Free Speech at its best

[theim]

"I do not work for the taxpayers of the state of Colorado. I do not work for Bill Owens. I work for you,"

Well that's all well and good, except if you dont work for the taxpayers, WHY THE F*** ARE THEY PAYING YOUR SALARY?


I disagree with Horowitz. Fire his ass. The one thing we do not need is a college professor teaching college kids that their own country deserves to be destroyed.

Will that make him a martyr to his psycho buddies? Yeah. But I don't care. Let them all rant and rave if they want. Maybe he can follow the lead of the Dixie Chicks and whine about his free speech being supressed on national TV.

50 years ago he would've gotten hanged for this shit.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

The guy needs some serious psychiatric help...either that or a good butt whippin. Then he should be tried for treason and after the fair trial, summarily shot.

"Treason" consists of two elements: Adherence to the enemy, and rendering him aid and comfort, so that a citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to policy or interest of the United States, but so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy there is no treason, and a citizen may take actions which aid and comfort the enemy, but if there is no adherence to the enemy in that, and there is no intent to betray, there is no treason (65 S.Ct. 918).

It may be that his essay provided some type of peripheral aid and comfort to the enemy. That in itself is a long shot in my opinion.

Political speech is at the center circle in the concentric circles of protected speech. This guy is an ass but too many people have died to lose our freedoms because of what one man said. We have a chance here to show the Iraqi people just how amazing our way of life is. I'm with Voltaire on this one.

 

[insein]

Nah this guy is a moron . The only thing that exists here is that the university can and should fire him for conduct unbecoming of the university. College Football coaches have been fired for WAY less. This man recieves $90k a year in federal money because of who he works for. He can say all he wants to in some park in San Francisco or wherever. It doesnt mean he has to be paid for it though. That however is a decision for the university to make.

 

[acludem]

What makes me laugh about this article is that fact that the ACLU and David Horowitz actually agree on something. This guy has some controversial viewpoints, but I don't think he should be fired over them. If he's committed academic fraud, then he should be fired. That'll have to be fully and I hope fairly investigated.

acludem

 

[dilloduck]

What makes me laugh about this article is that fact that the ACLU and David Horowitz actually agree on something. This guy has some controversial viewpoints, but I don't think he should be fired over them. If he's committed academic fraud, then he should be fired. That'll have to be fully and I hope fairly investigated.

acludem

No point in firing him--he already has enough attention to hit the circuit already----constant exposure of his faulty BS outta be enough to do him in.

 

[Gem]

I agree wholeheartedly that this man should be given as little press time as is humanly possible. Normal people should not listen to him, nor should they try debate with him in an attempt to change his sad, warped mind.

We should simply smile pityingly, shake our heads, and walk away....this media circus is EXACTLY what he wants...his ideas spread to as many brainwashed college pseudo-lectuals as possible...people who will applaud him for his bravery and realize 5-10 years later what jackasses they were.

I cringe everytime I see that some other news program has given him the time of day. My only real question is why the Native American community, of which he has already been proven NOT to be a part of despite claiming for years that he has in order to reap special privledges, hasn't reared up and publically denounced him for the lying snake he is.

Bottom line however, the power of freedom of speech is not a bunch of people saying exactly what you want them to...but rather allowing speech that makes your blood boil and goes against everything you believe in. I'll fight to the death for this assholes right to be an asshole...I just don't want to be present (or watch on television) while he exercises that right!

 

[CSM]

"Treason" consists of two elements: Adherence to the enemy, and rendering him aid and comfort, so that a citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to policy or interest of the United States, but so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy there is no treason, and a citizen may take actions which aid and comfort the enemy, but if there is no adherence to the enemy in that, and there is no intent to betray, there is no treason (65 S.Ct. 918).

It may be that his essay provided some type of peripheral aid and comfort to the enemy. That in itself is a long shot in my opinion.

Political speech is at the center circle in the concentric circles of protected speech. This guy is an ass but too many people have died to lose our freedoms because of what one man said. We have a chance here to show the Iraqi people just how amazing our way of life is. I'm with Voltaire on this one.

