next »

[jonesey]

t_r_b for the win!

Seriously, how does a guy with an MS in Communications get tenure at a major research university? 

[pyshnov]

t_r_b:

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.

(I think I posted the same long time ago in previous thread on Churchill.)

Between these two event, hiring and firing: Churchill saw in his hiring a permission to do any further fraud as a rebel.
I don't know whether the trial considered his hiring and from what point, but clear for me - if his hiring was wrong academically and, therefore, legally, the outcome should have been more than a dollar: he was misled!
I believe there are many more (something like thousands) hired in the same manner, on non-academic basis. And, surprisingly, they have a case against universities; you cannot dispose of them just like this.

[kamiakin]

Indian Country Today was hatin' on Churchill before it was cool!

http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/opinion/cartoons/2005/36884164.html

http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/opinion/cartoons/2005/36884424.html

http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/opinion/cartoons/2005/36884214.html

[daurousseau]

It's important that we recognize what the jurors recognized: Churchill's qualifications to teach are irrelevant in this case. He was good enough for UC for several years until he became a poster-boy for the Horowitz and friends "radicals running our universities" campaign. He was fired because he was a political embarassment.

So the decision was a victory for free speech.

[qrypt]

It's important that we recognize what the jurors recognized: Churchill's qualifications to teach are irrelevant in this case. He was good enough for UC for several years until he became a poster-boy for the Horowitz and friends "radicals running our universities" campaign. He was fired because he was a political embarassment.

So the decision was a victory for free speech.

What gives me pause about this interpretation is that it might have to work both ways -- thus making it hard for Berkeley to dump John Yoo.  Granted, the latter is likely to happen only if he ends up with a conviction for war crimes or something like that...

[yellowtractor]

Agreed (w/daurousseau).  With takes us back to TRB's last post.

The point of the $1 in damages is presumably not only to trivialize all parties (cf. Kamiakin below), but also to throw this whole thing back into UCB's institutional lap.  Now would be a very good time for institutional contrition, a sea change in institutional culture, taking tenure standards seriously, etc.

Not that I'm holding my breath.  Too many people have too much at stake, and much of what's at stake is beside the point of Churchill qua Churchill.

[donkey_o_day]

It's important that we recognize what the jurors recognized: Churchill's qualifications to teach are irrelevant in this case. He was good enough for UC for several years until he became a poster-boy for the Horowitz and friends "radicals running our universities" campaign. He was fired because he was a political embarassment.

So the decision was a victory for free speech.

Ward Churchill is still silly.

[scheherazade]

Churchill and CU are both silly.

(Yes, people, University of Colorado is called CU.  UC is University of California, and UCB is University of California-Berkeley.)

Boulder is about as liberal as it gets (nothing none of us didn't know), and there's quite a bit of resentment towards them from the rest of Colorado.  Churchill was in many ways the scapegoat for that resentment.  That's not to say that Churchill isn't an ass - he is, most definitely - but as TRB says, this is political in the worst way.  CU really does occupy a rather uncomfortable niche on a precipice in Colorado, and in this case, they slipped over the edge a bit.  CU, though, has been defending their classes, hiring, activities, etc., down to the minutiae, for years and years, which is why they are so defensive about all of this.

While I would like YT's reforms to come to fruition, I suspect this will actually have the opposite effect.  If CU hadn't bent to the political pressure to fire Churchill, they wouldn't have been dragged through the mud.  If anything, CU will become more entrenched in their current practices and more secretive about hiring and tenure, because they will (rightly) believe that because of this case, Colorado politicians smell blood and will redouble their efforts to "reform" Boulder.

[smart_e_pantz]

It's important that we recognize what the jurors recognized: Churchill's qualifications to teach are irrelevant in this case. He was good enough for UC for several years until he became a poster-boy for the Horowitz and friends "radicals running our universities" campaign. He was fired because he was a political embarassment.

So the decision was a victory for free speech.

Exactly!!!

[smart_e_pantz]

It's important that we recognize what the jurors recognized: Churchill's qualifications to teach are irrelevant in this case. He was good enough for UC for several years until he became a poster-boy for the Horowitz and friends "radicals running our universities" campaign. He was fired because he was a political embarassment.

So the decision was a victory for free speech.

What gives me pause about this interpretation is that it might have to work both ways -- thus making it hard for Berkeley to dump John Yoo.  Granted, the latter is likely to happen only if he ends up with a conviction for war crimes or something like that...

I think the push to have John Yoo fired is as dangerous to the tenure system as the push to have Churchill fired.  So, I will hold my nose and tolerate them both!

[t_r_b]

I think the push to have John Yoo fired is as dangerous to the tenure system as the push to have Churchill fired.  So, I will hold my nose and tolerate them both!

And I think the push to have Churchill hired was as dangerous to the tenure system as the push to have Churchill fired. This entire saga begins with a university granting a tenured position for political rather than academic reasons.

[sad_goat]

Churchill and CU are both silly.

