home

Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 05:51:32 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

A scuffle by protesters at the C.U. Regents meeting over Professor Ward Churchill resulted in two arrests Thursday. The Regents apologized to the nation over Churchill's writings. Was this necessary?

In what may be an unprecedented action by any major university, the regents also apologized "to all Americans, especially those targeted in the 9/11 attacks and those serving in our armed forces, for the disgraceful comments of professor Churchill."

The Colorado Senate has condemned Churchill, as has the Colorado House.

Is Colorado getting carried away with the Ward Churchill matter? I think so, and said so yesterday over at 5280. The magazine's publisher, Dan Brogan, disagrees with me.

University of Colorado professors are backing Churchill. The Regents sound like they are about to fire him, although they took it under advisement for investigation.

The regents' review, which will be conducted by interim chancellor Phil DiStefano, will determine whether Churchill overstepped his bounds as a faculty member and whether his actions are cause for dismissal. DiStefano will explore two questions: Do Churchill's comments provide grounds for dismissal? And is this conduct or speech protected by the First Amendment against university action?

You can read his controversial essay here.

[comments now closed, 120 posted.]

< Thrown Away: Juvenile Lifers | Fun Times in Iraq? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting | 118 comments (118 topical)
    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 02:33:58 AM EST
    This is disgusting. A professor's job is to provoke and get people thinking and even disagreeing passionately. If people are revved up about what he wrote, he did his job. And now you've got an elected official seeking political retribution against a private citizen for what he wrote in an ESSAY.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 03:14:48 AM EST
    Tunesmith, did you read the essay? It's the nonsensical ravings of someone who has been cloistered in Boulder for way too long. But what I want to know is if he wrote this in 2001, why is everyone's panties in a bunch like this after four years? I'm not "revved up" by what he wrote, just turned off. I think he should lose his job not because of this rant, but because he's not qualified to do the job if he thinks that a rant suffices as an argument. I don't think his essay will change a single mind--it is purely inflammatory. If the chairman of the English department at a major university is incapable of writing a persuasive essay, that's pretty sad. To revive an old chestnut, if the guy really thinks that the US is the root of all evil and Americans have no possibility of ever redeeming themselves, short of being bombed back to the stone age by heroic middle-eastern freedom fighters, then maybe he should save himself and get the hell out. He berates the entirety of the US population, taking special care to denigrate those who have been arguing for a just US foreign policy because they themselves haven't taken the trouble to fly planes into skyscrapers, but what has he been doing? Writing speeches for Russell Means? It's meaningless ranting. It has no importance. I really don't care if he gets to keep his job or not. Again, I just find it curious that politicians are doing all this posturing four years after the fact. I think their time would be better spent doing what everybody should do to Ward Churchill--ignore him.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 03:36:31 AM EST
    Reading that crap of an essay causes brain damage.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 03:50:09 AM EST
    I read the essay. We, as americans have to realize the truth of his statements. Where are we as a nation when a dissenting voice cannot be heard. It's OK to be a communist or a militia member in America. I even say it's OK for Trent Lott to say what he said, but it is also OK in America to say what Churchill said. This country is going down, but not for the reasons the "Freedom Bombers" think. God help us all.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#5)
    by john horse on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 04:24:28 AM EST
    Many years ago, a local professor wrote some essays about the inferiority of certain races. I also believe he also wrote the forward to David Duke's book. He didn't receive even so much as a rebuke for this. The administration took the position that this was a matter of academic freedom and academic freedom means allowing people the right to advocate things that are controversial or unpopular.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#6)
    by soccerdad on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 04:34:44 AM EST
    Its hard to see how this is not protected by freedom of speech and academic freedom. The right has made it clear that having tamed and/or took over MSM its next big target was American "Leftist" universities. The right believes only in their freedom of speech and the free flow of its ideas. Like its leader, who must screen people for ideological purity for admission to any event, no dissent will be allowed or its originator unpunished.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#7)
    by Peaches on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 04:37:32 AM EST
    But what I want to know is if he wrote this in 2001, why is everyone's panties in a bunch like this after four years? Because, Bill O'Reilly and Fox have nothing better to do right now. He spoke his outrage and all his little minions without lives starting sending emails and speaking thier outrage. Propaganda. 1984. Ward Churchhill wrote an essay in 2001 and no one listened. Now, after O'Reilly, everyone knows his name and half the people in America (who listen to Fox) want to know how America can allow these ideas and thoughts within our borders, while the other half sits and scratches their heads in wonder.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 05:23:47 AM EST
    Churchill has freedom of speech, but he also has to deal with any consequences of said speech. Anyone is free, for instance, to call their boss a bozo in public. That doesn't make them immune to consequences from that speech. There are freedoms and responsibilities; you get both.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 05:29:47 AM EST
    Ann Coulter can make inflammatory statements wishing the planes had hit the NYT and killed "liberals", Pat Robinson can blame 911 on feminists and they get asked to appear at Universities and colleges all over America as speakers. Right -wing nuts appear daily on campuses and on the media spewing their nonsense and the most you hear is a little indignant rumbling. We know as a matter of public record that immediately after 911 our highest public officials (Bush, Rumsfield) made it a talking point to pin 911 on Iraq. We know we were lied to by Colin Powell and embarressed before the world in the U.N. We know our media cooperated with Bush to hype the WMD's which have not cooperated by appearing (perhaps they are buried in the ruble of Fallujah). For all these serious innaccuracies, lies, inflammatory, racist, fascist statements, and worse actions, there has been no price paid by the purveyors. All the above mentioned are still firmly esconced in their positions of power. Prof. Churchill on the other hand is being reviled for speaking words that while painful to hear and bitter certainly contain more truth than much of what has left the lips of many speaking from a position of more influence. What are we afraid of? How popular do you think it was to criticize the Third Reich at the height of its power.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#10)
    by soccerdad on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 05:32:55 AM EST
    This is political speech not insulting a boss. According to JR you have the freedom of speech to agree with the current regime. Academic freedom is supposed to allow you to express controverisal opinions, right or left, without fear of being fired. The fact that this is being brought up 3 years after he wrote it speaks to the idea that the campaign to purge universities of people who don't spew the state propaganda is now in full force. Fascism starts with small steps like these.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 05:46:43 AM EST
    Rik@work, Realize the truth? A joke right? America has NOTHING to regret and did NOTHING to provoke 9/11. The only thing we have to regret is Clinton’s Presidency, because he did NOTHING to prevent it. The only thing going down is the Democratic Party. Churchill is a Public Employee and he has condemned everyone that pays his check, they don’t like that and he should go. He has already said he will resist, so we the people will have to eject him. His writings are the blatherings of an America Hating anarchist and any normal American should be disgusted by them. It does not surprise me to find words of encouragement and praise for him on this blog. There is a Marine General that said that it “was fun” to kill the Taliban women beaters and oppressors. That’s free speech! You Libs are all over this guy and calling for his resignation. Why is saying it is fun to kill Taliban thugs wrong, but encouraging and cheering the killing thousands of innocent American workers is OK? Is it because the Liberals in this country are so blinded by hatred that they have fallen off the cliff to an unreal world of their own creation. I watch Boxer, Kennedy and Churchill piss and moan and I wonder, Where do these people live? The world I live in is full of prosperity and hope! I pity you fools that insist on living in a world of hate and despair. You and people like you are a sad pathetic people. Have a nice day!

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 05:47:48 AM EST
    The military veterans commenting here, as much as they might dislike the man's diatribe, would understand that we all went through 'much sh*t' so everyone could have their say, no matter how they may personally detest what's being said. That's what that Oath we all swore meant. If the man is later proven to be a liar and a scoundrel, well, time will tell. In the meantime, no matter how much you'd like to shut his biscuit trap, he must have his say...or ours is endangered.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 05:57:05 AM EST
    I am sorry, I came here to see if I could figure out how you guys tick, but you are like aliens to me. In fact, your views disgust me so much you make my skin crawl. Fascism, Imperialism and Racism are the misused catch phrases used to make inflamitory and innacurate statements in order to bolster your very sick view of the world. The conservatives will continue to protect and take care of you, inspite of your disgusting and degenerate ideas. I have to go take a shower and wash off the slime of you people!

