be accounted for by other hypotheses which they refuse to consider. Of course that doesn't stop them from feelin persecuted.

    To the right: When are you going to fire Ann Coulter?

    Better make sure instapundit gets a copy of the ad...he has replaced his daily rant about the Democrat of the Day with one about Churchill --

    Ann Coulter was fired. By National Review. She's now making a living on her own. Good chance Churchill could, too.

    Re: Professors Take Out Ad Supporting Ward Churchi (none / 0) (#29)
    by Pete Guither on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 01:15:34 PM EST
    pigwiggle, Correct me if I'm wrong, I've only followed the case peripherally. My understanding is that Churchill is employed by a public university. My understanding is also that the controversial remarks were in an essay that he wrote or speech that he gave. Do you have evidence that there is an employment contract from a public entity that prohibits his ability to say or write certain things (other than that which had been already legally determined to be unprotected speech), and if so, how that could possibly survive a constitutional challenge?

    PG - The terms have been published several times. Check either the Denver Post or Rocky Mtn News archives if you are interested. Paul Campos of CU says it best. As for other reasons: " Less well known is the fact that he has long advocated political violence—and has apparently practiced what he preached. He has also falsified his own personal history (apparently including his ethnicity and combat status) and twisted history to accuse white Americans of genocide. Indeed, on at least two occasions, Churchill has been accused of throttling speech he does not endorse by violent means. In 1993, following his ouster from the radical group the American Indian Movement (AIM), Churchill reportedly retaliated by spitting in the face of AIM’s elderly leader, Carol Standing Elk, while a younger accomplice broke her wrist. In a less violent but equally offensive example of “direct action” ten years later, Churchill—who has repeatedly invoked his right to free speech as all-purpose defense against his critics—was acquitted on charges of obstructing the Columbus Day parade.." Link Nice work if you can get it.

    Me, above.

    Quaker - How about fraud? BTW - I think the school you are referring to is the Denver branch of the University, not DU.

    Here's a nice opinion piece from the Denver Post that describes what tenure is and how it came about. The author is Lloyd Burton, a professor and a tenure committee chairman at the Graduate School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado at Denver (which is private, not part of the Colorado public university system). Suggestions that Churchill can or should be fired for "fraud" or "incitement" or "making defamatory statements" are flimsy fig leaves to cover a more sinister motive: the urge to make him shut up and go away. I wouldn't think of trying to convince anyone to like what Churchill has to say. But as soon as you start firing professors for having unpopular opinions, diversity of opinion in public education is lost.

    CU Denver is not a private university--it is, as PPJ says, the Denver campus of the University of Colorado system. CU is reportedly considering offering Churchill an early retirement package. I think it's a good idea.

    I think the school you are referring to is the Denver branch of the University, not DU. Quite right. When I read the dead-tree version this morning, I clearly saw "Denver University." Must've needed another jolt of caffeine.

    Well, Anon, to follow your point out, being a wacked-out, potentially violent activist and anti-American could protect one from sanctions resulting from any conceivable combination of academic deficiencies and fraud. Because looking into the latter would only be a "fig leaf". We can only fire quiet professors?

    "Posted by Doctor Ace: "Quaker, how one feels has no bearing here. Professor Gasbag has defamed innocent people, calling them "Eichmanns"." Ann Coulter spreads lies, racism, and national hatred all day long, and you laugh, Ace. You're a hypocrite, or better, to follow MC Miller's observation, a projectionist. If the purpose of universities is to stimulate thought toward the resolution of the dire problems we have on this planet, then Ward Churchill has clearly succeeded in that mission. They ought to give him a raise.

    Actually, let me be more conformative with policy: "That's hypocrisy, Ace." As for ethnicity, no, Cliff, it has not been demonstrated EITHER than ethnicity was a consideration in WC's hiring, nor that his ethnicity has been falsely represented by him, though there was a retracted newspaper claim of such. As for "potentially violent" ... that's just a slur, Richard. As for 'anti-American,' since the little Eichmann's who support the illegal actions of would-be dictators are by definition 'anti-American,' since stolen elections are anti-American, since lying the country into war is anti-American, and since not following treaties is anti-American, Ward Churchill rather easily stands on the other side of that divide, as an American who is FURIOUS at anti-American behavior BY OUR GOVERNMENT here and abroad.

    $8.00 per professor? I am underwhelmed. Just what would Churchill need to do to qualify for dismissal? Murder? The man has embarrassed his employer, stolen works of others for profit, lied about his credentials, lied about his heritage while using affirmative active to gain employment. WHAT MORE IS NEEDED? FIRE THE PUNK!

