home

Hawaii Paper Misquotes Churchill, Issues Correction

Beleagured Ethnic Studies Professor Ward Churchill suffers another indignation at the hands of MSM (mainstream media for those of you just joining the conversation.) The Honolulu Star Bulletin yesterday quoted Churchill as saying he was not a Native American. Confronted with the audio and video of his speech, the paper has retracted its claim.

"In fact, he said the exact opposite," [Professor]Stannard said. "It's all over the place now (on the Internet). How do you put it back in a bottle? This gives strength to his argument that he is being misrepresented by the media."

.... Star-Bulletin reporter Craig Gima said he was standing at the back of the room and may have misheard Churchill....after a day-long search for a tape, and an evening spent listening, Star-Bulletin city editor Ed Lynch said the paper would be publishing a correction today. "He said, 'Lets cut to the chase on that,"' Lynch said. "We're going to have to publish a retraction."

Here's what Churchill actually said, according to today's Star Bulletin:

But a review of video and audio tapes of the speech shows that Churchill actually said: "Is he an Indian? We really care. We're trying to protect the rights of Indians to divine for themselves, say this circle of flies in the form of white reporters circling a manure pile like it's of all consequential importance. Cut to the chase on that."

Churchill went on to say that he is an associate member of the Keetoowah tribe and that associates are enrolled in the band after their genealogy has been vetted by the enrollment office. He said that he is less than one-quarter Indian, so he does not qualify to be a full member.

Too bad the paper didn't have enough integrity to accompany its correction with an apology. Not even a "We regret the error."

Not only that, but the paper reports there were 800 in attendance at Churchill's University of Hawaii speech, and most were favorable to Churchill:

The crowd was mostly sympathetic to Churchill, a University of Colorado ethnic studies professor. He was applauded more than a dozen times and was greeted at least three times with standing ovations.

There were about a dozen protestors. But check out the photos accompanying the article. They highlight four persons in attendance, every single one holding a protest sign.

< Another Shaky Terrorism Prosecution | Talon Shuts Down Website >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Do you propose taking his Vietnam veteran status away? I don't see what this has to do with the Democrats, since his views have not been endorsed by any of them, so perhaps you are making that part up. If you are, please explain why.

    [deleted for name calling] Well I can see he will make the democrats proud.....

    Re: Hawaii Paper Misquotes Churchill, Issues Corre (none / 0) (#3)
    by Linkmeister on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 10:26:16 AM EST
    The local tv stations (on Oahu) were a little better with their "man on the street" interviews pre-speech. They got people who espoused Voltaire (without quoting him) as well as those who called it hate speech. We had only one state legislator publicly howling about the invitation, although the letters pages of both papers have been full of pro- and anti- content.

    `Why did it take a bunch of Arabs to do what you all should have done a long time ago,' ~ Ward Churchill The democrats seem to be supporting Mr Churchill, so I made that wisecrack.. 3,000 unarmed American civilians die at the hands of terrorist and this guy says, why did it take so long! The public vociferation should be so great that Mr Churchill feels very unwelcome here.

    Burger Boy, Churchill is welcome here and anywhere else to express his views. That doesn't mean we have to agree with them but we defend his right to have them and publicly state them. Please, four comments a day max from you, okay?

    Re: Hawaii Paper Misquotes Churchill, Issues Corre (none / 0) (#6)
    by jerry on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 10:46:12 AM EST
    I haven't heard any liberal or Democrat yet express any other sentiment to me other than the desire to high-five this lunatic...

    Jerry and BurgerBoy are typical of the right wing: make stuff up to smear the opposition. Keep it up, and one of you could be the chair of the NY GOP one day.

