home

Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 02:23:44 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'm surprised at Dave Kopel's Rocky Mountain News column today on media coverage of the Ward Churchill controversy. It is such a misnomer. It's about coverage of media-bashing of Churchill, as I explain at 5280, it's not about media coverage in general. How can you represent an article as being about media reaction to or coverage of an event if you only present one side?

< Germany Refuses to Prosecute Rumsfeld | She Speaks After 20 Years >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage | 55 comments (55 topical)
    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 03:06:40 PM EST
    Funny, I just blogged on Churchill. Haven't read the Kopel piece yet, but will when I get back from running a couple of errands.

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 03:12:00 PM EST
    Sadly this is normal in today news world. its all about my side your side and nothing else. But what did Churchill really do but to say what we all know, some of it is facts some of it is political abhor and some is an agenda. but he has the right to say it, and if people do not like it that person has the right to tell him to go to hell and walk out of the classroom.

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#3)
    by marty on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 03:24:14 PM EST
    Weren't the statments that got everyone upset made outside the classroom?

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 03:56:26 PM EST
    So, I'm sitting here trying to figure out how you paint a positive portrait of a faux-Indian, faux-military hero, faux-scholar who is, apparently, pro-terrorist. Perhaps my liberal arts education was faulty. -C

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 04:01:17 PM EST
    Cliff, it's called academic freedom and the first amendment. Surely a few media outfits mentioned these concepts with respect to Churchill.

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 04:29:24 PM EST
    3 words to describe Churchill: FAKE FAKE FAKE

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 04:53:10 PM EST
    talkleft - Sounds to me like he's been heard, and well heard. No problems there. As for academic freedome, here in NC they strip professors of tenure when they have sexual relations with students, are convicted of felonies, have more than three drunk driving convictions, etc, etc. Surely CO universities have rules about falsifying research and lying on job applications (Indian, war-hero). But, given the sorry state of your post-secondary school system, perhaps not. (Sorry, obligatory NCSU, UNC, and Duke snob comment. :-) As for his support for terrorists and communists, well, bad taste has ever been in fashion in academia. -C

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 04:53:56 PM EST
    I would not support any action to fire Churchill based on what he said or what he taught no matter how reprehensible. However, if the university choses to fire him for: - lying on his employment record - purposefully falsifying his research then sure, fire away, but not for what he said. But it does appear that his research has been proven false and it does appear that he did lie about his background. If you disagree about what I feel he should be fired for, then I guess there isn't anything to talk about.

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 05:00:31 PM EST
    I've said it before and I'll say it again. CU made its bed, and now it gets to lie in it. They never should have given tenure to him. But since they did, they get to live with the consequences. Even if he was a conformist, diligent, politically correct, etc. individual, they still shouldn't have a guy sitting as a department chair when he's not qualified for it. He can never sit on a doctoral committee, but he gets paid the same as someone who can. He doesn't have a degree in history, sociology, cultural affairs, ethnic studies, or anything related to ethnic studies. His degree is in communication. Yet he was made the chair of the ethnic studies department. He apparently used quite false and/or embellished information to get his job originally in the communications department. But CU found out about that, and instead of dismissing him, they promoted him and gave him tenure. This is CU's black eye, and they're just going to have to sit back and take it.

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 05:09:21 PM EST
    I wonder if the great majority of college professors were conservative and spouting that line in class would we hear so much talk about "academic freedom?" I doubt it. Depends on whose cat is doing the cracking. Churchill shouldn't be fired. He should be hanged, because he's a stinking traitor.

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#11)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 05:11:06 PM EST
    How can you represent an article as being about media reaction to or coverage of an event if you only present one side? By being a dishonest member of a so-called "libertarian" think tank and a writer who reliably pumps out pro-Bush, pro-rightest distortions and half-truths?

