1
   

CU Prof. should be fired!

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 08:38 am
snood wrote:
Ticoyama,
I have to admit, I'd read coverage of Churchill's words that didn't stress the things you quoted. Pretty disgusting crap - you're right, I stand corrected.


Just call me "Tico." Laughing

No problem. I agree ... pretty disgusting.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 10:08 am
snood wrote:
Ticoyama,
I have to admit, I'd read coverage of Churchill's words that didn't stress the things you quoted. Pretty disgusting crap - you're right, I stand corrected.


Sorta indicates, perhaps, a media bias problem ... a problem likely exacerbated by the habits, tastes and preferences, in this case, of the media consumer.

I'm always puzzled by folks who comment on somethin' said or done - take a strong position on it - based on what the've read about what was said or done, without actually havin' read what was said or done, particularly when the original matter-at-discussion is so widely and readilly accessible as is Churchill's essay - and his own recent remarks in regard to the criticism which has fallen his way.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 10:12 am
Let the record note: The NY Times--the paper righties love to bash for its purported liberal bias--quoted Churchill's obnoxious words from the get-go in their coverage.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 10:22 am
Oh and for thosae who came in late, and don't wanna rewind, I'll say again Churchil had everty right to say what he did, in the forum in which he said it. What he said was reprehensible, biggotted, arrogant, misdirected, ignorant, and inexcuseable, but anyone has the right to make of themselve3s what they will - and if Churchill, on his own time and through an independent forum, chose to make an idiot of himself, more power to him. Nothing there, per se, should impact on his status as a tenured professor, no matter how disgusting his personal views.

However, should his private, off-the-clock behavior bring about rigorous re-examination of his CV, bona fides, assorted other credentials, investigation which discredits claims and the probity and veracity of the research work on which his position is founded, resultin' in his termination form that position due to fraud and misrepresentation, so be that too. He filled the can of worms, and he opened it.

Its perfectly acceptable to be a fool. What is unacceptable is that a lyin' fool, once found out, be allowed to continue to enjoy any benefits gained through his lies.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 10:23 am
timberlandko wrote:
snood wrote:
Ticoyama,
I have to admit, I'd read coverage of Churchill's words that didn't stress the things you quoted. Pretty disgusting crap - you're right, I stand corrected.


Sorta indicates, perhaps, a media bias problem ... a problem likely exacerbated by the habits, tastes and preferences, in this case, of the media consumer.

I'm always puzzled by folks who comment on somethin' said or done - take a strong position on it - based on what the've read about what was said or done, without actually havin' read what was said or done, particularly when the original matter-at-discussion is so widely and readilly accessible as is Churchill's essay - and his own recent remarks in regard to the criticism which has fallen his way.


I shall redouble my efforts to bring my standards of discovery to somewhere within the same biosphere as your own, Mr Timberland, sir.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 10:24 am
well, there goes our entire House of Reps.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 10:26 am
I hear ya dys - and if I was "puzzled" by those who post strong opinions without researching adequately, my face would freeze in a constant "Whazzat?"
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 10:27 am
D'artagnan wrote:
Let the record note: The NY Times--the paper righties love to bash for its purported liberal bias--quoted Churchill's obnoxious words from the get-go in their coverage.


Just because it was offered in its entirety no way entails that it universally was read in its entirety. The NYT published the entire joint resolution authorizin' the use of force against Iraq, too, and lotsa follks seem not to know what that said.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 10:29 am
Damn, timber - what the hell is

WRONG


with people, huh?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 10:34 am
timberlandko wrote:
...
I'm always puzzled by folks who comment on somethin' said or done - take a strong position on it - based on what the've read about what was said or done, without actually havin' read what was said or done, particularly when the original matter-at-discussion is so widely and readilly accessible as is Churchill's essay - and his own recent remarks in regard to the criticism which has fallen his way.