    I still think that you made it up. If you HAD not made it up, you would have presented specific instances of notable "Democrats" endorsing his views. As it is, any real American will support his right to express any view no matter how offensive. Of course I disagree with him. Ironically, even though I caught you in a lie (a big one, which you repeated), I support your right to make stuff up w/o criminal sanction. Have a nice day. Tomorrow, if possible could you lie about the Norwegians. We have not heard any anti-Norwegian lies in a long time, and I am angry at a specific Norwegian, so I think that one of your trademark "lies" will make me much happier. Thanks and god bless.

    I haven't heard any liberal or Democrat yet express any other sentiment to me other than the desire to high-five this lunatic... Well, let me help you with that, Jerry. I'm a liberal. I'm a Democrat. I don't agree with Churchill's remarks. Personally, I find his opinion uninteresting. No high fives for Ward. On a related matter, I don't think it's good policy to knuckle under to a lynch mob mentality that seeks to weed out college professors because they hold unpopular opinions. As soon as you start doing that, professors become reluctant to have any opinions other than the "approved" ones. See?

    I have not heard ANYONE express agreement with the substance of his argument. Perhaps someone could prove me wrong by showing the text of a Democratic senator or representatives's statements on the matter. Until then, I think that they are lying. I understand that different cultures have different conceptions of "truth" and some people say that we must be receptive to them. However, in my culture, it usually is better to not lie.

    TL I don’t advocate for Mr Churchill to lose the right to free speech. I support his right to jabber. Mr Churchill shows his complete lack of knowledge about the history of Islamic terrorism the middle east and their view of the west. I am not saying America is perfect. But our wrong doings do not justify the lunatic actions of terrorist, as Mr Churchill so declares. Noname @ 11:19am I am just following Maurice Hinchey’s (D NY) example..... It would be political suicide to agree publicly with Mr anti-America, I don’t think the democrats can afford that right now. More of the left seem to be supportive of our enemies than the right, so why wouldn’t they support Ward? Quaker I agree about the job thing to a point. But I think Mr Churchill goes just a bit to far... It is ludicrous to think that one can make such inflammatory remarks and not suffer some repercussions.

    It is ludicrous to think that one can make such inflammatory remarks and not suffer some repercussions. Allright then. What are the proper "repercussions" one should suffer for holding unpopular ideas?

    Re: Hawaii Paper Misquotes Churchill, Issues Corre (none / 0) (#13)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 12:23:04 PM EST
    Jerry - Youll probobly filter this info out as you do so much else, but a few days ago I said that Churchill's remarks were brutish and stupid. Have you ever gone on the record in criticizing Coulter, Limbaugh,Hannity et al? I mean, other than to say that theyre too liberal?

    Re: Hawaii Paper Misquotes Churchill, Issues Corre (none / 0) (#14)
    by pigwiggle on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 12:45:02 PM EST
    “… professors become reluctant to have any opinions other than the "approved" ones.” Why should I fund ideas I disagree with?

    Why does this website defend this guy? You think I would be happy about a conservative website defending some KKK guy (which is absolutely Chuchill's right-sided equivalent)? Believe me, I would not....

    Ward Churchill,the gift that keeps on giving... Being right of center myself I do not believe the Churchill should be fired for what he is saying but perhaps if it is found that he padded his resume to get his position (as some have charged) then that is grounds for dimissal. I still am left to wonder how someone who doesn't have a PHD end up as a department head, it just seems weird to me. Are there anymore Dept. Chairpersons with such a dearth of credentials and what process led to them recieving the promotion in the first place? As far as the Colorado Regents firing him for his rhetoric that may well be against his first ammendment rights because they do represent the Gov't. Do I think that a school can cancel him if they so choose, especially a private school such as Hamilton College? Yes because he still can spout his vitriol just not on that campus. As long as the Gov't doesn't stop him It's not a first ammendment issue. Would I enjoy seeing him sent packing? Sure I would but for fraud not for foolish, childish rants. If anyone is interested there is a good piece on NRO written by Candice DeRussy (sp?) who sits on the NYS Board of Regents.