    "Posted by Richard Aubrey: "Actually, Paul, I was wrong about "potentially". He has been violent, teaching, by his own bragging, bombmaking. The incident at AIM was violent." Churchill's point again, Richard. The 1/3 less longevity of the Pine Ridge reservation IS VIOLENT, and no understanding of AIM can come about without recognizing that. Also, you fail to note that res cops and rightwingers have been killing indians with impunity on Pine Ridge forever. PLENTY of documented official violence against the tribes. As for 'bombmaking,' read a book. I seriously doubt if WC has an advanced knowledge of bombmaking, or that anyone needs WC to teach them how to blow something up. These are well-known, easily available pieces of information. You need fuel-oil, commercial fertilzer, and a Ryder truck. Anything else you need to know? "Whether he claims to be Indian or not is not the point." He not only claims to be Indian, but he is also recognized as such by at least two tribes. " The question is whether he is telling the truth." Really? The question of whether Bush is telling the truth has been resolved. He ain't. I'm waiting to hear your call for him to resign. "The rest of your stuff is moonjuice." Whatever that means, it's hardly an argument.

    Paul In LA - Why do you bring up Bush? Whatever you may think is his sins, they have nothing to do with Churchill. And as you defend Churchill, see what Thomas Brown of Lamar University says about Churchill's claims of gewnocide by small pox by the US Army. Here is Brown's conlusions: "Situating Churchill’s rendition of the epidemic in a broader historiographical analysis, one must reluctantly conclude that Churchill fabricated the most crucial details of his genocide story. Churchill radically misrepresented the sources he cites in support of his genocide charges, sources which say essentially the opposite of what Churchill attributes to them. It is a distressing conclusion. One wants to think the best of fellow scholars. The scholarly enterprise depends on mutual trust. When one scholar violates that trust, it damages the legitimacy of the entire academy. Churchill has fabricated a genocide that never happened. It is difficult to conceive of a social scientist committing a more egregious violation." Those are damning words written by one scholar against another. I would think that Churchill would be defending his work, but he does not. His silence is deafening. So the issue is not freedom of speech, but work quality. Should a major university keep a professor whose writings appear totally incorrect? Why would anyone want to be taught by him? Why would the parents who pay the tution want him teaching their children? Why would the taxpayers want him teaching and being a defacto representative of Colorado's state university?

    Re: Professors Take Out Ad Supporting Ward Churchi (none / 0) (#43)
    by soccerdad on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 07:43:59 AM EST
    So the issue is not freedom of speech, but work quality.
    Nice try. There are multiple issues here. One of which is the free speech issue that has brought this to everyone's attention. So don't purposely try to confuse the issues.
    Should a major university keep a professor whose writings appear totally incorrect?
    Appears to whom to be incorrect? There's a big difference between being incorrect and purposely fraudulent. The charges leveled by the other prof. are serious and should be addressed. Most universities have well documented proceedures for dealing with such issues. If they feel they have legitimate questions then it should be persured. Although care should be taken to make sure its an unbiased exam. Outside scholars who's integrity are beyond reproach should be sought out to investigate. The fact that he has not addressed them in public to your satisfaction yet, means nothing.
    Why would anyone want to be taught by him?
    Do you know anything about his courses or are you willing to hang him based on as yet unsupported charges and a predispoition to assume all on the left are always guilty . Don't bother to answer I know the answer.
    Why would the parents who pay the tution want him teaching their children?
    For knowing so little yet supposing so much you sure are ready to thrash this guy. Too bad your standards of evidence dont extend to this admin, but then again you wouldn't be the hypocrite you are.
    Why would the taxpayers want him teaching and being a defacto representative of Colorado's state university?
    Maybe he's a good teacher, I'm not sure. But you haave nothing but accusations which because of your preconceived notions are willing to assume are completely correct.

    Re: Professors Take Out Ad Supporting Ward Churchi (none / 0) (#44)
    by roy on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 09:37:08 AM EST
    Let's say the University recognizes that the 1st amendment prohibits them from punishing Churchill for his Eichman essay. Should they still hold the inquiry to review other, less political, accusations?

    Re: Professors Take Out Ad Supporting Ward Churchi (none / 0) (#45)
    by soccerdad on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 10:16:17 AM EST
    Let's say the University recognizes that the 1st amendment prohibits them from punishing Churchill for his Eichman essay. Should they still hold the inquiry to review other, less political, accusations?
    If they have enough evidence, then sure it should go forward making sure to adhere to all polices set forth in the contracts, faculty handbook, and other relevant documents. Fraud passing as research is a serious charge and if true should be punished harshly. Of course the concern here is that it will be used an excuse to to accomplish their intent. However, an outside committe of scholars investigating any charge of academic malfeascence such as falisfied research, could go a ways to making sure the procedure is fair.