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 05:59:45 AM EST
    et al - Churchill has the right to say what he wants. His remarks were insulting and inflamatory. Let him get a box to stand on and go down to the corner of Colfax and Broadway and rant away. SD - Political speech is protected from prior restraint by the government. I don't think you can call CU the "government." In addition, as posted by Kitt in the Open Thread yesterday: Aim Statement "Ward Churchill has been masquerading as an Indian for years..... He waves around an honorary membership card that at one time was issued to anyone by the Keetoowah Tribe of Oklahoma. ...many others received these cards, but these cards do not qualify the holder a member of any tribe. He has deceitfully and treacherously fooled innocent and naïve Indian community members in Denver, Colorado, as well as many other people worldwide. Churchill does not represent, nor does he speak on behalf of the American Indian Movement." If AIM isrrect, then lying about being an indian, especially as it effects his status in the CU Ethnic Studies Department, should be grounds for dismissal. Peaches - It appears that when he was invited to speak at Hamilton College, someone at the college decided that they didn't want him to spread his propaganda, and ratted him out. Good for them. Here is a link that t tunesmith - A professor's job is to teach. Making outrageous statements is not teaching.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#15)
    by anon55 on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 06:02:17 AM EST
    It's free speech. So what. No one has to agree with him. On the other hand, we all have to think like the right wing. You don't hear them apologizing.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#16)
    by soccerdad on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 06:09:21 AM EST
    The fascists are out in full force today. There is only one way. How dare you criticize the regime. I did not like the way his essay was written but buried in there are some truths. 1. 9/11 was not a random attack. it was "blowback" for our policies in the middle east 2. Americans as a whole dont care about the injustices or atrocities it inflicts on others. It is blinded by its self-rightous nationalism. We have 3000 people killed in a brutal attack and are rightfully angry. But does that allow us to kill over 100k Iraqis who had nothing to do with the attack?

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 06:11:43 AM EST
    The First Amendment does not guarantee Mr. Churchill the right to say anything he wants without concern for the response he will get. It only guarantees him the right to say it. If the University of Colorado does not wish to associate itself with him because of the things he says, they are free to make that decision. And isn't it interesting that so many campuses have codes against this very sort of speech when it's uttered by a student? Shouldn't the professors have to abide by the same rules?

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 06:14:31 AM EST
    What about Jerry Falwell blaming gays ad Jewish people for 9-11? Why has O'Liely not started a campaign about this? Hypocrites. hypocrites hypocrites

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#19)
    by soccerdad on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 06:25:05 AM EST
    Mr Churchill is protected by academic freedom whichis supposed to allow professors to take unpopular stands whether on theright or the left. BTW CU is a state school and the Regants are appointed/approved by the State Government

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 06:43:58 AM EST
    The First Amendment means Ward Churchill is free to say and write whatever point he wants without having to fear being prosecuted/shot/thrown in prison for those beliefs. The State is not in the process of shooting or imprisoning him, so I would say it still works well. The Question of Academic Freedom is a bit more difficult. Professors should challenge and incite discussion. However, that piece was was filled with more invective and innuendo than analysis and discussion. Rather than provoke discussion and thought on a topic, the angry Prof has created hurt, outrage and anger unnecessarily, needlessly, and IMHO pointlessly. He could have made all his points without using the rhetoric and invective that has inflamed and incensed the vast majority. This is an embarassment to his University, and the Board of Regents are well within their rights to toss him on out.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#21)
    by Lora on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 06:45:59 AM EST
    Universities used to be repositories of controversial ideas. Debate, freedom of speech, and indeed the duty to think, consider, analyze, ponder, disagree, and even at times outrage, insult, offend, in the pursuit of truth and knowledge were the responibilities of the academic community. Now universities are more and more becoming the mouthpieces of their corporate and political partners and sponsors. State universities can have funding removed if the state government or corporate donors do not like what they are doing. I'll wager that is what the objection is all about. Yes, his essay is an extreme, offensive rant with plenty of errors, half-truths and wildly questionable associations. Some of this perspective comes from what we have learned since 2001. And some of what he says, unpleasant though it is, is true. To fire someone for criticizing his country's citizens, govenment, and people, should not be tolerated. Where was his crime? Basically he has called us all perpetrators of crimes against humanity throughout the world and particularly the mideast, either through mere ignorance and/or inaction, or with our full approval and support, and that we are at least in part deserving of a violent response against us by those we have harmed. This perspective should serve to force us to thoroughly analyze our own position, action or inaction, covert or overt support we have given to the policies and military actions of our country. This should force us to thoroughly examine those policies, actions, and their consequences to the people of the world, and to determine just where we stand with respect to them. This should force us to consider what is an appropriate response to those actions and what is not. And many other things. We should engage in debate, discussion, and examination, and action. Not fire someone because he offends us by daring to discuss unpopular and unpleasant views that are critical of you and me and our country. WHat are we afraid of, or ashamed of, that we MUST silence this man? Let him speak, then THINK, then speak back thoughtfully, intelligently, coherently. But then thinking isn't something that is particularly well-thought of these days. Why? Well, its...dangerous. Who knows where it might lead...perhaps even to a different perspective than the official one...^_^

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 06:55:27 AM EST
    Academic freedom is something to be desired, but it is not a freedom guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. If Mr. Churchill had the idea that he could say anything and never be held accountable, he is finding out otherwise. And maybe this is a fine lesson for his students as well. There are limits on what you can expect to be able to say without suffering consequences. Should he be fired? I don't know. I wouldn't fire h im based solely on this one essay, but then I'm not ini the position to make that decision anyway. His employer is, and his employer has obligations to all of its students and the state of Colorado, not just to those who support Mr. Churchill's views. If Mr. Churchill wants to be able to say anything while teaching class, he should open his own school. But I'm sure if he is fired the ACLU will support him in his then-inevitable lawsuit for wrongful termination and he'll get far more than his allotted 15 minutes of fame. He may even win and get his job back or a large settlement. We'll see.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 06:57:13 AM EST
    ?what is the statue of limitations on saying some dumb shizzzzz? smoke screens, distractions, slight of hand, misdirection. "keep your eye on the prize" more important battles are forthcoming.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 06:57:23 AM EST
    Interesting how the new political correctness is only applied to people critical of the the allegedly 'free market' economy and the Administration. I've read the essay: it's overheated, but makes a point that the political right has tried to squelch since 9/11: there are millions in the world who have been hurt (and yes, killed) by US Government and Global Corporate decisions, and understanding that should influence our policies. But the rightist noise machine does not want any examination of the motivation of the various factions of 'our enemies'. Bush2 keeps saying 'they hate our freedom'. Well, yes, they hate the freedom with which we have played with their lives for profit and power without responsibility. Churchill's rant is just that, and 'a hit dog hollers'. If there weren't some merit in his views, it wouldn't be necessary (to some) to crush the man, in a highly unAmerican way.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 06:58:33 AM EST
    SD - You should read the post before commenting. "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." Certianly representing yourself as an Indian, when, if AIM is correct , you are not, is false conduct, and lying. This would obviously impact your status within CU's "Ethnic Studies Department." Without doubt that is "moral turpitude." And that is grounds for dismissal. GregZ - I have never actually read Fallwell's statements you refer to. But, I will assume you are correct, and condem them. Now, Fallwell is the head of his organization, with, most likely, a board of directors/advisors. I doubt that the board has the power to fire Fallwell. My point is, Fallwell is head of his very own private organization. CU is a public organization. Big difference. SD - Glad to see your position as a "YesBut" has not changed: "I did not like the way his essay was written but buried in there are some truths." My country, always wrong, eh? Dearest No Name - And no one has to employ him.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 06:58:59 AM EST
    There are some elemental truths that Americans cannot abide and Churchill is going to pay for expressing them. Churchill was impolitic in his writing but that shouldn't serve to obscure the larger points he was making. It's bizarre that folks want to declare Churchill a foul man who must accept the consequences for his actions. I daresay many Americans haven't. I think folks might want to reframe this: the success of the Regents in punishing Churchill will propell a move by all sorts of patriots to cleanse academia of all sorts of leftists. David Horowitz and the College Republicans will likely go on a recruiting drive.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 07:13:41 AM EST
    "Ann Coulter can make inflammatory statements wishing the planes had hit the NYT and killed "liberals", Pat Robinson can blame 911 on feminists and they get asked to appear at Universities and colleges all over America as speakers" What you might not realize is that National Review stopped taking work from Ann Coulter over one of her more absurd diatribes a few years ago. Should the University fire Churchill over this? I don't think so, no. Are they within their rights to do so? If they think it does damage to the University, sure. You get freedom of speech; there's no guarantee of a soapbox. This is one of the things people here forget. I have no problem with Churchill being a loon, and I have no problem with the University keeping him on staff. I also have no problem with them deciding to fire him if they decide that his comments from a University provided soapbox damage the University. No one is obligated to have a megaphone.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#28)
    by pigwiggle on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 07:23:46 AM EST
    In OBL’s fatwah declaring war on the US he mentions Iraq twice. First, in reference to his grievance over the ‘occupation’ of the holy Arabian Peninsula; second, along with other nations such as Egypt, SA, and Sudan, claiming the US is trying to fragment these states to further Israel’s ‘crusade’. OBL declared war, not over Iraq, but over support of Israel and ‘occupation’ of Saudi Arabia and support of its monarchy; for him Iraq was a indicator of US intentions in the region. Chruchill’s essay misses this point entirely and focuses on the civilian casualties of military action, starting with the UN sanctioned action a decade ago. This is the highbrow version of the Sadam/9-11 connection; poor academics. However, after looking in Mr. Churchill’s credentials and publication record I am not surprised; further proof that Universities should not provide tenured professorships to anything less than a PhD. This guy should be canned because he’s a hack, not because of this controversy.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#29)
    by glanton on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 07:26:36 AM EST
    I am in academia and have mixed feelings about this. First of all Jim is absolutely right that if Churchill lied about being an Indian and used that to get the chair of Ethnic Studies, then we have a serious problem. And as most everyone has said on this issue (including O'Reilly, for what it's worth), this is not an issue of free speech, OBVIOUSLY Churchill had and has every right to speak as he wishes. At the same time, if he's fired for what he wrote then that's a disgrace and goes against the very principle of academic freedom, and it goes seriously against the American spirit. The type of people who want to 'shut him up' represent among the worst our nation has to offer. Most of us were turned off by what he argued in that essay, but do we really want to try and mold academia into a place where only safe, agreeable things can be said? What is happening to this country anyway? Politics aside, where have all the quality human beings gone?