    I do not believe the Churchill should be fired for what he is saying Well, there it is. That's all we're sayin' too.

    You think I would be happy about a conservative website defending some KKK guy MB, First Amendment organizations like the ACLU defend "KKK guys" often. And yes, I support that too.

    MB, First Amendment organizations like the ACLU defend "KKK guys" often. And yes, I support that too. Yeah, I know, but this website (and some people) go far beyond his "right to speak". Come on, so many people here embrace his "the US had it coming" philosophy. And that's what I don't get about you guys. It's so outlansish, and you defend it just to be controversial or something. The people on this site would never defend his "right to denegrate blacks or women". We should all agree about this bozo.... And I see no reason why he shouldn't be fired.

    Find a "KKK guy" who's head of "ethnic studies" at a major state university.

    you defend it just to be controversial or something. The people on this site would never defend his "right to denegrate blacks or women". We should all agree about this bozo.... No, I don't; yes, I would; and even though you think so, we don't.

    Find a "KKK guy" who's head of "ethnic studies" at a major state university. Why would I want to do that?

    No, I don't; yes, I would; and even though you think so, we don't. Alright, be honest. If Chuchill was some tenored prof. who was espousing the death of blacks in society because they offer nothing productive, would we have 10 stories on this webiste over 3 weeks about "his right to speak"? Would all these lefties be defending his "right to speak". I don't buy it. It's more about what he's saying than his "right to speak".

    Alright, be honest. I refer you to my earlier responses. Nice chattin' with you.

    I don't buy it. It's more about what he's saying than his "right to speak".
    you wignuts are making it about what he's saying, commenters here have only agreed to his right to say it. as far as your analogy to blacks and females; he said what he said about who he said it, don't deflect. ?if a dog had a square a$$ would he schit bricks?

    Re: Hawaii Paper Misquotes Churchill, Issues Corre (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimcee on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 02:40:35 PM EST
    QIAB, Why yes I am defending his right to say what he pleases because I think that the first ammendment protects that speech from Gov't. My main point is what his appointment to his "Chair" shows and his hiring in the first place by CU shows what a bunch of horse's a--es those that hired him were and are still. The stench he brings with him rubs off on all who defend his hiring in the first place. There is a reason that many colleges are becoming nothing more than remedial schools or refuges from real scholarly pursuits. The caliber of candidates is obviously slipping when a joker such as WC are even considered for thier positions let alone tenure in the first place. Those who put him in this position were obviously driven by a Leftist, US loathing baby boomer bunch of psuedo intellectuals driven more by their own politics than a desire to raise the quality higher of education. That is a very sad thing for those who believe that our universities should be a place for intellectual stimulation and advancement not some maddrassa for Leftist mullahs such as Churchill. I'm afraid that the damage that has been done to many universities by these reactionary Leftist will take years to correct. And that makes me sad.

    I think this is another example of the Left's inability to learn how to pick and choose their battles. Ward could have easily made the same arguments without the rhetoric and vile comments and appeared Scholarly. Which would be befitting a Professor. Which would have been covered by the idea of Academic freedom. He didn't. He has the right to say what he wants, but the University has a right to toss Professors who incite and enflame emotions rather than instigate learned debate. It is one thing to defend his right to say what he wants- O'Reilly can call shame on Hawai'i all he likes, but if they want to have him come speak, that is their right and privilege. It is another to force a University to maintain an an Academic position for a Professor who goes out of the way to outrage in decidedly un-academic terms. So the Right won, in respects to Ward Churchill, and they score more points every time He goes anywhere and says anything that riles up the average working stiff. The Left now has Ward as their new official spokesperson in the minds eye of the public- all the outlandish statements, whether in or out of context is now entirely inconsequential. Threats to Academic Freedom should be taken seriously, but you guys' side would have been better served to save the strength and capital for someone a bit more deserving and a case a bit more clear cut. The Right understands this concept a bit better. There is no great defense effort or loud gatherings being organized for Gannon (the other point losing cause du jour of the left), Alan Keyes for dropping off the deep end, etc. Rove doesn't HAVE to come up with dirty tricks to marginalize the left- They successfully find ways to do it to themselves all the time.

    et al - As the first person who broke the, now reputed, story that he said he was indian, I am very disappointed in the Star-Bulletin. I would love to see the video they are talking about. BTW - The Star is not a conservative paper, by any stretch of the imagination.