I was spouting rhetoric, though I know that is unusual on this board (that is sarcasm). I must admit however, that I would not mind meeting this "professor" in a dark alley someplace. After all, he has "offended my sensitive feelings" and caused me undue stress.

 

[Johnney]

I was spouting rhetoric, though I know that is unusual on this board (that is sarcasm). I must admit however, that I would not mind meeting this "professor" in a dark alley someplace. After all, he has "offended my sensitive feelings" and caused me undue stress.

yeha hes in need of some good old fashion attitude adjustments

 

[no1tovote4]

The guy truly is a joke.

In his book "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens" there are so many factual historical errors that I cannot believe that he was ever hired and allowed to teach an Ethnics class, something you need to understand history in order to teach correctly about the effects of history on cultures.

He asserts that Alexander Hamilton was a President of the US.

He asserts that the US supported the Colonels that took over Argentina in 1980 for the entire decade of the 80s, however they all resigned in 1982 after we suppored the UK in stomping their asses in the Falkland Islands. The government was then changed into a burgeoning Democracy which we did support. The only factual part of it might be that Reagan extended a diplomatic branch in his first year in office, but they broke the branch and attacked the Falklands, we then supported our allies the UK in their beat-down.

He mentions the Urban Myth of Small-pox infected blankets that has been debunked by several Historians as a myth perpetuated by a song in the 1960s. This simply never happened but infects our culture as a "fact" and this "professor" perpetuates it.

There are more, but there is limited time and space.

And that is only 1 of his books.

The guy is a clown that says he was at every single major event of the 60s he even claims to have taught bomb-making to the Weathermen, but there is no evidence that he has the expertise to make bombs and most of the evidence points away from him being at almost all the events he says he took part in.

People should be pointing at and ridiculing this "professor" not worrying about whether he should be fired.

 

[onedomino]

-

Little Eichmanns Group Celebrates Prof's Free Speech
by Scott Ott

http://www.scrappleface.com/ (satire)

(2005-02-10) -- In a celebration of free speech inspired by a University of Colorado professor who compared America's 9/11 victims to Nazis, an ad hoc consortium of business leaders announced today that it would fund an endowed professorship in honor of Professor Ward Churchill.

The business group, Little Eichmanns for Free Speech, said it "rejoices in Mr. Churchill's efforts to open a fresh dialogue between America's businesspeople and the academics whose important work is funded by the overflow of our insatiable greed."

The group said it would donate a "substantial sum" to create an endowment with the condition that "Mr. Churchill be appointed as the Little Goebbels Professor of Ethics, in recognition of his efforts to establish the reputation of businesspeople in a fashion reminiscent of what Joseph Goebbels did for the Jews."

Under the terms of endowment, university news releases about Mr. Churchill's research and public speaking must always identify him with the phrase "the Little Goebbels Professor of Ethics."

A spokesman for the university's board of regents said it "welcomes expressions of free speech, especially when they're written in the memo field of a personal check."

-

 

[musicman]

ROFLM everlovin' AO!

 

[Annie]

-

-

I gave you a hat tip over at site. :teeth:

 

[CivilLiberty]

Anyone who has been to Boulder knows that's it's nearly illegal to be conservative in that town!

It's a little bit of California tucked away in the rockies... I went to Jr High there. You'll find little difference between Boulder and Big Bear, except for the college.


A

 

[Annie]

I was perusing VDH site and came across this older piece. Considering the Ward Churchill brouhaha, I think we are going to see more 'unearthing' of creds of profs at the universities. This may be an interesting place for administrators and boards to begin, it's long so here is an excerpt:

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson101303.html

Topsy-Turvy
American universities are places of dizzying unreality-and this does considerable harm.
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review

Our universities have become odd places. They appear almost eerily out of step with the rest of us in times of national crisis. When all of our institutions become subject to greater scrutiny in wartime, the public begins to grasp just how different academic culture has become from the world of most Americans.