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 07:34:36 AM EST
    This new attack on our civil right is a real political attack on all rights not just by the right wing but by people who want your lives. in the case of Maher Arar who was sent to syrian tortured and sent back without being charged with any crime and who now is being helped by the CCR In his lawsuit. what basis was he condemned on? what political reason? if our government is working with people that torture others for information that would make Churchill statements right on the money and our government is doing just that, so who is doing who and for what reason? I hope churchill is not sent to Iraq or iran or syrian, think that is a joke, it isn't.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 07:40:48 AM EST
    glanton - Well, a lot of them are right here. And the ones that aren't are just reprises of what we've seen before. Is soccerdad any different than Lindberg? Is andreas any different than many members of the 40's left and their indifference to the depradations of socialism and communism? Are the extreme right-wingers here much different than the ones portrayed in Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath? I suspect that you, like me, live surrounded by people who pay their taxes, drive the speed limit, vote, send their children off to the military (it happens even in college towns), serve in local charities, etc, etc. It's as good a country as it ever was and it's always been the best. -C

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 07:43:07 AM EST
    No Jim, not always wrong, but not always right either, eh? I didn't like the essay either. Some of the WTC workers may have been lacking scruples, but they did not deserve to die, that's crazy talk and Churchill deserves scorn for that. BTW a lot of janitors, dishwashers died too. I can't understand why we all can't laugh him off as a wingnut. For the wingnuts on the right posting, if you think US foreign policy didn't play a part in 9/11, you are obtuse.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 07:54:51 AM EST
    If the ethnicly confused angry Prof had wtitten an essay discussing his view that 9/11 was "blowback", and had taken a well reasoned, sensible approach to that argument, I would be with you all screaming Academic Freedom- but he didn't. The venomous rhetoric and downright rude comparisions were unnecessary and not conducive to generating civil debate over a point of view. I think the Board is well within their rights to toss him. IMHO, it isn't the argument that should get him canned, but the horrid invective he cloaked it in. Academic Freedom should cover logic and reasoned debate, not unsupported emotive anger generating statements such as our non indian indian seems to enjoy. In as such, he has embarassed his University and they stand nothing to gain be supporting him in this. There is nothing Academic about they phraseology in question, so there is no Academic principle to uphold.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 07:54:57 AM EST
    http://www.aaup.org/statements/Redbook/1940stat.htm From the Definition of Academic Freedom presented by the American Associationof University Professors: —College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.— Did Churchill exercise appropriate restraint? Did he shows respect for the opinions of others? Did he make every effort to indicate that he was not speaking for the institution? *** And while we're on the subject of Academic Fredom, it should be noted that the door swings both ways. How many professors currently teaching political science on college campuses abide by the following? http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/abor.html —The 1915 General Report admonished faculty to avoid “taking unfair advantage of the student’s immaturity by indoctrinating him with the teacher’s own opinions before the student has had an opportunity fairly to examine other opinions upon the matters in question, and before he has sufficient knowledge and ripeness of judgment to be entitled to form any definitive opinion of his own.” In 1967, the AAUP’s Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students reinforced and amplified this injunction by affirming the inseparability of “the freedom to teach and freedom to learn.” In the words of the report, “Students should be free to take reasoned exception to the data or views offered in any course of study and to reserve judgment about matters of opinion.”—

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#36)
    by glanton on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 08:06:20 AM EST
    Cliff: thanks for the reality check. BTW: I'm from North Carolina and think it represents the greatest tract of land on Earth, largely for the reasons you cite, plus a little thing called ACC Basketball. justpaul: I disagree with you often, but you're on relatively solid ground here, I admit. What's weird about Churchill's publication to a lot of us in academia is that he did is as a Chairperson, as an Administrator, and thus in a sense could be said to have donned the cloak of the University as a whole. That's different than an individual professor publishing an argument. My opinion: it's good he's no longer chair as he crissed a line in that capacity. If he is fired however that's baloney. Acadmeia and academic journals, like letters to the local paper and this blog, are indeed an excellent forum for controversial rhetoric. No need to mess with the guy's livelihood for speaking his mind.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 08:10:26 AM EST
    Justpaul- Did Churchill exercise appropriate restraint? I would say no, he really blew it. Did he shows respect for the opinions of others? Obviously not. Did he make every effort to indicate that he was not speaking for the institution? I'll give him that one. However, he is always a representative of his University, and should conduct himself as such. I like that- I will have to bookmark that link, thanks.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#38)
    by soccerdad on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 08:31:26 AM EST
    Is soccerdad any different than Lindberg?
    Put your head you know where Yeah the right got their dander up and will continue to cover up their agenda of surpressing anyone who disagrees with them with faux moral outrage while they appoint a torture enabler as AG I dont see the same outrage about what Fallwell and Roberstoson say or Coulter or anyone else, There's always some excuse. Why the big deal 3 years after the fact? Its very simple, the right wants to supress ideas inconsistent with threir vision just the same way they have been able to make the MSM a bunch of cowering cowards. They want to control what goes on at Universities. The right will decide whats appropriate free speech if it is written in a way to their liking, whether it violates "appropiate" guidelines.they are the ultimate experts on patriotism etc. PPJ has brought up a much more substantive issue.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#39)
    by soccerdad on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 08:33:46 AM EST
    justpaul do you have any proof that he indoctrinates his students?