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 05:12:39 PM EST
    Jeralyn, help me out. You say: "...it's called academic freedom and the first amendment." A lot of righty people - Volokh, Instaguy, etc. stood up and said 'academic freedom'; here are a few cites: Reynolds; Volokh... And as a nonlawyer, where does the 1st Amendment come in? I missed the part where he was being kept from speaking by the government. He said something incendiary, people are saying incendiary things back. That sounds like free speech to me, but there may be an aspect I'm missing, which I'd very much like to understand... A.L.

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 05:22:47 PM EST
    The First Amendment relates not just to speech.
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of issues."
    Here's an editorial connecting the dots between the First Amendment and Churchill.

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#14)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 05:23:11 PM EST
    A. L. Simple. You don't get to say stuff back. It's against the First Amendment. Clear, now?

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 05:23:43 PM EST
    Quaker, that's not fair to Kopel and not true. He's not dishonest. I have a lot of respect for him, for libertarians and for the think tank with which he's associated. I just think this article was mischaracterized, and had I known what it was really about, I wouldn't have bothered with it. It's portrayed as a piece that will compare media treatment of Churchill, and instead, is just a rehash of sites that bashed him.

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 05:26:11 PM EST
    Uh, TL, you must have been in a hurry - that article actually confirms AL's point about Churchill being able to say anything he wants and have anything said back to him. I think whether or not another university can spend or not-spend their student activity fees to have him speak is a very interesting topic, but it's not really what we're discussing. -C

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 05:43:39 PM EST
    Jeralyn, I read your editorial cite, and I fail to see how it "connects the dots" between a prohibition on congress making a law restricting freedom of speech, and Churchill's situation. I am not necessarily in favor of CU firing him over his big mouth, but I do believe they have the right to do so if they wish, for that reason alone, and in so doing, they don't tread on his First Amendment rights. Of course, I'd - from an ideological point of view - much rather Churchill stay right where he is, spouting his theories and pronouncements to all and sundry. The more America perceives people like Churchill as being representative of the left, the worse the left will do in its struggles to regain power or moral authority. Even though I don't see Churchill's predicament as a legitimate First Amendment issue, I guess if he does have to go, I'd rather it be over his falsified history and credentials - if only to defuse those who will (wrongly, in my opinion) say his dismissal violated his constitutional rights.

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 05:47:07 PM EST
    Quaker, I gotta back up Jeralyn on this one. Kopel is an extremely bright guy, and while I disagree with him regularly, he generally puts a great deal of reason into his positions. He doesn't use the scoundrel's last refuge (patriotism) whenever he meets someone who disagrees with him. The independence institute infuriates me most of the time, because people like John Andrews and John Caldera aren't libertarians. Those two wouldn't care if this were a theocracy, as long as we didn't have to pay taxes. If they were truly libertarian they would work to get government regulation out of not just the economy and business but out of my bedroom and yours. But instead they just want to cut taxes and oppose public transportation while legislating the pledge of allegiance, the ten commandments, and "under God" into the public schools.

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 05:48:39 PM EST
    TalkLeft: Kopel might not have written the headline. That probably came from the section editor, maybe even from Linda Seebach.

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 06:24:54 PM EST
    Mike, it's not just the headline, it's the first sentence too:
    Which Denver media noticed the Ward Churchill story first? The winner, by a wide margin, was Westword.
    Kopel then writes only about who first mentioned that Churchill may be a fraud? Since when is that "the story?" "The story" is that Churchill had a talk canceled by a New York college and the resulting publicity was so bad, he resigned as Chair. Then the Governor called for his firing. Then the CU regents announced an investigation. And so on. Whether he should have been granted tenure and when the media first noticed the the content of his writings was never "the story." to Bill Quick: CU cannot fire him because they don't like his expressed views. It's a public university.

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#21)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 06:35:07 PM EST
    Yeah, TL. They can't fire him. Because he's a freakin' lefty. Do you think anybody thinks you'd say the same thing if David Duke got a gig at CU? They can fire him for fraud and so forth and that will probably be their port in a storm, so to speak. OTOH, I like the idea of your heroes getting a lot of ink. You know. Stuff like teaching bomb-making. No sense hiding your light under a bushel. After all, all the unwashed need is to know what you actually stand for, and then you'll have all the support you can use.