This vast abyss was on view in some lopsided academic-senate votes during the controversy over war with Iraq. In California, as elsewhere, about 70 percent of the public supported the armed removal of Saddam Hussein. Yet at the University of California, Santa Barbara, the faculty senate voted 85-4 to condemn the war. In fact, most of the state's university faculty representatives weighed in along the same lines, from Santa Cruz's 58-0 vote to Chico's 43-0-not a single professor voicing support for a position held by seven out of ten Americans. Like plebiscites in Vietnam, Cuba, and the old Iraq, or the embarrassing balloting of the Soviet legislature, the results were as lopsided and predictable as they were meaningless.

We catch equally disturbing glimpses of this strange landscape through the periodic bloodcurdling pronouncements of faculty members at a time of national peril-such as Columbia professor Nicholas De Geneva's wish for "a million Mogadishus" or University of New Mexico professor Richard Berthold's praise of the September 11 murderers: "Anyone who can blow up the Pentagon gets my vote."

There were also the predictably wrongheaded pronouncements from purported experts in diplomatic history, political science, and Middle Eastern history-such as Jere Bacharach of the University of Washington, who on March 28, nine days into the Iraq campaign, grandly announced, "The war is over and we have lost," inasmuch as American armor would soon be "surrounded and forced to surrender." Yale professor Immanuel Wallerstein warned of the possibility of "a long and exhausting war," dismissing the scenario of a quick triumph-"Swift and easy victory, obviously the hope of the U.S. administration, is the least likely [outcome]. I give it one chance in twenty"-before concluding that "losing, incredible as it seems (but then it seemed so in Vietnam too), is a plausible outcome."

In still other instances, academia's problem shows itself to be one of pure ethics, rather than anti-Americanism or poor judgment. We feel something has radically gone wrong with the training and culture of scholars, for example, when our top professors and recipients of academic praise and prizes-a Joseph Ellis, Michael Bellesiles, or Doris Kearns Goodwin-purvey misinformation or expropriate the work of others.

It is not the lamentable behavior and pessimism of university humanists alone that grates. Institutionalized hypocrisy also is endemic on campus, and casts doubts on the supposedly principled and ethical proclamations issuing from administrators. An entire industry exists to chronicle the pernicious effects of university speech codes and the double standards that allow conservative campus newspapers to be stolen but would cite infringement on free speech if feminist or race-based publications were pilfered. Ethnic and religious slurs are habitually ignored or pardoned-if confined to Israel and fundamentalist Christians. Campus-funded MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan) organizations embrace racist and separatist language ("For the race everything; for those outside the race, nothing") that would be deemed hate speech if espoused by any other group...

 

[hylandrdet]

UC Professor's Tone Defiant During Speech

41 minutes ago U.S. National - AP


By ERIN GARTNER, Associated Press Writer

BOULDER, Colo. - An embattled Colorado University professor who compared Sept. 11 victims to Nazis struck a defiant tone during a campus speech, saying "I'm not backing up an inch."


Ward Churchill, who had filed a lawsuit after officials at the state-funded university threatened to cancel his address, was interrupted several times by applause as he spoke to more than 1,000 people Tuesday night.


Churchill has resigned as chairman of the university's ethnic studies department. Gov. Bill Owens has called for Churchill to be fired, and the university's Board of Regents is investigating whether the tenured professor can be removed.


"I don't answer to Bill Owens. I do not answer to the Board of Regents in the way they think I do. The regents should do their job and let me do mine," Churchill said to thunderous applause. "I'm not backing up an inch. I owe no one an apology."


In an essay, Churchill wrote that workers in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns," a reference to Adolf Eichmann, who ensured the smooth running of the Nazi system. Churchill also spoke of the "gallant sacrifices" of the "combat teams" that struck America.


The ethnic studies professor said Tuesday his essay was referring to "technocrats" who participate in what he calls repressive American policies around the world.


A longtime American Indian Movement activist, he said he is also culpable because his efforts to change the system haven't succeeded. "I could do more. I'm complicit. I'm not innocent," he said.


