Also weighing in are Law Prof Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy, writing for the Rocky Mountain News, who says that firing Churchill would set a dangerous precedent from an academic freedom and First Amendment perspective, but might be appropriate on the grounds that he misrepresented his biographical details. And Alexander Cockburn at Counterpunch, who is very angry at the "right-wing mad dogs" and says that the fervor has already spread to another professor at different university.
The ACLU weighs in and asks the governor, legislators and the University of Colorado Board of Regents to "stop threatening" CU professor Ward Churchill's job."
Is there anyone willing to stick up for Churchill and his writings? Or to put them in perspective? We found Joshua Frank, also writing at Counterpunch, who trashes the liberals who are trashing Churchill, and provides his view of Churchill's writings, which differ considerably from those of Glenn and Eugene.
One Colorado state representative has called for a review of CU's tenure system. I'm sure plenty of pure academics will write about that, but since this is a weblog, not a law review or a textbook, I'm going to leave that topic alone for now. Suffice it to say, at the current time,
For a faculty member to be fired at CU, the school must show incompetence, neglect of duty, insubordination, conviction of a felony, moral turpitude, sexual harassment or "other conduct which falls below minimum standards of professional integrity."
TalkLeft's coverage, with a diverse range of views expressed in hotly-debated comments, is here.
If you would like to hear Churchill speak for himself, you can read this statement --or this interview --or you can head up to C.U. Boulder Tuesday night where he will be speaking at 7pm at the University Memorial Center's Glenn Miller Ballroom. No backpacks or signs on sticks allowed.
Update: On a related note, read Salmon Rushdie's op-ed in Sunday's LA Times, Democracy is No Tea Party:
Offense and insult are part of everyday life for everyone in Britain (or the U.S., for that matter). All you have to do is open a daily paper and there's plenty to offend. Or you can walk into the religion section of a bookshop and discover you're damned to various kinds of eternal hellfire, which is certainly insulting, not to say overheated.
The idea that any kind of free society can be constructed in which people will never be offended or insulted, or in which they have the right to call on the law to defend them against being offended or insulted, is absurd.
In the end, a fundamental decision needs to be made: Do we want to live in a free society or not? Democracy is not a tea party where people sit around making polite conversation. In democracies, people get extremely upset with each other. They argue vehemently against each other's positions. (But they don't shoot.)
Update: Thread hijacked, comments closed.