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 06:43:58 PM EST
    Bill Q: See this news article today.
    Janice Peck, a journalism professor at the University of Colorado, said the frenzy around Churchill is based on solid news judgment, but the underlying issues — First Amendment implications, academic freedom, responsibility and sensitivity — are getting lost under the microscope.
    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 06:52:13 PM EST
    Mike Malloy of Air America interviewed Ward Churchill yesterday. Coverage is here. Churchill doesn't think he's going to be fired, and he also said a few things that left loony leftie Malloy a bit speechless.

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 07:16:29 PM EST
    A clarification... Dave Kopel was not writing a news article, he was writing an opinion piece that appears on the editorial page. His writing on media appears on alternating Saturdays with a purportedly left-of-center writer also writing on media coverage. This format was done by design. The balance, if there is such a thing, comes from the contrasting perspectives that are provided.

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 07:26:52 PM EST
    TL - The news media's focus on Churchils unremarkable toxicity is not the reason he'll get fired - it's his shoddy scholarship and faslfied credentials. If, along the way, he's also smeared by the press, well, that's a different problem. And certainly within the press's first amendment rights. -C

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 07:32:01 PM EST
    Dave, I know that and took that into account. I would have been fine if he had made it clear that he was writing about media support for his position or his view of what the "case story" is. He didn't. It was a fact based op-ed but the facts were slanted. I would never have read the article except for the headline, description and first line. I kept reading, because I kept thinking he was going to get to the other media coverage. I felt ripped off when I got to the end--like he took my time under false pretenses, and tried to brainwash me.

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#27)
    by glanton on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 08:37:55 PM EST
    Cliff: Speaking of North Carolina Universities, on a somewhat lighter note: My heart is broken. Felton ought to have stuck that jump shot from inside the key. Instead they didn't even get a shot off. As for the press in this country, does anyone really expect substantive reporting of any kind on any subject in this country? It's ALL about soundbites, status quo, and selling product, not getting quality information to the people. The watchdog role has long been abandoned.

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#28)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 09:01:17 PM EST
    I can respect that some of you (especially TL) may know Kopel personally and like him. However, I'm not unfamiliar with his work. I've followed his semi-weekly column in the News since its inception. I've also read some of his arguments in defense of John Lott. I do not regret my characterization.

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#29)
    by Dick on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 09:48:12 PM EST
    What I don't understand is where everyone is getting on his first amendment rights. The first amendment says that CONGRESS shall not make any laws restricting speech. Where does that have any pertinence in this case at all? As to the academic freedom, where does a professor have the right to teach weathermen how to build bombs, lie about his academic background, lie about his cultural background, lie about his genetic background and then be able to stand up there and based on his lies teach anything at all? I think that the university has the perfect right to take away his tenure based as it is on false precepts. That they did not do that years ago is a strike against them but the lies are still there and he is still telling them today. The man is a chancre on the university teaching staff and should be sliced off.

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 10:48:43 PM EST
    Because he is employed by a state institution, the state has to follow the First Amendment. As his lawyer says, "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."

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 11:50:26 PM EST
    I do like to read Kopel most of the time, but he has a habit of letting ideology trump facts more than occasionally, as demonstrated by his defenses of John Lott and his op-ed this week. As stated above, you let John Andrews lie down with you, you could end up with a nagging itch. Incidentally, Orcinus has a post up about some equally noxious professors on the right. Someone alert Bill Quick.

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:36:46 AM EST
    Sorry, but this is not a first amendment issue at all. Congress shall make no law. The first amendmend means you can indeed say whatever you'd like, and your employer can as well, and that includes the phrase "you're fired." There's no movement afoot in Congress to pass "Ward's Law," is there? You know, where they send frothing-at-the-mouth academics off to those gulags that Ashkkkroft constructed in North Dakota? No, I didn't think so. In Churchill's case, however, I accept that the nature of academic discourse means that professors should be allowed to say all sorts of uncomfortable things; I accept it's the nature of their jobs. However, that does not take away our rights to roundly criticise them for what they say. And obviously, he should be fired if it turns out that he lied about his backround and his scholarship turns out to be fraudulent.