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimcee on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 08:45:58 AM EST
    I don't think Churchill should be fired for what he wrote, no matter how vile. If as has been pointed out by AIM that he really isn't Native American is true then he should be let go for lying about it on a continual basis in order to keep a position that he misrepresented himself to keep in the first place. This story was not broken by O'Reilly but by the Syracuse Post-Standard and picked up through the blogasphere. I do find it amusing that many on this site find this to be a rightwing cabal to scour Leftist dogma from academia. Whether you want to admit it or not the Left has played this game for a long time by denying tenure to those whom might be thought of as possibly on the Right. It is despicable when the Left does it and it is despicable when the Right does it. Overall though it looks like this fraud of a scholar has finally gotten his comeuppence. Hoisted on his own petard so to speak. As far as the students ejected from the meeting if these Fifth-year seniors were disruptive then they needed to be sent packing. Be civil or be gone.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 08:46:45 AM EST
    Soccerdad, What do you do, read every tenth word? Or are you just engaging in your usual pattern of accusing/claiming/implying that someone said something they didn't say in order to give yourself an opening? I posted an item on Academic Freedom and asked a general question about college professors in general. I made no reference to Professor Churchill in regard to that item. I don't need any proof that he "indoctrinated his students" as I never suggested he did. I simply noted that the concept of Academic Freedom provides freedoms to both the students and the teachers and asked a basic question about how many professors grant their own students such freedom. If you have any real interest in this subject I suggest the writing of Mike Adams at UNC Chapel Hill and the organization FIRE.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#42)
    by glanton on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 09:01:49 AM EST
    Ouch, a Mike Adams reference! justpaul, with all due respect, if you wanna know something about what it is like to operate on a day-to-day basis in a University setting, you're pretty much scraping the bottom of the barrel with Adams. I follow his collumn because it's hilarious, but if you think he has his pulse on something you're way off. He is an entertainer, nothing more. I have been in academia for a long time and as you know I'm an unabashed liberal, but never in my career have I ever put my own political views on the line with students, nor made them feel that my agreement with what they had to say was related to their grade. All I ask is that they defend their position well, period. And I promise you I represent the vast majority of professors in this regard. Do Profs tend to be liberal? You bet your bottom dollar. But they're human beings too, and understand quite well that the sun doesn;t rise and set on their political views. They are parents, sons and daughters, friends and taxpayers--not pundits.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#43)
    by glanton on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 09:02:59 AM EST
    Also, Adams does not in any way tread the sacred ground known as Chapel Hill, the southern part of heaven. He teaches at Wilmington. A fine institution no doubt, but no Chapel Hill.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 09:09:05 AM EST
    Glanton, My mistake. I thought he was at Chapel Hill. Probably because I deal with a lot of professors at Chapel Hill professionally and I just tend to think of UNC as being at Chapel Hill. As for "scraping the bottom of the barrel": That's your opinion, however nonhumble it may be;-). Adams is certainly humorous on occasion, but he's dead-on when he's talking about the differences in how liberal and conservative professors are treated and how many liberal professors do not tolerate noncompliance with the liberal philosophy from their students.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#45)
    by pigwiggle on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 09:16:11 AM EST
    “Do Profs tend to be liberal? You bet your bottom dollar. But they're human beings too, and understand quite well that the sun doesn;t rise and set on their political views.” I have spent a great deal of time as a student, far too much time. Over the past decade I have noticed a gathering crescendo of open hostility for anything conservative. The outright and open vitriol directed at the current conservative move in the country is limitless at my current University. During my wife’s medical education we both restrained from disagreeing with both her colleagues and professors. Comments ranged from the tame, ‘anyone who voted for Bush hates children’, to the wild and hateful. You’re right, academics are people too; the reason I saved my opinions for more open minds. One caveat; my academic experience has been limited to Washington, Idaho, and Utah; all conservative. Perhaps liberals in these states feel outgunned and are reflexively hostile.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 09:30:26 AM EST
    SD - Political speech is protected from prior restraint by the government. I don't think you can call CU the "government." The state-supported University of Colorado is definitely the "government", and as such, if it fires Churchill for expressing unpopular views, it will violate the First Amendment in the clearest way possible. This controversy has been ginned up by the O'Reilly's and Horowitz's of the Right Wing Noise Machine for one purpose -- to frighten and silence the "leftists" that the RWNM wants to drive out of the last place where some measure of independent thought is still permitted -- our universities. The next step, if we allow them to get away with destroying Churchill, will be book-burnings.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#47)
    by glanton on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 09:31:19 AM EST
    Sorry y'all, I just don't see the vitriole. Never as a student have I been in a class where myself or a fellow was punished, through grades, for expressing views, as long as they could defend them. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, only that Academia has over the last five or six years become a favored whipping boy of the MSM and so people outside the game entirely take the view unquestioningly. Maybe I'm too close to the action, I'll allow that as a possibility. Like you, pigwiggle, I've been around the game a long time. As for the experiences shared by you and your wife, that's just wrong. I openly condemn any Prof who tries to belittle students based on who they vote for or what they think.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 09:32:38 AM EST
    If you can honestly say that if Churchill had something along the lines of "all black people who died during 9/11 deserved to die because frnakly they weren't contributing anything to society and were taking up too many government funds from deserving people" that Chuchill should not be fired, that the taxpayers should pay his salary, and he was only sparking debate, as is his job, then fine, he shouldn't be fired. But I supsect not. I suspect the reason most of you defend him and his hateful speech is because the target of his hate is rich, cellphone using Americans on who work in finance. Hate speech is hate speech people, and the taxpayers should not pay for it.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#49)
    by Peaches on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 09:43:40 AM EST
    my academic experience has been limited to Washington, Idaho, and Utah; all conservative. Perhaps liberals in these states feel outgunned and are reflexively hostile. As evidenced by the majority of posts today on a leftist blog about a man named churchill who wrote an essay three years ago, liberals are outgunned everywhere and a little hostility is a barely approporiate reaction. I have a lot worse things to say about people who support Bush than that they hate children.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#51)
    by pigwiggle on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 10:04:34 AM EST
    “Never as a student have I been in a class where myself or a fellow was punished, through grades, for expressing views, as long as they could defend them.” You know as a student there is a lot of ‘wiggle room’ in grades, and as an instructor grades are often subjective. As a TA I have often told my student this and encouraged them to get as much personal face time with the professors as possible. It is only in their best interests to have a professor like them. Anyway, it has been my experience, with notable exceptions, that academics are some of the most self-possessed egotistical backstabbing folks on the planet. I know PhD student who have failed their pre-oral exams based on failures imposed by their own advisors. Whenever I get a peer review back for a manuscript it is fairly easy to tell whom my advisor has cutup at a conference in the past. Some words of advice for anyone considering graduate school; don’t go to work for a shark unless you’re prepared to be a shark. “I have a lot worse things to say about people who support Bush than that they hate children.” If I need a letter of recommendation from a prof. with this same attitude would I want them knowing how I voted?

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#52)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 10:08:32 AM EST
    I didnt read Churchills whole statement before posting - those remarks were brutish,stupid,and provacative to a self-destructive degree - what the hell was he thinking? Those werent all predatory hyper-capitalists killed that day - alot of them were people as stuggling,disenchanted and embedded in the same system that Churchill is - check C.U's investments sometime. On the other hand,its obvious that Churchill is reacting,at least in part,to this superficial,sunny, Reaganic feel-good-about-ourselvesism that gets shoved down our throats 24-7. This is nothing but power treating the populace like children(thier forte),fostering passivity, acquiessence and childish fantasies of omnipotence. A coutry that steadfastly refuses to face up to its history and dark-side intelligently and soberly,is a country refusing to learn and evolve and ends up choking on its own arrogance and stupidity.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#53)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 10:19:23 AM EST
    jimcee - Got any names to back up your very warmed-over diatribe about academicians on the right being denied tenure? We've all heard this Heritage Foundation - level jive ad-nauseum. Maybe,just maybe,there just arnt as many smart people on the right(Saddam was responsible for 9/11,"the rapture"etc)

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#54)
    by soccerdad on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 10:19:24 AM EST
    Just paul you brought up the issue, i asked a simple question too bad you couldn't just respond in a simple manner BTW I don't have to write anyone about academic freedom I was a prof for some time and am up to date on its meaning

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#55)
    by pigwiggle on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 10:43:43 AM EST
    “Maybe,just maybe,there just arnt as many smart people on the right(Saddam was responsible for 9/11,"the rapture"etc)” I’ve often thought about scaling votes according to the caster’s IQ. An average IQ would get you 1.00 votes, a smart person 1.20 votes, a genius 1.30 votes, and so on. Divide your IQ by 100 and multiply it by a single vote; normalized voting. Anyone?

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 10:50:08 AM EST
    Soccerdad, To use your own phrase: "You can't be serious". You asked the question. I answered it. What was unsimple about that? But note, you didn't ask me if he did, you asked me what proof I have that he did, implying, as is your usual wont, that I had said he did in a provious post, even though I hadn't. Nothing new for you of course, but you get the responses you deserve when you make a habit of accusing people of saying things they haven't said and then refusing to even try to back yourself up with a shred of evidence.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 10:57:46 AM EST
    I’ve often thought about scaling votes according to the caster’s IQ. An average IQ would get you 1.00 votes, a smart person 1.20 votes, a genius 1.30 votes, and so on. Divide your IQ by 100 and multiply it by a single vote; normalized voting. Anyone? My thoughts: 2004 election- Bush wins by 20 million.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 10:58:36 AM EST
    What ever happened to the phrase we all learned as kids, "sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me". We are talking about WORDS, that's all. And good for this professor for stirring up people from our daily hypnotic routine. B

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#59)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 11:14:03 AM EST
    Still laughing at the anon. posters response to pigwiggle's IQ voting scale remark. IQ is not a relevant measure of intelligence in my opinion. Intelligence, in a way, is as subjective as beauty.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#60)
    by glanton on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 11:22:58 AM EST
    pigwiggle: As if the private sector doesn't incessantly necessitate butt-kissing and isn't throughly infested with sharks. As one who operates in both simultaneously, I feel that academia is milquetoast compared to for-profit institutions, in all areas of sharkdom. B: Absolutely, I agree with you 100% IF Churchill was writing as an individual. If, however, his article significantly rode the tide of his Chairpersonship, then at that point he assumes the University cloak, and thus relinquishes the right to cite 'academic freedom' while spouting inflammatory materials. In my opinion anyway. I'd like to look at the PDF of the article and research a little on the context in which it was published, and will, ere this day is done. kdog: absolutely. IQ, like the SAT's, is a tenuous horse to bet on. et al: I have my own theories as to why the most intelligent spokespeople on the Right avoid academia on the whole. In a nutshell, it seems to me they are more money-driven and Lord knows academia aint where the cheese is. Can anybody imagine Rumsfeld teaching John Donne for even $75,000 (this is generous) a year? Me neither.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 11:41:17 AM EST
    Just Paul, please learn to post links correctly. Words go in the space after the url and before the <"/a>--you don't put the url again there. It skews the site. Or just type the word (not in quotes) link. thanks.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 11:42:43 AM EST
    Glanton: Just as an FYI, for whatever it's worth: link "49% of the students at the top 50 colleges and universities say professors frequently inject political comments into their courses, even if they have nothing to do with the subject. Almost one-third—29%—feel they have to agree with the professor’s political views to get a good grade." "48% [of students] report campus presentations on political issues that “seem totally one-sided." "46% [of students] say professors “use the classroom to present their personal political views.” ***** Soccerdad, Please note that I am not suggesting anywhere in this post that Professor Churchill forced his students to parrot his beliefs through the use of grade manipulation.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 11:44:57 AM EST
    Ward Chuchill is a great man. He's got the cojones of Malcolm X and the righteousness of MLK. I read his piece (which I doubt many have), and it's a primo lesson on bravery in the face of dittohead patriotism - but why bravery? Everything he says in the piece IS TRUE. The fact that it's not pretty American truth is no one's fault but America's. It sure isn't Churchill's. He's dealing in truth at its most fundamental level. It's the root of truth. Sorry, but some critiques don't involve phony condolences when they're not warranted, and the simple fact is, we ALL participate in this system, and the system kills and destroys much of the known world. All Chuchill was saying was, the World Trade Center victims were, yes, victims, but not unculpable victims, just as I who work at an ad agency am culpable in terms of capitalism's crazed, rabid march of progress. Ain't pretty; too true.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 11:46:32 AM EST
    How dare you question what I say when I say you said something you say you didn't say but I know damn well with metaphysical certainty that that is what you said. Don't lecture me about academic freedom because I used to be a prof before I got this job which doesn't pay me what I'm worth but allows me ample time to post at length and ex cathedra on the internet. Read my missives and learn or stick your head up you know where. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery except when it is not.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#64)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 11:53:35 AM EST
    When did dissidence become unpatriotic? After Clinton ordered the troops to Bosnia?

