home

Churchill's Students Defend Him

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 08:02:01 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

John Gibson, subbing for Bill O'Reilly tonight on Fox, interviewed two of Professor Ward Churchill's students, both of whom support Churchill's right to express his views. One of the students, Dustin Craun, was arrested at the C.U. Regents meeting yesterday.

Student Chris Maes was repeatedly asked whether he agrees with Churchill's views. He responded that his own views are not the issue. Maes kept the converstation to what he sees as the real issue: Whether Churchill has the right to express his views.

Maes believes that Churchill is a wonderful man who is being slandered. How so? Because people are taking the essence of his book out of perspective.

Gibson asked why Churchill should not be fired, if not for his views, then for his incompetence? Craun responded that Churchill has published 25 books and is not incompetent. Craun asserted that Churchill's view is that the U.S. has had a history of continuous warfare since 1776 and that if you continue to kill people's children, you can expect them to retaliate.

As to Churchill's blaming the victims of 9/11, Craun said that he understood Churchill to mean that all Amercians who allow their governement to do what it does it in war can expect retaliation.

Chris Maes said he is not endorsing or even taking a position on Churchill's views, he is endorsing academic freedom. He said that as a student at a public university, he's entitled to hear Churchill's opinions. He views Churchill's proper role as one that fosters discourse and debate.

Craun said Churchill is being patriotic--he's hoping to explain why terrorist attacks happen, so that we can end them.

Gibson is an experienced and deft debater, particularly adept at playing the role of devil's advocate. When you don't answer the question, he asks it again, a little louder. He would have made a great litigator. Kudos to Maes and Craun for not buckling under.

< Jury Sentences Abu Ghraib Guard to Six Months | Radack on Chertoff >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Churchill's Students Defend Him | 40 comments (40 topical)
    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#1)
    by glanton on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 09:25:20 PM EST
    Well, outsmarting John Gibson isn't really something to brag about. Still, I'm glad voices of reason managed to trickle out, even if it had to be via the kool aid channel. TL, it's a shame FNC gets the attention it gets on this site and elsewhere. I mean, what's next, quoting the _Weekly Standard_?

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 10:47:18 PM EST
    Glanton, John Gibson happens to be smart. And I quoted the Weekly Standard the other day.

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 10:57:51 PM EST
    Of course his current students would defend him, what kind of grade would they get if they didn't? I had an AP history teacher in high school (who ran for political office this last year, not Mike Miles) who promised that nobody would pass if he or she didn't march in one of his anti-war protests. I'm curious what his former students would say--people who aren't potentially going to get extra credit for defending him on FOX news.

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#4)
    by cp on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 12:00:28 AM EST
    gee ditto, it appears that the kid was very specific, he wasn't defending or endorsing the prof's position, merely defending his right to opine. that is what we send our children to college for, isn't it? to get a whiff of other view points, learn to think for themselves, and be able to articulately defend their own positions. seems this young man has learned something.

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 12:26:39 AM EST
    I don't think that the people in the World Trade Center when it was attacked would totally disagree with Mr. Churchill. I worked in the WTC , before the 1993 bombing, and even then we used to joke that we would all die there someday as revenge for something that happened in a village half way round the world , We were thinking, not of a 9/11 style attack, of course, but of something much smaller, focused maybe on only one office, leading to fire smoke and hundreds of deaths When I read about the 1993 bomb attack I was relieved and delighted that our dire predictions had not come true.

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 04:28:43 AM EST
    If we don't protect the first admendment, there's no point in anyone dying for freedom, is there?