    "Posted by Jim: "Paul In LA - Why do you bring up Bush? Whatever you may think is his sins, they have nothing to do with Churchill." Hilarious. They have EVERYTHING to do with WC. Bush is the retarded, vicious chief of the little Eichmanns. "Situating Churchill’s rendition...." You obviously don't read much, Jim. As I laboriously stated in that other thread, at best this puts a college professor into a controversy -- which is, btw, where they belong. The actual facts and their assessment is a matter for experts, but NO ONE argues that there wasn't a concerted effort at genocide, racist genocide, against the first peoples. "Those are damning words written by one scholar against another." Wow. Btw, the massive car bombing this morning should put to rest the claims that the HMX and other high-explosives were demolitioned. They are being demolitioned a few hundred pounds at a time, and 280 TONS will take...50 years of civilian murder to go. That suits Bush and his little Eichmanns just fine. They are making TONS of money, and violence against civilians they HATE is no problem. Just like the first people, the Arabs aren't 100% human yet, by US Gov't word and deed. No treaty need stand when there is money to make. No people are free or safe while there are vicious racists like Bush and his Eichmanns on the loose.

    PaulLooLoo, You couldn't have proven PPJ´s point better, with that last ramble of yours. You certainly sympathize with Churchil's position. I do resent greatly your hyperbolic accusation of likening me with Eichman.

    Bos. Not to worry. Paul is obsolete. Archaic. And beginning to figure it out.

    The left is doomed unless people like Paul snap out of it. Blaming Bush for everything from global terrorism to the color of socks I put on today is one-trick ponyism that avoids any hint of intellectual debate. The political process in this country could accomplish a whole lot more if people could just move past the rhetoric and emotionalism and openly debate the logic behind arguments. I don't know whether we as a society have lost our attention spans and have succumbed to political jingoism, or whether we've just forgotten how to debate issues without using inflammatory rhetoric and ad hominem attacks.

    One more time Paul, Do you wear a clown suit when you post?

    Re: Professors Take Out Ad Supporting Ward Churchi (none / 0) (#52)
    by glanton on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 07:25:11 PM EST
    trueblue: We, on all sides of the voting electorate, have lost our attention spans. It aint coming back anytime soon, either.

    By the way, Paul, from a logical perspective this can easily be stripped down. Ward Churchill is an employee of the university, and when he uses his stature as such when making public statments, it reflects on his employer. Rush Limbaugh was fired from Monday Night Football for the exact same reason -- what he said reflected badly on his employer and he was terminated. I didn't hear anyone from the left screaming about Limbaugh's rights to free speech. The university is a business. It relies on incoming students plus grants from other sources. If Churchill's comments threaten the university's future, they have a right to take action. This isn't about free speech or a personal Bush vendetta. This is about continued employment when you're damaging your employer's business. Nowhere does the Constitution prohibit businesses from imposing limits on employees' speech. Ask anyone who's ever worked for the military, worked in a law firm, practiced medicine, or signed a nondisclosure agreement.

    "Posted by Boquisucio: "that last ramble of yours. You certainly sympathize with Churchil's position." Sympathize? I agree that genocide has been the policy of the US gov't toward the tribes, that grave injustices against the first peoples are ongoing, and that the US gov't has committed genocide and grave war crimes REPEATEDLY, right up to today. Not being a leftist, I do not share most of the rest of Churchill's perspective. "I do resent greatly your hyperbolic accusation of likening me with Eichman." When will you stop beating your wife? I never mentioned you, and, in the WC phrase, the Eichmann's are specifically those who, in their daily gentile work in high towers, cause the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people around the world. Does that describe you?

    "Posted by trueblue: "Ward Churchill is an employee of the university, and when he uses his stature as such when making public statments, it reflects on his employer." It may indeed. "Rush Limbaugh was fired from Monday Night Football for the exact same reason -- what he said reflected badly on his employer and he was terminated." Not comparable at all. WC is a tenured professor with a longstanding contract. Limbaugh, a proven intentional liar, made racist comments that got him bounced from an entertainment show. How are those things comparable? They aren't. The one man is an educator; the other is a gasbag who lies constantly, outright. You don't like WC, that's fine with me; I don't agree with much of his perspective. But I have no evidence before me that WC is on any scale similar to Limbaugh, a proven liar, a liar who continues his lies without conscience. There is also no evidence that WC is an opiate addict, or a racist. But I'm not an expert in WC, and this whole focus on him is counter-programming to give Bushliar an supposed out for lying the country into an illegal, very deadly invasion -- for which he ought to RESIGN. WC, a college professor, need not resign for being controversial. Bushliar, a POTUS, should resign for betraying the country, and for getting 1,500 soldiers killed, and for sending 40,000 soldiers to war without Kevlar, and for making his supporters rich on an unnecessary, genocidal war. No comparison to WC.