    Those who put him in this position were obviously driven by a Leftist, US loathing baby boomer bunch of psuedo intellectuals driven more by their own politics than a desire to raise the quality higher of education. Quite a leap there, Knievel. The process of hiring and tenure--at CU or at all universities--is fair game for discussion. However, a reactive change in the rules to punish a single unpopular professor sets a dangerous precedent. That's exactly what many of Churchill's critics want.

    you guys' side would have been better served to save the strength and capital for someone a bit more deserving and a case a bit more clear cut In other words, "the Left" should compromise or abandon long-held societal principles when defending them might be difficult? You're right, Gerry. "The Right" does have a better hanlde on that.

    Here's a question for those who think academic freedom is a refuge for lefties only. How long did Dr. Shockley promote his ideas about race and intelligence before Stanford fired him?

    Quaker- If by "Compromise" you mean accepting that, in this particular case that maybe this ISN'T covered by Academic Freedom and letting chips fall where they may, than yes. Abandon the principle? NO. There have been many arguments and conclusions over the years that would fly against the grain of popular thought. They are made in scholarly works and academic format, usually without a bunch of vile inflammatory rhetoric. That is Academic Freedom that should be defended.

    maybe this ISN'T covered by Academic Freedom It's either an issue of academic freedom or it's Churchill's personal opinion. On which basis would you have my state board of regents dismiss him?

    Jim is absent, when it turns out that the issue he's been pimping, that WC made a claim about indian blood that was false, was itself false, a misquotation. WC is, apparently, less than 1/4 indian, but he does, apparently, have indian blood. Not that it is or should be an issue; as I said elsewhere, the real issue is whether one can participate in ceremonies, whether dances or sweats or other. The lack of a PhD is not a gigantic issue, especially if the prof. has a wide area of expertise, as WC certainly has. As for what he said about Eichmann's, it sounds real cruel and real 'unamerican,' until you figure out that the 100,000 innocent people who died in Iraq at our hands...well, that's 33 TIMES the number who died on 911, and Iraq had nothing to do with 911 at all. So who is the victim? Both parties, though it isn't hard to understand the leftist point WC is making. The real question is Why isn't Bush viewed as 33 TIMES a greater terrorist than Osama bin Laden? Because he stole two elections, and has the corrupt media and corrupt Republican party to back him up in his lies and predations on the innocent? Bush is out of the country. Lock the gates. If he had a turban instead of a fake cowboy hat, he would have to take his shoes off, and probably disappear for a couple of years and no one could find him. Unlike the great numbers of innocent Arabs being held, Bush could be taking the cruise on the CIA torture ships for his ACTUAL crimes, and his intended future terrorist crimes. Just because the planes Bush is using have american flags on them, that doesn't make their bombs holy. It is terrorism, plain old. Bush is a terrorist.

    Paul In LA - Wrong. The fact that he may have been misquoted has nothing to do with the fact that many people say he is not indian.

    Quaker- In an earlier thread on this, the guidelines were posted, and the reason for dismissal iwas something along the lines of Conduct unbecoming. In all seiousness, If Ward Churchill's rhetoric and argument framing is the new standard for Academic Debate, I suggest arming up now and early- because we are on a dangerous path.

    PPJ- "zero" is, after all, "less than a fourth". Ward does not have a valid Roll Number. That's it, end of story.