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 05:51:41 AM EST
    I don't think this whack job should be fired for expressing his opinion at all. I think his right to defame murder victims should be protected. However, I think he should be fired, and possibly prosecuted, for fraud. Ward Churchill is not an Indian You are all right in that he shouldn't be fired for saying this. But you must remember that, though free speech is protected and should remain that way forever, that doesn't free us from any accountability for what we say. His comment are no different than saying Nazis deathcamps were the natural conclusion of the Jewish conspiracy to control the world as well as a legitimate means of self protection on the part of the Nazis. His comments are just as baseless. With free, protected speech come great responsibility. The point of free speech is the preservation and expansion of intellectual awareness, political power, and our ability to exercise control over our political system. In this respect, Churchill is a non-starter and his position as an academic should not be challenged because what he said is offensive. He should be relieved for academic incompetence and dishonesty. Just because a college professor and a self -proclaimed native said these things does not mean that they are true. He wrote a crappy paper that would earn any student (not in his class anyway) a C at best for a ridiculous argument that is utterly without merit and poorly developed. I'm a former soldier and a motivated philosphy student. His arguments are ,almost exactly, a textbook example of the logical fallcy known as the genetic fallacy. This is the premise of his work and this is the reason he should be fired; not for saying something controversial. I'm rather conservative in my political opinion, but this goes beyond my political feelings as I am a budding academic as well. My shock comes not from his opinion but the fact that any university would employ someone who is so completely irresponble intellectually.

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#8)
    by Rich on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 06:47:36 AM EST
    Universities employ neocons. What could be more intellectually irresponsible than that. Look at the carnage and enormous monetary costs because of the war they were dying to have? Chruchill is correct to the extent that there has always been some faction (and often one that has influence with the people in power) that wants us at war. The Neocons have always wanted som eenemy for us. The Cold War really put them in a lurch until they decided on Saddam (but oddly wouldn't settle on bin Laden). If you're gonna pull the Nazi death camp card, what would you do with someone like the late Phillip Johnson, who had no trouble maintaining public respectability despite his flirtation with anti-semites and pro-Nazis? Or liviung, contemporary right wing bigots like Pat Buchanan? Or that guy Murray who wrote the childishly racists sections of the "Bell Curve". Or John Lott, who kept getting soft money academic jobs dedespite very questionable research methods. Are you going to to question these guys? There are plenty of right wingers with crazy and/or destructive ideas. Many are in academia or at places that try to sound like academia.

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 07:44:46 AM EST
    garampani - I do not believe that you all used to joke about dying because some day because of something that had happened in a village...etc.

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#10)
    by Adept Havelock on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 08:13:40 AM EST
    PPJ- What's so unusual or unlikely about that "joke"? When I was growing up, we lived close to what would be considered a big strategic target, and joked about the big flash and the fact that at least we wouldn't be around for the aftermath. This was a pack of elementary school kids. If we were aware enough we were near a target, I have no trouble believing garampani's statement, and the gallows humor that went with it. You seem to have chosen to believe he made it up. Okey Dokey.......

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#11)
    by glanton on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 08:35:49 AM EST
    TL, I understand your desire top defend FNC to the extent that you do, being as how they are very nice to you personally and all. But just because Sean Hannity or John Gibson or O'Reilly invite you to come on their show, this doesn't make their "work" any less reactionary or, in many cases, downright ignorant. I have watched "The Big Show" many times and consider it to be the perfect posterchild for FNC--kindregarten-tabloidesque, always polishing off a good dumbing down of the issues.

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 08:38:34 AM EST
    Churchill should be dismissed because of his foolishness and lack of reasoning ability. This has NOTHING to do with free speech and everything to do with being a responsible human being.

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#13)
    by glanton on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 08:42:52 AM EST
    Charlie: When you publish 25 books and numerous articles in scholarly journals come back and tell us about "lack of reasoning ability," would you? Falsifying his claims to be an Indian is a big problem. His whole Chairpersonship was a big problem. Charlie, you too are a big problem.

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 10:24:48 AM EST
    I think Dubya is on record saying there ought to be limits on free speech, right? Actually, there are limits. Hate speech, slander, etc. But I think those are not the limits that Dubya is thinking about. Churchill's questions about war, our interest in and aptitude for it, our warrior generals who report it is fun to shoot some people, all this should be open for review and consideration, but not in Dubya's view because the world changed on September 11, 2001. In fact, the world was very much the same, but some large scale event suffering came to the US (like large scale suffering came out of the Indian Ocean a few weeks ago) and the neocons seized the opportunity to launch the aggressive war of their dreams from their armchairs. It's a hoot, I guess.