    Paul: Wow. Such vitriol. Limbaugh had a contract, same as WC. Both made comments offensive to their employers. I'd debate the lying issue, particularly since WC has his own integrity issues. I have three degrees, and IMO many of my professors have been lying gasbags. Being a member of academia doesn't innoculate you from falsehoods. However, lying isn't the issue. Offending your employer is, and your inflammatory rhetoric dodged that point. Does an employer have the right to terminate an employee who has issued remarks that damage the employer's business? Stick to the point and debate the question rather than deflecting into tired rhetoric. As far as the 1,500 fatalities go, it wasn't Bush that killed them. It was militant Islamists. But you might also note that those Islamists have killed far more of their own people. You might also note that 90% of US casualties in Iraq survive -- the highest in US history. Genocide? Read the papers. It's not Americans killing all those Iraqis. Americans are the ones dying trying to protect them. But I digress. It's not my call to pass judgement on WC, because he doesn't work for me. But if one of my employees drug my business through the mud, I certainly would.

    Re: Professors Take Out Ad Supporting Ward Churchi (none / 0) (#57)
    by soccerdad on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 03:25:12 AM EST
    PPJ You're a moron as usual. Or is that public education of your showing again. If they have enough go forward following procedures. Of course when it suits you the word of one other person is enough and when it suits you photos, memos, and testimony are not enough. Of course you are a major hypocrite but thats old news.

    How is it that someone like Ann Coulter can call Helen Thomas an "old Arab" and laugh about journalists being killed, etc., etc. and become a cottage media industry while any utterance on the left from an academic is met with a flood of righwing vitriol, which college administrators actually buckle to?

    A lot of interesting commentary here but I think the main point has been missed. I suppose the university could fire Churchill on the grounds that his rhetoric is too inflammatory. I doubt, for instance, that an outspoken white supremacist would find himself very welcome at any university, even if he were just a calculus professor who never brought the issue up in class. But in addition to any ethical violations, the main reason Churchill should be fired has to do with his failure to demonstrate such fundamental qualities as wisdom, thoughtfulness, reason and good judgment. Churchill’s infamous 9/11 essay is rife with faulty reasoning and shows a misguided understanding of history. His entire diatribe appears to be fueled by an irrational hatred of the U.S. rather than any thoughtful analysis of the facts. Not only does it show poor judgment but it also borders on lunacy. The Churchill fiasco should open the public’s eyes to the tendency of academics to mistake controversial rhetoric for intelligent discourse. Anybody can be controversial. It’s time for the university to wise up and take a stand by letting Churchill go.

    Carol: Please itemize any logical faults you think you can find in the "infamous essay". PPJ: The allegation by the opposing faction of the American Indian Movement that Churchill and his wife assaulted Carol Standing Elk at a press conference Churchill had called is pretty hard to take seriously in light of his deft handling of hecklers and obvious grace under pressure in this C-SPAN clip of his press conference in response to the recent smear campaign, and is moreover at odds with his forceful, logical and well-referenced writing, which bespeaks a sane and powerful intelligence. I'll take this direct evidence over hearsay from the right-wing echo chamber.

    Churchill’s infamous 9/11 essay is rife with faulty reasoning Yet, for some reason, all those opposed to it have failed to show where the faulty reasoning lies. Including you...

    To TBagg & Jesurgislac: Let’s start with Churchill’s opening remarks in his 9-11 essay, in which he tries to make the case that, as a result of the Gulf War, the U.S. is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraquis, yet he never even mentions Saddam Hussein or the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. Wouldn’t that be the logical place to begin? Apparently in Churchill’s twisted mind the actions of Iraq against the people of Kuwait are irrelevant to the Gulf War. This would be comparable to trying to do a documentary on WWII without ever mentioning Germany. If you can explain to my satisfaction how this does not constitute faulty reasoning on Churchill’s part, then I’ll move on to the next issue. Otherwise my point is made.

    Carol: That the best you can do? The vast majority of the deaths were due to the sanctions, not the war. More than 500,000 children died of the sanctions AFTER the war. Even if you buy the idea that their deaths were "worth it" to disarm Saddam (pretty bad math -- how many would he likely have killed with what he might otherwise have managed to build under our noses?) the fact is that the sanctions were maintained for years after our intelligence services had determined that Iraq had destroyed all its WMD, showing that our actual aim was not what we claimed. The sanctions were, in fact, aimed at those children; our govenment _meant_ them to die, hoping that the continuing agony this caused their parents would impel the public to remove Saddam from power. We stonewalled the reconstruction of their water supply network despite two studies that had predicted the large-scale death from epidemics that resulted. This is a crime against humanity by any sane standard. And this was _our_ crime, not Iraq's.

    To Tbagg: The question was: Would the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq be the logical place to begin when discussing the repurcussions of U.S. actions in the Gulf War (including the sanctions that followed)?