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 06:11:17 AM EST
    Glanton - Well, you know what they say about the ACC? Another Carolina Choke... OTOH we're going into ACC tourney time with three teams (Wake, UNC, Duke) tied for first! I think the hyperventilating about Churchil's free speech rights is kind of funny - it's pretty clear that it is really cover for when he gets fired for lying/plagarizing. Funny that TL puts some lame-*ss blogger's apology up top but gives no coverage at all to Churchil's total fabrication of his major "work." Ah, well. -C

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:06:22 AM EST
    MM: thanks for the link. I knew of some of these profs, and I think much of what they say is, indeed, noxious. However, at least two of them are hyper-Rothbard libertarians, not conservatives. Also, having attended and taught at more than a half dozen colleges and universities in the past two decades, let me point out that you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a Churchill type, while you have to hunt out the righty nutbars. The ration of lefty nuts to righty nuts in Academia has to be around 50-1. So. I believe (as a prof) that in class, one should profess, not preach. Outside of class or in research/writing, one should follow one's star. Also, one should expect outrageous pronouncements of any stripe to provoke outraged responses, no? Churchill and his ilk are basically whiners who try to suppress free speech by hiding behind it. Won't work.

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:07:11 AM EST
    Larry Summers, acknowledged scholar with accredited standing, made to apologize for pointing out what is plain for any reasonable person to see. The gasbag "professor", with no scholastic achievments whatsoever, insulting his moral betters, is defended on "free speech" grounds. Why does the left buy into this? Brainwashing? Hypocrisy? Anti-Americanism? Why does the left continue to disintigrate as a political entity, and lose elections? See above.

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 08:22:14 AM EST
    Ace, "Why does the left buy into this? Brainwashing? Hypocrisy? Anti-Americanism?" Yes, to all three. On the second point, Churchill has made openly racist comments about REAL Native Americans. Those comments, if his politics were "right" instead of "left," would draw immediate calls for his dismissal from the leftists here. Add to that the fact that radical leftists like the bad professor openly mock the idea of "free speech" as a "bourgeois affectation" and you see that hypocrisy does enter into the mix. The "righties" that oppose firing him for what he said (like Reynolds and Horowitz) understand the principle of reciprocity [which is utter Greek to the Left], i.e. this precedent would give acedemia license to fire "right-wing" professors for advocating gun rights, etc.

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 08:44:12 AM EST
    No Treason , an anarcho-capitalist blog, has been following Hoppe's case and criticizing him for advocating the expulsion of homosexuals from communities and being hypocritical for engaging the help of the ACLU.

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 08:47:35 AM EST
    The last comment was for Michael Ditto's comparison of Hoppe to Churchill.

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 01:08:09 PM EST
    I've reached the conclusion Cliff is just another idiot - "So, I'm sitting here trying to figure out how you paint a positive portrait of a faux-Indian, faux-military hero, faux-scholar who is, apparently, pro-terrorist." Apparently your liberal arts education was faulty if you cannot ascertain that this isn't about the man but about the 1st Amendment and protection of free speech.

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimcee on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 02:01:07 PM EST
    On Tuesday evening Prof Churchill in response to a question about his interference with a Columbus Day parade, to paraphrase, "Why does Churchill have the right to abridge the first amendment rights of those who wish to celebrate Columbus?" In his answer he said it was his ninth admendment right to deny someone else's First admendment right. Which I found rather odd but it wasn't the only thing he said I found odd. Since there are a bunch of Law folks around these parts can someone explain this comment to me? Please. By the way, if he worked for me he would have been fired a long time ago. Whatever happened to the idea that one dresses well when one is to represent the company. The long hair I can deal with, I have long hair myself (although he could use a trim) but what is with the 1975 jeans and dingo boot thingee? ;). Again what is his point that the 9th trumps the 1st amendment? Where did he get that?

