next »

[goacta]

Peter Schmidt quotes Ward Churchill's lawyer as saying that the American Council of Trustees and Alumni called for the firing of Churchill in 2005 following the publicaton of the "little Eichman" article. They did not. In fact, ACTA issued a press release at the time saying that he should not be fired and should be given due process:

ACTA Defends Colorado Professor: Calling 9-11 Victims "Eichmanns" is Not Grounds for Firing (February 11, 2005).

Here is the link: http://goacta.org/press/PressReleases/2005PressReleases/2-11-05PR2.htm

[mabeelrc]

Ward and his legal dream team hide behind his 3 foot tall stack of academic achievements (aka as a short stack) in an effort to ward off (no pun intended) the howling lynch mob whose aim in life is to rob Mr. Churchill of his god-given and constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech.

This would make some really good day time TV.

Then, after the drama is over Dr. Phil could have him on his show to ask the QUESTION: So you wanted to be a fake Indian/fake academic?  How did that work out for you?

[untenured]

Ward and his legal dream team hide behind his 3 foot tall stack of academic achievements (aka as a short stack) in an effort to ward off (no pun intended) the howling lynch mob whose aim in life is to rob Mr. Churchill of his god-given and constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech.

This would make some really good day time TV.

There you go!

I think the American viewer's view of the situation would be no more complex than this:  "This guy called people a Nazi?  What a jerk.  Get rid of him, I say."  That's it.  That free speechy thing is complicated blah blah stuff.

Untenured

[pocksuppet]

We have the right to free speech, but not to speech free of consequences.

I am against his firing, but for the TPing of his house.

[t_r_b]

The main lesson to be drawn from the Churchill case is that universities should not give a tenured faculty position to someone with negligible scholarly qualifications simply because he happens to be an attention-grabbing, self-aggrandizing loudmouth provocateur.

[yellowtractor]

The main lesson to be drawn from the Churchill case is that universities should not give a tenured faculty position to someone with negligible scholarly qualifications simply because he happens to be an attention-grabbing, self-aggrandizing loudmouth provocateur.

Thank you, yes.

[mabeelrc]

And again, thank you, t_r_b.

[kamiakin]

negligible scholarly qualifications . . . attention-grabbing, self-aggrandizing loudmouth provocateur.

I could totally take that personally if I didn't know you were talking about someone else.

[donkey_o_day]

Ward Churchill is a card carrying member of the Wannabe tribe. They've been known throughout history as the lightest skinned tribe in North America. They're easiest to identify when wearing traditional regalia. They either dress like Kevin Costner (Dances with Wolves) or Daniel Day Lewis (Last of the Mohicans). The right of passage into manhood for this tribe is to grow your hair long and demand rights to open up your own casino. Most Wannabes are about as indian as Iron Eyes Cody, who happened to be Italian.

[fizmath]

I suspected that the War Party focused undue attention on Churchill to discredit the anti-war movement. 

[kamiakin]

I suspected that the War Party focused undue attention on Churchill to discredit the anti-war movement. 

Unquestionably. There are few good guys in the whole Churchill mess.

[yellowtractor]

Update:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/us/02churchill.html

[t_r_b]

From the article:

“If we win,” said David Lane, Mr. Churchill’s lawyer, “the symbolic First Amendment moment of Ward Churchill’s walking back into a classroom will be overwhelmingly positive.”

I now want to throw up. This statement is so wrong on so many levels that the only appropriate response would have to involve vomit.

[qrypt]

From the article:

“If we win,” said David Lane, Mr. Churchill’s lawyer, “the symbolic First Amendment moment of Ward Churchill’s walking back into a classroom will be overwhelmingly positive.”

I now want to throw up. This statement is so wrong on so many levels that the only appropriate response would have to involve vomit.

And he gets a dollar! 

[t_r_b]

The news coverage of this thing is almost as frustrating as the vomit-inducing spin from Churchill's lawyer. From the NYT, we get reporting like this:

Is Mr. Churchill, as his supporters contend, a torchbearer for the right to hold unpopular political views? Or is he unpatriotic or — as his harshest critics contend — an outright collaborator with the nation’s enemies at a time of war?

Or is it possible that he is a plain old fraud who drapes himself in the Constitution and claims to victimized by "The Man," when that same Man not all that long ago granted him a tenured faculty position?

But why on earth would the NYT reporters bother complicating their neat little free speech/hate speech dichotomy with such a messy third option?

The real story here is not free speech or hate speech: it's the story of a university who granted tenure to a fraud for political reasons, and then chose to revoke it for political reasons. The slightest gesture at due diligence back when they hired him would have revealed Churchill to be a fraudulent gasbag, but no: UC wanted to show how they were so hip and cutting edge by hiring a rebel who refused to conform to the standard academic mold. You know, the mold that involves silly conventions such as the use of evidence. Then he says some things that get them in trouble with the legislature, and all of a sudden UC is shocked - shocked! - to have found out that his scholarship lacked merit.

If you ask me, UC's PR folks (with an assist from mass media across the political spectrum) have done a bang-up job of spinning this story so that it's all about the free speech/hate speech nonsense, which neatly shifts public attention away from UC's own incompetence and/or corruption. Perhaps a feature article in the Chronicle could cut through the spin and address how UC's decision to hire Churchill was at least as appalling as the decision to fire him?