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#15)
    by glanton on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 10:27:28 AM EST
    ca: What???? Dubya and the GOP turning 9/11 to their political advamtage to reshape the nation and limit freedom? Why do you hate America? ;-)

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 11:52:53 AM EST
    Boquisucio, why do you hate freedom? My guess as to why we work to understand the motivations for crime on any scale is in order to prevent it in the future. To assume doing such a thing is irresponsible, is actually irresponsible on your part.

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 12:13:06 PM EST
    25 books and numerous articles in scholary journals? That's not much of an acomplishment for a college professor echoing trendy counter-intuitive ideas. Intellectuals are notorious for publishing things that reinforce their already established worldviews--have you ever seen a feminist reader that exhibits a clear grasp of conservative philosophy?. Outside of elite intellectual circles, no one had heard about Ward Churchill before this controversy (his ideas don't resonate with middle and working-class Americans), and no one will care about him after this blows over.

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#19)
    by Mike on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 12:42:07 PM EST
    Churchill shouldnt be terminated because of what he said. It's what is implied by what he said that should cause others to doubt him fit to teach. He clearly suffers from a severe disconnect from reality. The poor slob needs treatment not tenure. M

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 01:38:42 PM EST
    Raab, Agression of that barbaric kind, can't be reasoned with. You can't cuddle our current enemies into submission. In our society, when a sociopath goes out on a rampage we take him out. We only introspect on his psycho/social illnes only when he is either behind bars or pushing up daisies. In the meantime, we as a society, prosecute him without mercy. The same is said for our foreign enemies. The cuddling and healing will come after they are utterly destroyed. Witness The Marshall Plan in Germany and Japan. There was no stone left over stone in those two countries in '45. Only when the global threat of fascism was done and over with, did we focus our attention to healing those societies. It is beyond words, to see a fellow citizen blame his own flesh and blood for the atrocities of September 11th. An atrocity of foreign aggression, on our own soil. Don't know about you, but the events of that day will forever be seared into my soul. I may have not been in NYC, but I saw with my own eyes the Pentagon in flames, and lost neighbors on AA Flight 77. Boquisucio

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 03:04:29 PM EST
    To utter words like those, at a time of war is absolutely irresponsible. Back on Dec '41, would anyone have ever conceived such sedicious thoughts against our citizens residing in Wake, The Phillipines, Hawaii or Guam? Why must we ponder the motivational impulses of a mugger that assaults us in a dark corner? When such a horrible crime occurs to you, the criminal's deprived background is none of one's concern. To reflect otherwise would be to blame the victim for the agressor's actions. Shame Dr. Churchill.

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 04:57:49 PM EST
    Adept - Somehow I don't think the average person felt that someone from half way around the world would try to blow up the WTC because they disagreed with our politics. Now, I could be wrong, but it just doesn't hit me as the regular`and routine coffee room chit chat.

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 05:02:12 PM EST
    glanton - Throwing a litle hissy fit at Charlie, eh? Don't forget to stomp your foot and shake your finger. ;-) BTW - Truth hurts.

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#23)
    by glanton on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 05:18:08 PM EST
    PPJ: Really, would you call that a hissy fit? I'm so disappointed in myself now. Such a publication record proves the ability to reason. Pointing that out isn't an emotional act at all. You don't like the 2001 article, fine. I don't either, actually. Doesn't mean he suddenly can't reason.

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#24)
    by glanton on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 05:20:03 PM EST
    BTW: your defense of the sadistic general sort of takes the air out of whatever moral high ground you want to affect, really in terms ofd anything at all, but especially in terms of something like the subject of this thread. All you're demonstrating here is that if a neocon says something insane, it's cool, and if a leftist extremist says it, it's not. But you're not partisan or anything.....