    I think this is another example of the Left's inability to learn how to pick and choose their battles. The media chose this battle for the Left "establishment". The left was stupid enough to add national credibility to it by engaging in the "debate" as framed by the media. The topic to respond to is the vendetta itself, not whether what the Professor said was offensive or not. I continue to be frequently offended by wingnut faculty. They have the right to their disgusting, heartless, ethnocentric, sexist, and in some cases, racist opinions - just like they have the right to use their positions to skew the minds of their students. I'd complain, but ultimately it would do no good, since I'm not fortunate enough to have been issued my brown shirt. Some people believe that choosing not to respond makes it that much worse. I disagree. Refusing to acknowledge the attack dogs will make them that much more rabid. Once they muck up and show their true colors often enough without opposition, feeling under-represented, the hardened apolitical American will finally feel threatened enough to disbelieve the "new establishment". The "battle" should begin the instant that there is a reason to battle. As Mr. Churchill's own attorney stated...
    "David Lane, Churchill's attorney, predicted that, ultimately, nothing will come of the CU probe. Dismissing Thursday's session as "a lot of hand-wringing and tongue-clucking," Lane said "Ward Churchill is entitled, under the First Amendment, to have any opinions about anything - especially matters of public concern - and he is allowed to write those opinions without fear of reprisal from Bill Owens or the regents of the University of Colorado."
    (Rocky Mountain News) Barry Bonds should take a page from Churchill's lawyer. It doesn't matter that what (either) of (them) did, the fact is that holding allegedly extreme opinions (steroids) are not illegal (were not illegal at the time). Wait and see if CU wrongfully terminates Ward Churchill. In the meantime, add no value or credibility to the media's witch hunt. The most damaging, impressive act that an Alan Colmbes could do or say while Hannity is spitting his hatred is stand up and walk out the door right in the middle of it. ..and in response to the, "why should I fund it?" comment...as a Democrat, since I disagree with pretty much every action by the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress, am I entitled to have my money back from the Federal Govt? No, because I am party to the social contract that obligates me to do my part. There is a way to opt out of the contract, its called immigration.

    something along the lines of Conduct unbecoming. Back to square one. Having an unpopular opinion is "unbecoming"?

    Quaker in a Basement- "Back to square one. Having an unpopular opinion is "unbecoming"?" Indeed. From their perspective, it prevents you from becoming a DoubleplusGoodthinker. I dislike the demonizing of Ward Churchill considerably more than I dislike what he said, and that's saying a lot.

    "Back to square one. Having an unpopular opinion is "unbecoming"?" No. dressing your academic arguments in rhetoric designed to inflame emotions and incense the public rather than spur thoughtful debate IS, if you are a professor.

    "Posted by Jim: "Paul In LA - Wrong. The fact that he may have been misquoted has nothing to do with the fact that many people say he is not indian." "Many people," as a form of argument, means 'no one.' If you cannot find an actual person to quote, then there is no one. Where are your links? As for not an indian, I have made the point that being allowed to participate is the standard at res's I'm familiar with. There are lots of people with fractions of indian blood, but ultimately it is the tribal elders who decide who can participate, and who cannot. Since WC has an indian groups who accepts him for ceremonies, that's that. Anything less than 1/2 blooded, that's the standard. Participation; if he participates in indian ceremonies, then he is indian, regardless of how small the fraction. I would not be surprised to find that he has participated in NAC activities. But any discussion of those participations would be to discuss first people's culture, and that the rightwing racists don't want to do. Nor do they want to discuss the ongoing rip-off of first people's mineral and grazing rights. Because to focus on the real isues is to have to ignore the trumped up issue that is supposed to supplant reality, so Bush can continue his predations on people he hates, without people pointing that out.

    Paul- You gotta have a roll number. That's that. Simply being allowed to participate in a ceremoy means squat. Or by your definition, I would be a Jewish Muslim African American Mexican with an American Indian roll number(Choctaw). Damn, now I'm confused.

    dressing your academic arguments in rhetoric designed to inflame emotions and incense the public rather than spur thoughtful debate IS, if you are a professor. Well, if that's grounds for dismissal, then back up the truck. I think there are plenty more where Churchill came from.