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#65)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 12:04:26 PM EST
    glanton My brain fried out when I tried to imagine Rummy teaching Donne. So you all play nice and have a good weekend.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#66)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 12:13:30 PM EST
    TalkLeft, My apologies. I always thought it was appropriate to show the URL that was being linked to, as it is the source and that is proper referencing format. I was unaware that this caused problems for you and will be sure not to do it again.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#67)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 12:21:00 PM EST
    Before some of the more rabid frothers here don their brownshirts and march off to Denver with their pitchforks and torches so they can teach Churchill what happens when you mention certain truths about the U.S. they don't want to hear, perhaps they should first read his defense: http://www.counterpunch.org/ churchill02032005.html It will be a sad day for the right to free expression if the state university fires Churchill for thought-crime, but I suppose in a country that has appointed a torture-enabler as attorney general, it will not be the saddest we will encounter before the end of this sorry administration.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#68)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    I read the rebuttal by Churchill, and he makes excellent points. You may disagree, but his argument is in no way outlandish, or anything to lose his job over. I still think the Eichman bit was over the top, and it's counter-productive to his cause. Why flame emotions when you are trying to reason with people?

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#69)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 01:17:58 PM EST
    Soccerdad: FYI, the CY regents are not appointed by the government, they are elected officials. Not that it changes anything with regards to the first amendment. It does however politicize the issue more because the regents have voters to answer to. I don't think a professor in general should get canned because of writing a controversial essay. But in this case he clearly violated the tenets of academic freedom by not separating himself and his views from those of the institution, by not being accurate, well-thought or reasoned. Is that enough to fire him? Probably not, but I don;t think he can use academic freedom as a defense to keep his job. The first amendment says that the government can't abridge the right of free speech. He already did the speaking, and nobody prevented him from doing it. I am not an expert on first amendment case law, so I don't know what the court says constitutes a first amendment violation with regards to a state employee. But the first amendment doesn't protect people when they use speech to incite violence, which is what Churchill does. So I doubt he can use the first amendment as a defense to keep his job, not without a court fight at least. His association with AIM is curious--he's been writing speeches for Russell Means for years, and has been quite buddy-buddy with him. AIM is a militant organization that has resorted to executing members that it disagrees with (Anna Mae Pictou)--right up Churchill's alley. It's strange now that AIM is distancing itself from Churchill so vehemently. A propos, Russell Means has a shorter, clearer, more persuasive essay written about the same time.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#70)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 01:21:05 PM EST
    The most obvious element of his essay is that it must be the unvarnished truth. That's why everyone's so pissed off. The Rocky Mountain News wrote a hilarious piece about it. Citing that the author was "a cheerleader for violence" and was guilty of the "repeated glorification of violence." Ha ha. Yeah. None of those pro-war daggots on the right could ever be guilty of that, huh?

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#71)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 01:30:50 PM EST
    justpaul - You were right, UNC is at Chapel Hill only. The other schools are consolation prizes. :-) soccer - You were a prof? God help us all. -C

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#72)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 01:44:36 PM EST
    Here he is making a speech in Oakland about the little Eichmanns in the trade center. Thanks to Dan Brogan for the link.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimcee on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 02:00:57 PM EST
    Jondee, Yes I have known people that were denied tenure by Leftist faculity but because I would prefer to not say who it is because it could affect their future at a certain college. Although it may not be obvious to you because of your political leanings you could try to explain why the majority of faculity members identify themselves as Liberal or Leftist. Trust me it isn't because they are smarter than those that don't parrot the drivel that makes up the ligua franca of the modern Left. PS, I have had professors that did preach their politics in class and did grade by how you responded to their politics. It is a fact of academic life until the '60's generation leaves the professorate.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#74)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 02:07:15 PM EST
    Here are a few further links pertinent to this controversy: (1) The essay and Churchill's and others' replies featured on the extremely-radical blog of an Saint-Xavier University (Chicago) professor, Dr. Peter Kirstein ( Cf. kersplebedeb.com ((International Terrorist: George W. Bush); (2) Dr. Kirstein's explanation (excuse the language) of why he features the essay/controversy; and (3) his own link to the AAUP (American Association of University Professors) statements re: his own recent academic freedom controversy. As the policies of the University of Colorado most likely include adoption of AAUP standards and procedures pertaining to hiring, firing, professional obligations, promotion, tenure, review, and so on, the University would have to follow its own faculty policy manual in such matters, and that would include due process for a controversial faculty member. Generally, the courts give a great deal of independence of judgment to public and private university governance bodies in making such decisions pertaining to tenure, promotion, salaries, and when suits are filed in courts by individual professors, these guidelines are taken into account, but so are "peer" judgments, as most decisions within universities are made by faculty and administrative committees prior to reaching higher levels of judgment (deans, presidents, chancellors, trustees). There are academic procedures for dealing with such controversies involving professors. Like other "defendants," they should not be "tried" in the "court of public opinion," but their "fates" will be decided ultimately by "juries" of their "peers." By calling such attention to himself, Professor Ward Churchill has placed his academic future in their hands. Once they render a decision, then he will have an opportunity either to accept their judgments or to challenge them in a court of law (if it goes that far). Re: related free speech and academic freedom issues: Note that Dr. Kirstein's own blog is hosted by his university's server. The "political views" linked to his blog, his "international terrorist" (GWB) website and this material are apparently tolerated by that university! So, in terms of free speech and academic freedom issues: It is hard to see how Dr. Kirstein is able to post this material on these websites hosted by Saint-Xavier University while Professor Churchill is being threatened with firing for his single essay at the University of Colorado. It is, however, up to each of these universities' administrations and faculty to hire and to fire whom they wish, within their own policies and procedures, in keeping with AAUP standards and practices, if they have been adopted. There are hearings and other due process procedures built into those practices that universities have to follow. They cannot just fire tenured professors summarily, without due process. If the professor chooses to resign his tenured post, due to the pressures of the controversy that he himself has generated, that is another possibility. It is likely that he is being urged by members of his faculty and administration to do so, to spare the university further negative publicity. Having already resigned the chairmanship of the ethnic studies program, it is also likely that he will not follow their further urgings and that his case will proceed through his university and perhaps into the court system.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#75)
    by Peaches on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 02:20:22 PM EST
    If I need a letter of recommendation from a prof. with this same attitude would I want them knowing how I voted? You're a libertarian. A self-reliant individualist who has no need for a letter of recommendation from a professor who works for a public institution.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#76)
    by Peaches on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 02:27:53 PM EST
    I’ve often thought about scaling votes according to the caster’s IQ. An average IQ would get you 1.00 votes, a smart person 1.20 votes, a genius 1.30 votes, and so on. Divide your IQ by 100 and multiply it by a single vote; normalized voting. Anyone? If you are trying to be humorous, you aren't funny. If you are serious, You are a moron. But I would still defend your vote having an equal valuee to mine. I've called you pompous in another thread. Well, I'll say it again piggy. You are on arrogant little twit.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#77)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 02:28:40 PM EST
    For those who are not academics, here is a key passage from the Saint-Xavier chapter of the AAUP report linked above (1):
    Faculty should not be censured or punished for their ideas or opinions. The AAUP 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure states: "When they speak or write as citizens, faculty should be free from institutional censorship or discipline." The SXU-AAUP Executive Committee stresses that external public pressures should not influence either due process or substantive actions taken against faculty in regard to free speech. AAUP guidelines further state: "In a democratic society freedom of speech is an indispensable right of the citizen" (AAUP "Redbook," Committee A Statement on Extramural Utterances). As Stanley Kurtz observes in the National Review Online (January 8, 2003): "The best remedy for speech that offends, is more speech." Free speech is indispensable to a free society. Faculty should not be removed from the classroom for extramural utterances and activities. Suspension, dismissal, or other punishments/sanctions should not be used to restrain faculty members in their exercise of academic freedom or other rights of American citizens. (see AAUP "Redbook," Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure, Section 5, Dismissal Procedures). "Extramural utterances rarely bear upon the faculty member's fitness for continuing service." (AAUP "Redbook," Committee A Statement on Extramural Utterances). Professors should not be judged on their classroom teaching based on extramural statements, opinions, or activities that are unrelated to their teaching assignment.
    The subsequent part of the report extends the "due process" argument based on AAUP guidelines. Non-academics may not realize that these guidelines have been adopted by most colleges and universities in America. For more information, you may want to consult the website of the national organization of the AAUP or its journal Academe. [I write this from the perspective of being a member of the AAUP. I have been so since first joining as a new assistant professor in the early 1970s.]