I'd hazard that we're all guilty of this to some degree (perhaps with the exception of you Timber), and have each read a summary of an account, and formed an opinion, strong or not, based upon the summary. In some cases its perhaps laziness, but often its a question of time .... not everyone has the time necessary to research original sources. So a summary account must suffice. The inherent problem, of course, is the summary is never going to be 100% accurate, and in some cases, could just be flat wrong. There, obviously, is where the bias of the summary's author comes into play. Thus is the "danger" of most news reporting.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 11:08 am
Good point Tico - the failin' is pretty common - without regard for partisan preference. Lotsa folks figure if a commentary, account, or assessment sounds about right to them, it must be right, and no further research is needed. Personally, I'm a rabid history buff, and a real news junkie (the two sorta go together). I enjoy drillin' down to get to the core. Sometimes that's inconvenient - either lotsa work, or the findings turn out to be at odds with my preferences - not infrequentl, both (which is a real bummer Mr. Green ). Its sorta like huntin' frogs; ya gotta wade through an awful lotta swamp to find any, and a buncha those you find ain't what you was lookin' for. The keepers make it all worthwhile, though. Gotta remember to scrape the mud off your boots before ya come back into the house, too.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 02:45 pm
Best description of Churchill I have seen to date...

Quote:
Churchill thus represents the reductio ad absurdum of the contemporary university's willingness to subordinate all other values to affirmative action. When such a grotesque fraud - a white man pretending to be an Indian, an intellectual charlatan spewing polemical garbage festooned with phony footnotes, a shameless demagogue fabricating imaginary historical incidents to justify his pathological hatreds, an apparent plagiarist who steals and distorts the work of real scholars - manages to scam his way into a full professorship at what is still a serious research university, we know the practice of affirmative action has hit rock bottom. Or at least we can hope so.


Rocky Mountain News
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 08:31 am
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/050217/stein.gif
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 01:13 am
University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill has written an inflammatory essay entitled "Some People Push Back." In it he states that most of the people killed during the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, "...formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire..." to which the U.S. military is indentured, and thus they are far from innocent victims. Churchill goes on to refer to these people as "little Eichmanns." He also likens the American public to the "good Germans" who cheered their country on to conquest and did nothing to stop the attempted genocide of several ethnic groups. Though Churchill's essay was written several years ago (shortly after the attacks), it has come to national attention because it recently resulted in the cancellation of a lecture Churchill was to give at Hamilton College in upstate New York.

Since this story broke, there has been pressure on the University of Colorado's administration from politicians to fire Churchill (AP). Indeed, university officials have been reviewing the content of Churchill's speeches and publications to determine whether or not he should be terminated. This has been a major story recently reported by virtually all of America's major national news media because it has generated enormous outrage on the part of Americans everywhere and raises the question of how free should the speech of public college and university professors be.

The New York Times article focused on here reports that another lecture to be given by Churchill, at his own university this time, was recently cancelled by university administrators citing security concerns just three hours before it was to begin. Churchill has challenged this decision in federal court on the grounds that it violates his freedom of speech. Not surprisingly, the ACLU has issued a statement in support of Churchill's freedom of speech. However, well-known conservative David Horowitz, who has frequently expressed the opinion that liberals dominate American universities, also supports Churchill's freedom of speech and has stated that firing him would send a negative message.

The First Amendment of The Constitution of the United States declares that, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." (in Burns et al. 42). As a public employee, is Ward Churchill protected by the First Amendment from the popular opinion of the public? Clearly he is. Does that mean he will not be fired and that the integrity of academic freedom will not be weakened? Hopefully. It is telling that the General Assembly of Colorado passed a resolution that describes Churchill's essay as "deplorable" and affirms the absolute innocence of everyone killed in attack on the World Trade Center, but calls for no action against Churchill. They passed House Joint Resolution 1011 to vent their outrage and that of their constituents, but recognize the boundaries provided by the First Amendment.

The First Amendment was not passed to protect popular speech, but rather unpopular speech; speech such as Ward Churchill's. It is only by virtue of free and open dialogue that the American experiment in representative democracy can truly work. Indeed, it has been my experience that when people incur public outrage because of their ideas, they are either pathologically delusional (e.g., the Ku Klux Klan) or casting the light of truth on the ugliness that is sometimes found beneath the societal image we collectively have of ourselves (e.g., Malcolm X). Rather than the knee-jerk reaction exhibited by most Americans, we should read Churchill's essay, take a hard honest look at ourselves and our society, and ask ourselves whether or not we are being "good Germans."

Works Cited

The Associated Press. "Colo. Prof Challenges Speech Cancellation." The New York Times. 8 February 2005 <http://www.nytimes.com/>

Churchill, Ward. "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens." 8 February 2005 <http://www. kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html>

The Constitution of the United States of America. Government by the People, Fifth Ed. By James MacGregor Burns, et al. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004. 35-47.

General Assembly of Colorado. House Joint Resolution 1011. Rocky Mountain News. 8 February 2005 <http://www.insidedenver.com/>
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/18/2019 at 05:28:28