(Yes, people, University of Colorado is called CU.  UC is University of California, and UCB is University of California-Berkeley.)

Boulder is about as liberal as it gets (nothing none of us didn't know), and there's quite a bit of resentment towards them from the rest of Colorado.  Churchill was in many ways the scapegoat for that resentment.  That's not to say that Churchill isn't an ass - he is, most definitely - but as TRB says, this is political in the worst way.  CU really does occupy a rather uncomfortable niche on a precipice in Colorado, and in this case, they slipped over the edge a bit.  CU, though, has been defending their classes, hiring, activities, etc., down to the minutiae, for years and years, which is why they are so defensive about all of this.

While I would like YT's reforms to come to fruition, I suspect this will actually have the opposite effect.  If CU hadn't bent to the political pressure to fire Churchill, they wouldn't have been dragged through the mud.  If anything, CU will become more entrenched in their current practices and more secretive about hiring and tenure, because they will (rightly) believe that because of this case, Colorado politicians smell blood and will redouble their efforts to "reform" Boulder.

Let me see if I understand:

1. It is not okay for the employer to fire a silly fraud because hu has been granted tenure by hu's peers. But somehow the peers are blameless for granting the silly fraud tenure in the first place?

2. It is okay to be politically motivated in your academic career, but not in your political career?

3. There is no one with the authority to enforce consequences for anything you say, do, steal, or corrupt except...someone other the same folks who hired you?

The entire idea of tenure seems more ignorant with each passing day.

[scheherazade]

Churchill and CU are both silly.

(Yes, people, University of Colorado is called CU.  UC is University of California, and UCB is University of California-Berkeley.)

Boulder is about as liberal as it gets (nothing none of us didn't know), and there's quite a bit of resentment towards them from the rest of Colorado.  Churchill was in many ways the scapegoat for that resentment.  That's not to say that Churchill isn't an ass - he is, most definitely - but as TRB says, this is political in the worst way.  CU really does occupy a rather uncomfortable niche on a precipice in Colorado, and in this case, they slipped over the edge a bit.  CU, though, has been defending their classes, hiring, activities, etc., down to the minutiae, for years and years, which is why they are so defensive about all of this.

While I would like YT's reforms to come to fruition, I suspect this will actually have the opposite effect.  If CU hadn't bent to the political pressure to fire Churchill, they wouldn't have been dragged through the mud.  If anything, CU will become more entrenched in their current practices and more secretive about hiring and tenure, because they will (rightly) believe that because of this case, Colorado politicians smell blood and will redouble their efforts to "reform" Boulder.

Let me see if I understand:

1. It is not okay for the employer to fire a silly fraud because hu has been granted tenure by hu's peers. But somehow the peers are blameless for granting the silly fraud tenure in the first place?

2. It is okay to be politically motivated in your academic career, but not in your political career?

3. There is no one with the authority to enforce consequences for anything you say, do, steal, or corrupt except...someone other the same folks who hired you?

The entire idea of tenure seems more ignorant with each passing day.

I would love for you to show me where I said any of that.

[sad_goat]

Scher-

I inferred that while you think Churchill is an ass, his firing was due to political pressure, and that bending to that pressure was wrong. You said Churchill was a scapegoat, suggesting that Churchill's political opinions were somehow more worthy than outside opinions. Guess not. Tenure or not, he is accountable. Name a single other workplace in America where you can celebrate dead office-workers as little Nazis who deserved it, and not be fired. CU did the right thing, outside pressure or not.

You also suggested that there is a political witchhunt afoot among these same "other" political forces. I can't read this statement as anything but a tacit endorsement of Churchill and those who granted him tenure. Any system that allows this needs a serious dose of scrutiny, after all.

If CU "bent" to political pressure, your words, then they wouldn't be in some sort of fix, as you see it. For my part, they needed to fire the man based on internal judgements - which I suspect they did, all other complaints aside.

If CU needs to become "more secretive", then they do have a problem after all, because they obviously have a "political" agenda all their own.

[scheherazade]

It's true he was fired because of political pressure.  It's true I think it is wrong for him to be fired because of political pressure.  That still does not lead to this:

1. It is not okay for the employer to fire a silly fraud because hu has been granted tenure by hu's peers. But somehow the peers are blameless for granting the silly fraud tenure in the first place?

2. It is okay to be politically motivated in your academic career, but not in your political career?

3. There is no one with the authority to enforce consequences for anything you say, do, steal, or corrupt except...someone other the same folks who hired you?

They should have done due diligence and not given him tenure.  The only reason they discovered anything was because there was a politically-motivated witch hunt.  That goes directly against the idea of academic freedom and the necessary protections of tenure.  If CU wanted to fire him over plagiarism, fine.  I don't actually have a problem with that.  But when there is a bright and shining connection between Churchill's comments, the political pressure, and the resulting search for a fireable offense, there is a problem.

I have no idea what #2 is even supposed to mean in this argument.