    The fact that he may have been misquoted has nothing to do with the fact that many people say he is not indian. Misquoted, but accurate? Why does that have such a familiar ring to it?

    How long did Dr. Shockley promote his ideas about race and intelligence before Stanford fired him? What? No takers on this one?

    Re: Hawaii Paper Misquotes Churchill, Issues Corre (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimcee on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 07:26:20 AM EST
    QIAB, Although I find the study of eugenics distirbing it is nothing new. Peter Sanger has been talking about it for years including killing young children that don't meet his expectations and this guy is an "ethicist"! The founder of Planned Parenthood was also involved with the Eugenics movement as well were the Nazis. As for him not losing his position at Stanford it might have had something to do with his Nobel Prize in Physics, Medal of Merit, Leibmann Memorial Prize, the Comstock Award, Holly Medal from ASME, his doctorate from MIT, and his work in anti-submarine technology in WWII. Oh and he invented the transistor which eventually made this missive to you possible. Part of his work on eugenics was how to make them possible in a democracy, in other words within the system of government we all enjoy. Any other stupid questions there pal? Prehaps your so distirbed by eugenics because if it were made possible the Left today would cease to exist. And Ward Churchill pretends to be an Indian, whoa and dances with them as well, with no PHD, a masters degree in communications and chairs an ethnic studies dep't. Sheesh. The Left IS on life support. Man,I love Google.

    "Well, if that's grounds for dismissal, then back up the truck. I think there are plenty more where Churchill came from." Perhaps we should. Professors should stimulate reasoned thoughtful debate through measured discourse, not incite riots. If this typre of Rhetoric is the vehicle Churchill wishes to use for his message, that is his right- but the University doesn't have to continue to employ him as a representative of their faculty. He can find another venue. If a campus wants to have him to speak, Great! Ward could write a column or start a blog, whatever. "How long did Dr. Shockley promote his ideas about race and intelligence before Stanford fired him?" Not a clue. I gather he should still be there by the standard you have set.

    Quick question on the Shockley character- did he advocate the destruction of those he considered "inferior"? Did he he compare them to insects, garbage, etc. Or did he make his arguments in an academic format free of emotive rhetoric? You on the Left cannot seem to seperate the veiwpoint from the vehicle it has been delivered in. It isn't the argument or ideas expressed- it is the frame and tone of the rhetoric surrounding them that is decidedly unscholarly and unbecoming of a University Professor.

    Any other stupid questions there pal? Just this one: were you born this way or have you been working at it?

    I gather he should still be there by the standard you have set. Correct. He kept his position until he died, in spite of the controversy caused by his public pronouncements.

    Re: Hawaii Paper Misquotes Churchill, Issues Corre (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimcee on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 09:01:35 AM EST
    No he didn't advocate selective killing of the already born although Dr. Peter Sanger has. Shockley did believe that selective abortions could concievably help humans develop higher IQ's as well as limit certain congenital defects. And yes he did present his findings in a scholarly and erudite way through a think tank based out of U of C at Berkley. As I said before I find the subject of eugenics in humans distirbing because it gives life and death decisions to others and not those whose lives are actually effected.

    Re: Hawaii Paper Misquotes Churchill, Issues Corre (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimcee on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 09:12:47 AM EST
    QIAB, Yes that was a stupid question. But if you insist, I started out a benighted Lefty such as yourself but through reading many forms of philosphy and history with an open mind I moved to the Right but not the Far Right. Actually the Left moved to the Far Left for the most part and it kind of left me on the Right. I'm sure that someday I will be back on the Left when it comes to it's senses because I don't like extremism on either side of the line and the Right will get there eventually. I guess I'm a Libratarian to a point because I believe that people should be allowed to live and let live for the most part.