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimcee on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 08:03:50 PM EST
    Seems to me that glanton is a bit too close to that whole faux professorate nonsense that passes for intellectualism nowadays. When colleages can't find in themselves the balls to pass judgement on their fellows tells me that they feel rather vunerable in their own theses. I always thought that higher education amounted to diversity and thorough thought. Obviously it shouldn't matter what one's politics are to be heard but on campus' today that appears to be the case, although mostly Lefties are represented there. Glanton, if you really believe the nonsense you have contributed to this thread then it is true that you are no different from Mr. Churchill. Academic freedom isn't an excuse to lie about one's credentials or beliefs or to be a tenured instructor for a state college. Overall, this controversy has exposed the yellow underbelly of the crummy intellectualism that is a product of the '60's radicalism. Historically you are defending a yellow dog. Enjoy your childish fantasy, it is afterall a new century. Good Luck.

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#26)
    by cp on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 08:31:33 PM EST
    infantry soldier, i read that article you linked to. they kept referring to joshua tyner as a "young, revolutionary war veteran". they then noted his birth year, 1767. he must rate as one of the youngest revolutionary war veterans, at 9 when it started, in 1776. maybe he was a drummer boy, the article didn't say. however, with questionable facts like that, i'm not sure how much of the rest i should believe. i do wonder though, did the school hire him solely because of his claimed native american blood? if so, i agree, he should be fired for fraud, if, in fact, he has none. so far, that issue seems to still be in dispute. bear in mind, i'm not saying you're wrong, i don't know. neither, apparently, does anyone else.

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#27)
    by glanton on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 09:53:23 PM EST
    jimcee: uh, gee, I seem to remember repeatedly saying that if he lied about his credentials its a big problem. Do you actually read the posts? Read? How silly of me. Never mind, just keep spouting.

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 10:23:31 PM EST
    Churchill should not be fired for his views. Tenured professors have a right to express any view, even horrible ones. Churchill should be fired for being a fraud. He is a fake Indian - not really a member of any tribe. He is an indianwannabe who used his fakery to move his career forward. That kind of behaviour is equivalent to faking scientific data or plagerism. And it is cause for dismissal.

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 12:06:35 AM EST
    Well, speaking as a 'right-wing-nut-job' of the liberterian flavor, I think he SHOULD have the right to say whatever he likes. And his employer should have the right to get rid of him if THEY like - particularly if his statements severely damage his employers' business. Further, it certainly looks like Churchill has lied about his bona fides - also grounds for termination. But he's more than welcome to be a twit, that's his right.

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 04:23:03 AM EST
    I don't have a dog in this fight - I really don't know anything about the issue - but my bull detector starts off when several commentors make essentially the same remark. It sounds a little too much like freeper-clones or similar attack-bots going off... Could it be "The Return of the Republican Talking Points, Part 3000"?

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 06:57:25 AM EST
    Kristjan Wager - If you know nothing about the issue, why do you comment? There is a ton of information available. Just go to Google, or read the three threads on this Blog, alone. There are many more. Why don't you read'em? No, it looks like you just want to take a cheap shot at people you don't know who are talking about something you know nothing about. Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Do you ever wonder why the Left is losing? FamilyGuy - Why are tenured professors allowed to "express any view?" Wasn't tenure established to allow professors to express views, in their field of expertise? Why should, for example, an engineering professor, be allowed to express views with no penalty, let us say, like Churchill's? In this instance, isn't the engineering professor no different than an ordinary citizen? Doesn't tenure come from a time in which there was no such thing as free speech, and wasn't it established to give some protection to professors? Those days are gone, and are not going to return. Instead of protection for academic freedom, hasn't tenure become just a means of job protection for people who thrive on insulting the people who support them? Should a Vice President of MacDonalds give lectures on the evil of eating meat without expecting the stock holders to be upset?

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 06:57:37 AM EST
    Could be your ad hominem detector needs a jump-start, Kris.

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 07:25:36 AM EST
    From the perspective of someone on the right, I find the outrage of the academic-free-speech left here a bit disingenuous and hypocritical. I'm not against academic freedom and the freedom of a professor to say anything he/she wants, but listening to you guys complain about Churchill's situation is somewhere between entertaining and mind-boggling. For decades, conservative guest speakers at colleges (bastions of "academic freedom") have routinely been heckled, shouted down, protested etc. by the academic-freedom-loving left. Now the right is finally learning how to employ those same tactics, and the left cries foul. It might have been interesting to see what would have happened in this case, had the universities' leadership had a backbone. But those have long since turned to mush, having been beaten to pulp by legal threats from the likes of the ACLU, and now the left (represented by Churchill and supporters) is trapped in the quagmire of political correctness they helped create.