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#41)
    by Kitt on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:00:08 PM EST
    Jimcee - I didn't see the connection with Churchill saying his 9th Amendment rights trumped some questioner's 1st Amendment rights. 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Those rights not specifically mentioned or numbered...I found this ".... In other words, it prevented the Bill of Rights from increasing government powers by limiting those powers solely to what was listed....the amendment has ... confirmed the existence of rights not otherwise listed but still protected. The right to privacy, for example, while not otherwise listed (although strongly implied in the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments) has enjoyed such decisions under the protections of the Ninth Amendment as Griswold v. Connecticut." On the tape I saw from CSPAN, I thot Churchill was being a smart ass. He clearly enjoyed showing up those who didn't know what the 9th Amendment entailed - myself included. I still don't understand how his 9th Amendment rights trump. Jeralyn?

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#42)
    by Kitt on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:07:21 PM EST
    Oh goodness - look what else I found! The First Amendment was written in large part because colonists had, for so long, been unable to complain freely about the British gov't. The framers felt that, if free speech were unabridged, the people could always raise enough ruckus that necessary course corrections could be made by the government." "Lady Liberty reminds you that a true believer in free speech will defend that right for everyone. Free speech isn't free speech unless it applies to those with whom you disagree!"

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:14:02 PM EST
    So, Tired of Trolls, shall we give you the benefit of the doubt and put you down for "brainwashed", then?

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:44:02 PM EST
    Tired of - So you support Jeff Gannon do you?

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:46:39 PM EST
    Weren't the statments that got everyone upset made outside the classroom?
    Yep. And John Rocker's statements were away from the baseball diamond.

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:10:19 PM EST
    et al - Anyone remember the teacher's name in DC who used the word "niggardly" a few years ago and got sliced and diced? Heck that isn't even a bad word.

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#47)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 06:03:01 PM EST
    I'm not an attorney, but let me see if I understand the First Amendment. Churchill can say pretty much anything he pleases. Those who think Whitey Churchill is a jerk can say so. Those who research Whitey's background may list it for others to see. Those who are offended by the lists are entitled to be offended and to make their offendedness public. So far, what's happened to Whitey is not in conflict with Numero Uno. Firing: Chancy. Maybe he can get fired for being a lousy prof, although as I said, such a precedent might devastate the faculties of practically any university you can think of, not to mention being exceedingly difficult to define. That wouldn't conflict with the First Amendment, if the firing had to do with his teaching and other duties and the current noise about his noise was the cause of somebody belatedly looking to see if the guy was defrauding the citizens of Colorado by taking a check while being a lousy teacher. Or they could fire him for his plagiarism, lies in publications (see Belleisles), and lies in his resume and about his fitness for his posts. Or they could decide his criminal background(teaching bombmaking to the Weathermen) makes him an unlikely professor. If, come to think of it, it does. No First Amendment issue there, right?

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#48)
    by nick on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 12:23:25 AM EST
    1 listing race can not be required and no penalities exist for suc voluntary statments 2 he did not inflate army service on any application 3 he has not been convicted of an crime But I expect logic to fly over your heads

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 05:57:27 AM EST
    Out of all the interesting perspectives I've read above on the Churchill thing, I most agree with those who think people like him should be allowed lots of airtime. The fact that Bush won this election in the face of a constant barrage from the MSM wing of the Democratic party shows that Joe Six-Pack and Sally Housecoat see right through the BS and still have more of a link to the America I love than to the ridiculous version of America portrayed on our TV sets.

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 01:59:38 PM EST
    "The fact that Bush won this election" Bush didn't win the election. He lost Ohio. All that Bush's stolen elections show is that you can't trust his companies to count the votes without a paper trail to check. I saw WC on CSPAN this weekend. While he is certainly a leftist, he's not a threat to our society on the scale of someone like Jerry Falwell, who given the chance would squelch WC's free speech rights in a heartbeat.