    You mistake my meaning. I was referring to your manners, not your politics.

    "Posted by Gerry Owen: Paul-You gotta have a roll number. That's that. Simply being allowed to participate in a ceremoy means squat." That shows how little you understand about it. Participation is everything; a number from Uncle Sam means you would get a check, if they could find your money. The money, if any, is useful, but the participation IS the culture. Fractions abound; a drop is enough. What if you were to find out that WC was a Sun Dancer? If he has made that kind of sacrifice for the people, he is certainly of the people, regardless of how many drops of blood.

    Jimcee, Quaker- The question of the popularity and beliefs surrounding eugenics notwithstanding, Can you see the difference in erudite scholarly discourse on the topic, versus the torrent of rhetoric Ward Churchill cloaks his also none to popular beliefs in? Churchill is ENTITLED to do what he does and say what he does, however he wants- but the University can and should demand a higher level of scholarly discourse from their professors. THAT is the grounds they should toss him on, and let him move on to a more appropriate venue.

    Gerry, you allow that Churchill is entitled to express his opinion in any way he chooses, but insist that the university holds the right to limit how he expresses that opinion. These are mutually exclusive propositions.

    Quaker- "Gerry, you allow that Churchill is entitled to express his opinion in any way he chooses, but insist that the university holds the right to limit how he expresses that opinion. These are mutually exclusive propositions." No they are not. Churchill is entitled by Law and protected by the First Amendment. He shouldn't face trial, execution, Jail or fines for what he says. The University, however, is perfectly entitled to hold its Professors to a standard for academic discourse. The Rhetoric used is rather poisonous and not conducive to furthering academic discussion and scholarly debate, which is a key component of his job. A First Grade Teacher can't do Carlin's 7 dirty words in the classroom to highlight discusions about free speech, or A Salesguy can't tell potential clients their products are junk, and a Coke truck driver can't be seen cruising around sipping Pepsi! Nor can they be prosecuted for such actions. But they CAN Lose their jobs. So can, and should, Ward. I do not think we need Academic Discourse reduced to shouting matches, fisticuffs, and hateful emotions as represented and incited by inflammatory remarks not necessary to the points he was trying to make.

    The University, however, is perfectly entitled to hold its Professors to a standard for academic discourse. Perhaps. One might hope that this standard would be based on conduct and not content. In addition, it's in the interest of the university to announce the standard before the fact, not after. Those calling for Mr. Churchill's head demonstrate little regard for either of these notions.

    PS: I seem to have missed the "shouting matches, fisticuffs, and hateful emotions" as well as the riots incited by Mr. Churchill you alluded to earlier. Could you fill me in on those?

    Re: Hawaii Paper Misquotes Churchill, Issues Corre (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimcee on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 07:44:03 PM EST
    QIAB, Sorry if I was rude, I apoligize. Other than that he is probably going to be fired if its found out that he was ripping off other's art work. That's my business nowdays and that involves intellectual property laws. There's not much money in the art world, trust me, so he will probably be wiped out by the lawyers for the family of the artist that he ripped off. "When the Chickens come home to roost", indeed. So now plagerism is a "First Amendment" right too, I would suppose...

    Maybe O'Reilly should sue him. Or you can try to get Jeff Gannon into bed with him, and then pimp that scandal. Meanwhile, Ward Churchill has, to my knowledge, never killed anyone, while your hero, Bushliar, has killed tens of thousands of innocent people. Your hero cult has BUPKIS to do with the Constitution, and I wish we could say that WC is wrong about men like Bushliar, and what they have done to the record of our values. So, yeah, jimcee, you got your moral priorities all worked out. You're the fan of a mass-murderer. But you hate a college professor because he says stuff you don't like.

    For anyone willing to read more than two words in search of the answer if he is or isn't.....go here . "We act as if we knew what we're talking about when we talk about race, and we don't."