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 08:22:40 AM EST
    glanton - There are Federal Guidelines that determine if a person is, or is not, Indian. Churchill appears to be "self-identifying." I just self identified as Scottish. Gotta go now, I'm meeting Braveheart for lunch.

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 05:15:57 PM EST
    The Colorado Chapter of the American Indian Movement provided a press release last Wednesday (Feb. 1), posted on Feb. 2. The coloradoaim.org blog also has other comments about this matter, which it updated today, with a link to an argument by the late Susan Sontag compared to Churchill's. Those throwing out various red herrings (including John Gibson) simply refuse to read what Churchill has actually written in its full contexts and to debate his actual arguments. If one is going to criticize a writer's work, one should at least read it. Due to some people's repeated failures to do such work, addressing their comments is, in my own view, a waste of time. Instead, I challenge them to read the press release, other comments on the blog (pro and con), and other of Churchill's essays already linked and the rest of the comments linked via Colorado AIM, and only then to attempt to make intelligible, convincing arguments based on contextualized quotations from the whole of those works not yet discussed (not only the metaphorical allusion "little Eichmanns" taken out of context--as his students pointed out in the interview with John Gibson on Fox). (Similarly, in order to understand what "academic freedom" and "tenure" actually do signify in academic contracts in institutions of higher education in America, then they can also read definitions in context in reports issued by the AAUP; see links in earlier threads.)

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 05:23:56 PM EST
    Susan - I have read his arguments, and I reject them as hate speech. Pure and simple. Now, prove me wrong. Oh, I know..... YesBut.

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 05:29:31 PM EST
    Among the comments in Colorado Aim's blog is also a "press release" written by Ward Churchill posted on January 31, 2005 (to get to it, go to the blog and scroll down). Those who haven't read his "defense" of his own argument elsewhere may find it there. One may not still agree with it, but at least one could benefit from reading it. (I wonder if John Gibson did before interviewing his students?)

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 05:36:44 PM EST
    Academic Freedom & Tenure (AAUP committee A) links.

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 05:40:05 AM EST
    Rich - That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard...colleges employ neocons? Universities employ the most rabid liberals available and force their students to abide by these liberal doctrines. If you don't understand that...then maybe you should open your eyes. As far as Churchill, he should be fired...and then he should be put in a room with the families of the 9/11 "Eichmann" victims.

    Re: Churchill's Students Defend Him (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 08:22:37 AM EST
    It is amazing that something so fundamental as the right to free speech has become so misunderstood and abused in this country. The right to free speech is not a guarantee that one can speak in any forum that one chooses. Colleges and universities make choices everyday about who should be invited to speak on their campuses and teach in their classrooms. Ward Hamilton is free to stand in the public square and shout his message to the masses; he is free to write books, essays and articles; he can buy ads and commercials, and best of all he can set up a website where he can spew forth as much insane blather as he wants. He has as much freedom to speak as anyone else not employed by a university. In the real world it is not uncommon for people to lose their jobs when they are perceived to show a lack of good judgment in their speech. Just ask Rush Limbaugh. Does anyone seriously believe that Limbaugh, whose radio program reaches an estimated audience of some 15 to 25 million people a week, is now limited in his right to free speech? A university has not only the right but also the obligation to employ teachers who show good judgment and common sense in their speech. As teachers they must meet a higher standard of wisdom, thoughtfulness and coherence. It is time that university administrators and students stop mistaking controversial, angry rhetoric for intelligent discourse. The indignant hysteria by the left over Mr. Churchill’s supposed loss of free speech has taken disingenuousness and blatant hypocrisy to a new level. In a land where 7 out of 8 university professors are liberal, where the few conservative speakers are routinely protested and shouted down (but where diversity is supposedly held dear), one has to wonder whether it is with unmitigated gall or complete blindness that Churchill’s supporters dare to play the free speech card.

    Churchill's Students Defend Him | 40 comments (40 topical)