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#78)
    by glanton on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 02:37:17 PM EST
    jimcee: see my proposal above, as to why there are more liberals in academia. Makes a lot more sense, anyway, than some Heritage Foundation-driven conspiracy theory.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#79)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 02:40:01 PM EST
    The AAUP has issued the following statement relating to Professor Ward Churchill on the main page of its website here.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#80)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 03:45:12 PM EST
    SD - Coulter was dropped from USA Today. They didn't like her work. Happens all the time. Good for them, bad for her, or bad for them. et al - Let's revisit what the university says is reasons to fire a tenured professor. Lying about your race when you are a member of the Ethnic Studies Department seems adequate reason to fire him. It is obvious he did it for personal gain.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#81)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 03:54:22 PM EST
    I read the essay -- so what, exactly, is the problem? He's entitled to say what the hell he wants. Leave him alone. He's got a point whether you agree with him or not. It's a perspective from under the wheels of the capitalist juggernaut. Native Americans have suffered genocide and ethnic cleansing for 500 years. What do you expect? Flowers?

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#82)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 04:04:54 PM EST
    Susan - The problem that many professors, etc., have is that they do not understand that many taxpayers don't give a flip about guidelines, etc. And, like it or not, in almost all cases, the taxpayers have vested interests in the university. In Colorado in particular, CU has been a national embarassment for about a year, and over the past 30 years the butt of many jokes. The average working stiff looks at that mess and says: "What nonsense. Why are we paying all this money to the President, etc,, when it is obvious they can't run the university." And many plain old citizens think that professors making outrageous statements are gaming the system, and deserve to be fired. I would offer this. The professor has protected speech in his field of expertise. If a Lit guy wants to say Wm Shapesphere was actually the Duke of Earl's twice removed third cousin, fine. But if he starts making outrageous comments about anything else, he is just another Joe Citizen, with no special protection.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#83)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 05:17:05 PM EST
    What PPJ really doesn't seem to understand is the fact that the professor has a legal contract with the university whose terms are what he and they must abide by in determining his future (this is a blog dealing with law and justice--and injustice). Whatever PPJ or John Q. Public (or I) think of his 2001 essay and the controversy relating to it is legally irrelevant. The professor has the same legal protections that any professor at his institution has and those pertain to all his utterances, not those simply within "his field of expertise." Moreover, by definition, the essay is not within his field of expertise--it is an "extra-curricular" statement--and, according to his AAUP contractual stipulations (no longer merely "guidelines" once adopted by the university in issuing him a contract and built into the language of his contract), he cannot be fired simply for making such a statement (in 2001), no matter how offensive his speech may be to others. Furthermore, no matter how offensive it may be, I suggest that people re-consider his use of "little Eichmanns" as a metaphorical construct. One may not agree with the potential significances of the comparison but a comparison is what it is. I recall an interview, in the sixties, when the actor playing Teddy in the New York production of Harold Pinter's play The Homecoming referred to that character (a English professor of philosophy teaching in America) as "Eichmann"; that was also a metaphor. Anyone can be called an "Eichmann"; but there was only one such actual man; the others are all fictions. The professor was hyperbolically making a point by using the metaphor. Using a metaphor is not a crime (though shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire (inciting riot) is a crime.) Some people are blurring the differences here. It harkens back to McCarthyism for an academic (or an actor) to be fired (or blacklisted; or, worse, killed!) over the rhetorical uses of hyperbole and other figures of speech. On the basis of Prof. Churchill's appropriate exercise of mature academic judgment, and his status as an academic role model for his students, however, those evaluating him may have a stronger case. One should try to keep his offense in perspective. As a writer, one also needs to take into account those outraged by the essay (readers' responses) as well as the text of the essay itself. On the one hand, as a mature academic who values his professional career, perhaps (!) Professor Churchill would have been wiser to keep that in mind before disseminating his essay so widely if he was subsequently making speaking engagements with that kind of potentially-incendiary rhetoric among his publications. On the other hand, perhaps he did have inflaming such controversy as among his various motivations. Only he can say. If the latter pertains, clearly, he brought this kind of public outcry and negative press on himself and his institution. As a faculty member of an instititution, the University of Colorado in this case, he represents it when he travels to other institutions if he uses his academic affiliation as one of his identities. Otherwise, he would need to make clear that he is not representing or speaking for his institution when he gives a lecture or publishes an essay; that he is speaking only for himself. I see no such disclaimer in the essay. The lack of one may be a problem for him. I wonder also how many other universities or colleges would be interested in having him speak before their student bodies if he were merely "Ward Churchill" and not also a professor at the University of Colorado, at that time directing an ethnic studies program there. If he uses the "cachet," then he needs to keep it in mind as well.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#84)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 05:41:49 PM EST
    Susan - You can disregard the opinion of the general public as much as you want, and you can write long excuses for this man's activities. But, sooner or later, the public will demand a stop to such actions. And they will get it. I also note that you don't recognize that AIM has said that this man is not an indian. That he has claimed to be one is well established. So well established that I would think any reasonable person can form a judgement. A simple question. Do you, or do you not, condem his false claim of being an indian? And do you, or do you not, think that this is demonstratable moral turpitude? On a broader field. Tenure was established for academic freedom and protection. It should not be a defense for outrageous statements and actions when they have no bearing on the academic field of the professor.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#85)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 06:05:47 PM EST
    I haven't read the essay and don't want to, yet. My impulse is to side with the faculty and with this blogger, and to resist efforts to punish Churchill for anything he's said or written about 9/11 or anything else, for that matter. Did he shout 'fire' in a crowded theater? What harm was caused by his essay that offsets the harm caused by stifling free speech? And what standard is used to 'justify' pre-publication censorship, or post-publication punishment? If Churchill can be punished now for what he's said, who will be punished next, and what will they be punished for saying? We shouldn't travel that path. Free speech forever!

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#86)
    by Walter on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 06:23:20 PM EST
    Where does he make the claim he was an indian?

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#87)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 06:34:11 PM EST
    What I (or PPJ or websites hosted by organizations like AIM) think of Professor Ward Churchill's essay and his self-identification as an "unenrolled" native American is irrelevant to the issues of free speech and academic freedom raised in this thread. Plenty of Caucasian and people of color convert to the religion of Islam and identify themselves as Muslims (or "Muslims"); an "ethnic" identification is not necessarily what one was born as; it's an "identification": a statement of "identity" not origin. The various "affirmative action" forms sent by potential academic employers with which I am familiar are (1) generally "voluntary" and (2) not uniform. They ask for (voluntary) self-identifications of one's ethnicity and other personal factors. How people respond to them may differ from person to person. Their legal standing is not very clear, especially because they are voluntary and generally used for "monitoring" purposes by affirmative action offices which are, explicitly (as stated in the forms), not permitted to share their information with those actually doing the hiring. Neither PPJ nor I nor probably anyone else who has already posted in this thread knows with certainty whether or not there is any "lie" involved in Professor Churchill's self-identification. (If they want to, his university personnel department can look into that. Furthermore, that's for university authorities to determine, not PPJ, me, or anyone else here.) Like any other person, Professor Churchill is entitled to identify with (empathize with) whatever ethnic group he wishes to identify (empathize) with. Whether he was "born" as a member of that group is a different issue entirely. I do not know where, or when, whether or not, or in what (professional or personal) contexts, he may have claimed actually to have "Indian" or "native American" blood running in his veins. I do not know if he ever has attempted to or succeeded in obtaining employment at the University of Colorado or anywhere else under false pretenses, as PPJ seems to be claiming. (How would PPJ know?) Here is the description of Professor Churchill's work, background, and publications from the original announcement of the Hamilton College program. For the record: in my earlier comments, I have mostly highlighted the due-process academic freedom, free-speech issues relating to the controversy surrounding Professor Churchill. Any adjudication of the particulars of his case are for his colleagues at the University of Colorado to make, within the appropriate proceedings. It is not for me, for PPJ, or for anyone else relying solely on a web-posting of the essay and media reports and blog comments to adjudicate. Our opinions are based on hearsay, innuendo, and opinion, not on independently-corroborated facts. Having learned more about his work since first posting, by reading the descriptions of his work in various online sites, I should say that the content of his essay does relate metaphorically to his field of expertise--roughly, studies of genocide pertaining to ethnic minorities--and, therefore, his metaphorical perspective expressed in his 2001 essay re: 9/11 is not entirely surprising given his earlier publications and his political orientations regarding other "genocides" or genocides (the use of quotation marks depends on one's own perspective or various orientations).