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 02:14:34 PM EST
    Posted by TalkLeft: "Because he is employed by a state institution, the state has to follow the First Amendment." The point he made in the speech was that his contract specifically protected his first amendment rights. That's far broader than 'because he works for a state institution.' He apparently has a specific contractual protection. I thought that WC was reasonably fair in allowing questioners to ask their questions. Was he rude about it? Yeah, but that might go with getting death threats. On the other hand, WC is not in an elected office. GWB doesn't think he has a duty to respond to questions, which is a FAR graver matter. Anyone who wants to celebrate Columbus is seriously confused about history. I don't have any heroes who committed genocide. He wiped out the Arawaks, worked them to death. This would be like celebrating Cortez. We should celebrate the Basque navigators who were the ones who both found the New World (during their whale hunts off New Brunswick; Vikings preceded), and took Columbus to the Carribean in three leaky little boats.

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 08:29:59 PM EST
    Did "the (mainstream) media" cover Ward Churchill's interview by Pamela White published in Boulder Weekly (10 Feb. 2005) as posted here? Did Dave Kopel consider coverage of Ward Churchill's "clarifications" of his 2001 essay? Or the differences between it and the (longer) version published later in his book? If the "media coverage" as per Kopel is "one-sided," part of the reason is because it excludes Ward Churchill's own subsequent attempts (multiple) to define the contexts of his own remarks contemporaneously made re: Sept. 11th (what he refers to as "9-1-1") and to clarify what, his own view, he intended to be saying in them. To ignore purposely and deceptively what the writer himself says that he thinks he himself was trying to argue (in response to widespread--as he sees it--misinterpretations of his perspective) is misleading and dishonest and not convincing. It may be popular and even appear "cool" to do that, but it is not "good journalism" (whether in the MSM or in the blogosphere), and it is also not "good scholarship." "Good scholars" attempt to find as many critical perspectives on a subject of debate as possible and to understand how these critical perspectives relate to one in another in the contexts of the debate. "Critical thinking" ("critics") and "journalism" ("journalists")-- inc. bloggers--need to inform one other in more intelligent ways. Writers need to read, analyze, evaluate, and comment on what one another are claiming better than they have been doing lately. (If they are "in a rush" because of time factors like "being first," "scooping," and "deadlines," c'est la vie: maybe they need to work in another medium, where they have more time to do a more thorough job?) Like much of American culture, such media "analysts" need to go less for the jugular and more for the mind. A lot more is at stake than media "ratings." People's lives and livelihoods are at stake. Someday these people too may find themselves wishing that they had been more protective of the first-amendment rights of others. No one who publishes in any media (print, tv, radio, film, internet) is exempt from the kind of verbal onslaught that Ward Churchill has experienced. What is happening in this case needs to be a wake-up call to us all. Today it is Ward Churchill, tomorrow it may be you or I. [Note: Whether or not Churchill works at a private or a public institution of higher education in the U.S., he is still protected by the terms of his contract with the institution, which in most cases, incorporates AAUP principles of academic freedom. The "Laws" of the Colorado Board of Regents, in this case, incorporates such principles. He can't be "fired" without "due process" according to the procedures already in place and the review already underway at CU Boulder (it goes to the Regents at the end, not at the beginning, and the governor has no legitimate role in such procedures); one estimate that I heard recently said that the "review process" (inc. possible court challenges) could take about "two years."]

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 08:36:39 PM EST
    link to the "letters" column for the Boulder Weekly.

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 09:20:17 PM EST
    For "context": Here's a link to the home page of the Boulder Weekly featuring the "cover story" (Feb. 10-17) interview by Pamela White

    Re: Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 08:47:01 AM EST
    Churchill may be hurtful to a lot of folks already hurt far too much, but he's not that far off target. http://blony.com/index.php/2005/02/05/ward_churchill_sees_through_our_enemies Also, http://www.aztlan.net/churchill_creek_cherokee.htm There's a war in AIM but ... http://coloradoaim.org/wardpetition.htm

    Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage | 55 comments (55 topical)