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#88)
    by Kitt on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 06:36:31 PM EST
    Jim - In response to your question about Mr. Churchill's 'moral turpitude' in relation to his lying about being a member of particular Native nation. Who really cares? Whether he is or is not Indian isn't the issue. It's the content of his essay and the analogy he employed. I would equate that with someone claiming membership as an ancestor of Thomas Jefferson, Mary Queen of Scots, etc. It undoubtedly means more to Mr. Churchill than to me or he wouldn't have kept up the charade. So he was shown up to be a liar. Now what? There is still the issue of his essay and his analogy of those killed in the twin towers in NY. THAT is protected speech. Just like the major-general who shot off his mouth about killing in Afghanistan the other. Just like Ann Coulter saying how unfortunate more liberals weren't in the towers (or arguing with CBC about whether Canada sent troops to Vietnam), Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Zell Miller, Bill O'Reilly, Joe Lieberman, Dr. Laura, James Dobson, David Dukes...and the biggest ones of all - Dubya and his partner in crime, Cheney.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#89)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 06:37:36 PM EST
    walter - Here tis. jonkopp - How about the harm to the surviving friends and relatives of those killed on 9/11? How about the insult to the country? If we are to insist that people not use certain words, and we do. And if we insist that those who violate these bans be punished, what makes Churchill any different? His freedom of speech has not been impaired. He is just not getting a free ride.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#90)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 06:44:29 PM EST
    kitt - That dog won't hunt. Heck, it won't even get off the porch. 1. His freedom of speech has not been taken. He can say what he pleases. But: 2. He has an employer who says that: "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." He has violated those rule, per AIM.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#91)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 06:57:07 PM EST
    Susan - Nice side step. You know I was stating what AIM said, because I posted it. I can't figure out if you are a "YesBut" or a "COMMAist" Both??? Possible. BTW - If you make a claim to being an indian to receive various federal programs, and if you are found to be not an indian, the feds will call that a crime. This is quite true where the feds are overlooking employer's shoulders to determine how many blacks, indians, etc. are employed, and how the ratios match up with the employee pool in that area. So that old "self identify" claim won't fly in the real world.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#92)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 07:10:59 PM EST
    AIM itself has its own political agenda and its various leaders sport a history of internecine battling among various chapters of AIM (or groups claiming to be chapters of AIM) that seem to be at odds with one another. For a more-objective context, check out this article about the American Indian Movement. It makes clear why linking to AIM's own retaliatory rhetorical attacks on Professor Churchill and others cannot convincingly substantiate that he and others have "lied" in any way that relates to his employment by the University of Colorado. If the University of Colorado did not terminate Professor Churchill for "cause" on the basis of AIM's already-public previous attacks on his claims to be a "native American--linked prominently on their site--then on what legal basis can the University of Colorado do so now, almost four years after the publication of the 9/11 essay? (Again, see the AAUP's Feb. 3, 2005 statement linked in my earlier post regarding the injustice of what PPJ advocates.) It does not appear that AIM's complaints against Prof. Churchill are new. Where is the independent corrorboration of claims that Churchill has lied? Relying on the linked feature article by AIM is not convincing, given its own very complex political contexts. Moreover, Professor Churchill should have ample opportunity to respond (procedurally--not on the internet) to their charges and to set the record (whatever it may be) straight for himself and his colleagues and administrators at the University of Colorado. The ball is in their (the University of Colorado's) court now.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#93)
    by Kitt on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 07:38:38 PM EST
    Jim - I didn't say his freedom of speech had been taken. I'm saying what he wrote/said is protected speech. As for AIM, I'm fairly certain they have their own agenda. That does not mean I discount their allegations; it just means little to me as far as this situation because the question of Mr. Churchill being a member of any indian nation is besides the point. As stated in what you listed from the regents ".. conviction of a felony or any offense involving moral turpitude.." As I read it, Mr. Churchill has not been convicted of a felony or any other offense involving moral turpitude nor does the phrase 'or any other offense' separate from that concerning conviction. Apparently simply committing an act of moral turpitude is not grounds for dismissal (which would include for you his lying about his ancestry). Some day you'll have to explain that dog not getting off the porch...not hunting .... thingie..

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#94)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 07:52:01 PM EST
    Kitt - Anyone using "thingee" would never understand. Sorry. ;-) Susan - Well, we'll just have to wait and see.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#95)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 08:07:27 PM EST
    It is also important to keep in mind that Professor Churchill's appearance was cancelled by the President of Hamilton College not because of his views (as expressed in the 2001 essay)--which Hamilton College (whether or not their community agrees with them) makes a point of stressing is his right to express--or because of some extraneous controversy pertaining to his claim to be the ("unenrolled") member of a native American tribe--but because of the threats of violence to him, the other panelists, and other members of the Hamilton College community, all of which were reported to the police, as explained here. The panel itself dealt with dissent! On the basis of their experience with the cancellation of this panel due to concerns with public safety, students at Hamilton College and across this country and abroad have pertinent issues about free speech and freedom of dissent in America to debate all the more now. Arguments made by others in this thread (pro and con) may be of special interest to them! Ironically, this controversy has become a practical demonstration of some of the very issues about political dissent that the panel may have intended to deal with. Some people's dissidents (e.g., the American colonists, frontiermen/women) are others' (native Americans') oppressors, and so it goes. In a democratic republic, we strive to protect one another's rights to dissent to protect our own rights and those of our future citizens. The other path leads to chaos (as we see, daily, in Iraq, and elsewhere throughout the world. No matter how much we may disagree with the perspective and words of Professor Ward Churchill, we must be careful to protect his right to express them in America (including the University of Colorado).

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#96)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 08:11:18 PM EST
    AIM is a rat's nest in a snake pit surrounded by quicksand. It's the American version of the IRA. Its very existence depends on its chapters' ability to disavow the actions of one another in the way that Sinn Fein can separate itself from IRA bombers. It's full of in-fighting and competing agendas and gangster tactics. Churchill is a self-declared militant in this organization, very close to Russell Means, an AIM activist with a pretty rotten reputation. And yet the national organization disavows AIM's relationship with him. Neither AIM nor Churchill are doing much to help their positions in public opinion. It's all very bizarre.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#97)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 08:15:16 PM EST
    Susan: Not that there is any excuse for making threats against Churchill, but I don't think he can expect peaceful, unfettered free speech when all he does is offend people and incite violence.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#98)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 08:20:52 PM EST
    Ironic that some here condemn the general for his statements regardin his attitude toward thugs and out of the other side of their mouth, say it's OK for this prof to say innocent people are Nazis and deserve to die. They truly live in an Alice-through-the-looking-glass world.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#99)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 09:10:09 PM EST
    Michael Ditto: Of course, I take your points. Whatever "expectations" Professor Ward Churchill has or had in his head are well beyond my ken. From recent news reports, it does not appear that he is pleased with--or expected--death threats to himself and his family, however. In the light of the American Indian Movement's own particular history of violence begetting violence, that itself may appear a bit odd! I agree: there is no excuse for such violence. The current argument in debates about the war in Iraq--terrorism should not beget more terrorism--runs along those lines too. On every level (local, national, international), most people seem incapable of learning the lessons of Gandhi and Martin Luther King about non-violence and against war in the real world of politics. On the other side of that is the tsunami relief efforts. What an amazing discrepancy there is among those phenomena.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#101)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 11:03:57 PM EST
    While I agree with much of Churchill's historical perspective of American history and foreign policy (and I recommend that people read the entire essay
    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#100)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 11:04:50 PM EST
    DA--saying that someone has a right to express unpopular opinions in an unpopular manner is not the same thing as saying that the opinions are "okay" or that one agrees with them. I don't agree with Prof. Churchill's manner of expressing his views or with substantial parts of his argument. I have read similar viewpoints expressed (at times) more respectfully. His argument (except for the "little Eichmanns" metaphor section) is familiar in recent far-leftist literature. Nevertheless, I do uphold the values of academic freedom established by the AAUP. I don't believe that he should be prosecuted or persecuted or fired for having written his (however one might characterize it) single essay on 9/11. He has a whole history of work at his university that would need to be taken into account in any reviews of his performance, including teaching and service as well as writing and research. It's up to his university to evaluate him professionally (as a professor; not personally, as a person)--that is, fairly. And, of course, it's not up to me or any of us (or our states' governors or other politicians or political appointees!).

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#103)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 02:35:54 AM EST
    Churchill's manners might not recommend his opinions to many. But I don't think Churchill has insulted, nor condemned me, nor anyone personally & specifically. I think what name-calling he did use, was in the form of describing how others viewed those people. But you know what... There are a lot of people who HAVE insulted me, specifically & personally. I think they should all lose their jobs!!! Everyone from a guy who insulted me on a support forum the other day... to the boy in 8th grade who picked on me... to my 2nd grade teacher - she's probably retired now - but I think she should lose her pension!

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#104)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 04:55:55 AM EST
    Dark - Uh, well, I am pretty much on the other side of this argument from PPJ, but I take exception to your characterization of his expressin. Ever since God was in short pants, and faster than molasses in January, I've used that expression till the cows came home. Kidding aside, I suspect you are, in fact, not from a region where you were able to appreciate our distinct souther culture. Note: People from Nashville are not from TN, if you catch my drift. Gotta go, busier than a two tailed cat on a porch full of rocking chairs. -C

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#105)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 07:39:07 AM EST
    DA - How dare you make fun of my Dan Rather imitation. ;-) Cliff - You are right. He knows only what he sees on TV and the movies. Probably has a Dirctor's Cut copy of "Deliverance" and listens to "Dueling Banjos" everyday. Susan - If you will go to the post on John Gibson's interview with Churchill's students, in the comment section there is a link to a Denver article that pretty well destroys Churchill's claims of being Indian. Chole - Are you saying speech has no bounds? Or, are you saying that you get to define the bounds? Me? Call me anything but late for supper.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#106)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 08:45:24 AM EST
    Peaches- “If I need a letter of recommendation from a prof. with this same attitude would I want them knowing how I voted? …You're a libertarian. A self-reliant individualist who has no need for a letter of recommendation from a professor who works for a public institution. “ I’ll assume that your really don’t need me to point out the gaping hole in your reply. Rather, you were just cheesed at making my point. “If you are serious, You are a moron. But I would still defend your vote having an equal valuee to mine. I've called you pompous in another thread. Well, I'll say it again piggy. You are on arrogant little twit.” I’ve been insulted here often, but it is usually accompanied by at least a bit of argument. Like I said, I’ve given this a lot of thought, give it some yourself before you run off at the keyboard. Long on insult short on reason; weak.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#108)
    by Peaches on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 09:19:30 AM EST
    Like I said, I’ve given this a lot of thought, give it some yourself before you run off at the keyboard. You gave a suggestion without listing your reasons. Go ahead, I'm listening. But address these issues. 1. What test will be used? 2. Who will decide which test? 3. Why should the results of this test (or series of tests) provide better electrion results? 4. Who will pay for the testing? 5. What will the test be looking for? 6. Why should rationality or reasoning be favored over intuition (or should it?)? 7. provide some support or evidence that intelligence tests provide useful information. (use some reasoning, don't provide only a link---I've read enough of this to know the views of the opposing sides). There you go, is that enough or too much to get your miniscule little mind around. (just ending with a little insult to go with the small thoughts you requested.)

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#109)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 09:43:44 AM EST
    For those saying Churchill should not be fired: can you honestly say that the taxpayers should continue to pay his salary, if he said something along the line of the following: the black people who died in 9/11 deserved it, because they were contributing nothing to socitey. If you say you would support his right to continued employment, fair enough. Provoking thought? Provoking debate? Or just hate speech. I say it's hate speech, and he should be fired. That the target of his wrath is cellphone using white-collar finance workers does not change that. I think you're just supporting him because of the nature of his comments, and that's crap.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#110)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 09:51:51 AM EST
    DA - Haven't heard that expression in month of sundays. I did hear my aunt call herself dummer than a coonass on the saturday after payday but didn't know what that meant until I woke broke some years later. Hate to tell you, though, but TX isn't the south. It's TX. Alabama is the south, fosore, tho. -C

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#111)
    by glanton on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 09:57:32 AM EST
    They don't know what sweet tea is in Texas, that's for sure.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#112)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 11:29:04 AM EST
    For those who think that they shouldn't have to pay taxes to pay for Churchill's faculty salary, I have a deal, one that I, and I suspect Churchill himself, would gratefully accept. You can stop paying taxes for him, and we can stop paying our taxes for the atrocity in Iraq. I wouldn't have to pay for a war that was launched based upon the types of lies one associates with Hilter and Stalin. I wouldn't feel any responsibility for the tens of thousands, and possibly, over a 100,000 Iraqis, killed by US/UK forces. I wouldn't be appalled when I discover that US forces sodomized an elderly Iraqi women detained at Abu Ghraib, and refused to take any disciplinary action, as revealed about a week ago. I wouldn't be disturbed about reading how an Iraqi women was raped "on all fours" in front of an incarcerated Iraqi detainee. Whaddaya say? Do we have a deal? If not, spare us the hypocrisy where right wingers have a privilege to decide what they will and will not pay taxes for, while retaining the right to force the rest of us to pay for their horrible wars.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#113)
    by Kitt on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 12:16:54 PM EST
    One has to wonder about the intelligence of a two-tailed cat hanging out on a porch full of rockers, especially if they're rocking. DA - Regardless of the origin - I did get it's dismissive nature. Whatever.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#115)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 04:38:42 PM EST
    [In the interest of "full disclosure":] And then there is this critical account also published in today's (2/5/2005) Rocky Mt. News as linked by "Infantry Soldier" in a more recent thread. "Cree?" "Creek?" father/mother? As cited in this article, Churchill's own perspective on such questions of his heriditary ethnic lineage is that, given his acceptance by Colorado AIM activists and many in the community of scholars in native American/American Indian studies, the precise amount of actual American Indian blood (his ethnic heritage) is not so relevant to the debate or to his employment in ethnic studies at the U of Co. as his work in this field.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#116)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 04:57:41 PM EST
    Here's a useful resource for information about the connection between Cherokee and Creek: For example:
    People: 'Cherokee' is Creek for 'people with another language'. (It's really amazing how white settlers always managed to learn some other tribe's name for any group of Indians. They learned the Creek word for Cherokee, but not the Creek word for themselves.) Anyway, our original name for ourselves was Aniyunwiya, but Cherokee is fine too (though we say it Tsalagi--there's no R in our language). There are about 350,000 Cherokee people today, primarily in Oklahoma and North Carolina.
    Another useful resource is here; cf. listings for "Cree" and "Creek."

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#117)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 05:52:38 PM EST
    Susan - "the precise amount of actual American Indian blood (his ethnic heritage) is not so relevant to the debate or to his employment in ethnic studies at the U of Co. as his work in this field." It must be nice to live in a world in which you can define words to mean what you want them to mean. Guess that is a "professor" thing. Us ordinary mortals must make do with the dictionary. DA - Glad to know you are an expert after spending 40 whole months in the south. And yes, you were making a snarky remark. Kitt - Guess I can strike your name from the "diversity is our strength" list.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#118)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 06:05:54 PM EST
    Richard`E - Uh, CU is a STATE school, so I don't think your FIT is invloved. And you don't have to wait on anything to stop paying your FIT. I would advise against it, and tell you it is wrong. But God hates a coward. Say hello to Bubba. He's always interested in meeting er... a new friend(?). Cliff - Hadn't heard that one, but its meaning is clear. Course I understand why you had to give an explanation. As for Texas and the south, I gotta disagree, or at least for east Texas and Dallas. MB - I have heard members of the Left argue that such speech is hate speech when directed at minorities, because they are minorities, but not when directed at the group as a whole because of the relative size and power structure. Hey, go figure. I don't explain'em, I just do'em. I also laugh a lot a such statements.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#119)
    by jimcee on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 08:58:01 PM EST
    Glanton, If you are an example of the "unbiased" folks that can bequeath tenire then you are the living breathing example of what is wrong on the tenure commttee circuit, or should I say circus. The freaks judging other freaks, nice job Prof. "Part in Parcel". I think they call that willfully blind but then again I'm not a professor.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#120)
    by glanton on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 10:11:01 PM EST
    You know, it's very telling, the number of attacks I've received on the Churchill issue and the sadistic General issue, coming from PPJ, Doctor Ace, and jimcee. Not once have any of them addressed the points I've made, they have instead resorted to childish invective. Or name calling, for the benefit of those named. So that's how the neocons play this game. And for the record, TL, that's how John Gibson plays the game too, and that's why I say he's an ignorant demagogue.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#121)
    by Peaches on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 11:56:54 PM EST
    Glanton, PPJ, DA and Jimcee resort to namecalling because they are ****who would get their a**es kicked in any pub I hang out in. TL feel free to delete this for the personal insults. ......[deleted] Their contributions are boring and predictable. What are they doing hanging out at TL? Think about it! seems obvious to me. You are being used.

    Re: Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting (none / 0) (#114)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 12:01:39 AM EST
    To all those who have questioned whether or not Professor Ward Churchill has legitimate claims to being native American or American Indian: here is what he said as quoted in the interview that TL links in a more recent thread today: From "Churchill Defiant in Face of Outcry: Beleaguered Prof Won't Take Back His Statements" (Rocky Mt. News, 5 Feb. 2005): [text deleted.] Professor Ward Churchill is listed as a member of the Leadership Council of the Colorado AIM and is clearly supported by that organization. I've linked to it in a more recent thread--its blog contains its spokespeople's comments on the controversy. [One of Churchill's longer essays on 9-11 is featured on the main site (2004); I have given the link to it in the "collective guilt" thread posted by TL.]

    Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting | 118 comments (118 topical)