The Boulder Faculty Assembly, which represents professors at the Boulder campus, has said Churchill's comments were "controversial, offensive and odious" but supports his right to say them based on the principle of academic freedom.


During his 35-minute speech, Churchill said the essay was not referring to children, firefighters, janitors or people passing by the World Trade Center who were killed during the attacks.


The essay and follow-up book attracted little attention until Churchill was invited to speak last month at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y., which later canceled his talk out of security concerns.


University of Colorado officials cited those same concerns but backed off after Churchill filed a lawsuit earlier Tuesday asking a judge to force the school to let him speak.


The crowd Tuesday night was loud and orderly as Churchill spoke: "I do not work for the taxpayers of the state of Colorado. I do not work for Bill Owens. I work for you," he said.


About two dozen police officers were scattered inside and around the ballroom where the speech was given. Most of those attending supported Churchill.


"I've read some of Ward's work," said 26-year-old Vinita Laroia, an environmental studies major. "I think what he has to say is true and interesting. I wanted to hear his actual voice say what he's thinking."


The ACLU issued a statement defending Churchill's right to speak out and called on regents, legislators and the governor "to stop threatening Mr. Churchill's job because of the content of his opinions."


David Horowitz, a champion of conservative causes who has long accused American universities of overstocking their faculties with leftists, has said firing Churchill would violate his First Amendment rights and set a bad precedent.


He called instead for an inquiry into the university's hiring and promotion procedures to see how Churchill managed to rise to the chairmanship of the school's ethnic studies department.

I remember the time I was on campus and was approached by a person who was just happen to be white. He handed me pamplet titled,"The Dangers of Race-Mixing". I read it, understood its theme, then balled it up and threw it into the trash can.

The reason why I wasn't so offended was because I was aware of where I was... In college, the ultimate forum for debating issues with opinions both intellegent and ignorant.

Someday you conservatives will understand that in order to overcome "ignorance", you must apply empathy; the very idea of reasearching why such "ignorant" people think and act the way they do. It is through this process, can one find ways to change the hearts and minds of the "ignorant".

The collegiate forum is the perfect battleground for opinions both of the intelligent as well as the ignorant. The collegiate forum will allow every student to analyze all angles, of every issue, before making his/hers' final judgement as to how they define their logic.

I have no problem with Churchill speaking on a college campus.

 

[Annie]

I remember the time I was on campus and was approached by a person who was just happen to be white. He handed me pamplet titled,"The Dangers of Race-Mixing". I read it, understood its theme, then balled it up and threw it into the trash can.

The reason why I wasn't so offended was because I was aware of where I was... In college, the ultimate forum for debating issues with opinions both intellegent and ignorant.

Someday you conservatives will understand that in order to overcome "ignorance", you must apply empathy; the very idea of reasearching why such "ignorant" people think and act the way they do. It is through this process, can one find ways to change the hearts and minds of the "ignorant".

The collegiate forum is the perfect battleground for opinions both of the intelligent as well as the ignorant. The collegiate forum will allow every student to analyze all angles, of every issue, before making his/hers' final judgement as to how they define their logic.

I have no problem with Churchill speaking on a college campus.

Problem is that all sides are not allowed to be heard. Then again, you seem deafer than me.

 

[Annie]

Let's look at suppression of dissent, afterall Churchill who may actually may not be credentialed at all, was allowed to speak:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/ma20050211.shtml

...On January 31st, the College Republicans (CRs) accused you of violating your supposed commitment to academic freedom by suspending an approved “Support our Troops” table set up to benefit Adopt a Sniper, which, as you know, is an organization helping our troops in the Middle East. The CRs have accused you of confiscating signs and other materials they intended to use for the benefit.

I placed two calls to your administration in the last week seeking verification of these accusations. No one seems to take my calls seriously.

You have been quoted, Dean McCarthy, as saying that the CR benefit does not “comport to the University’s mission.” Your communications office (414.288.7445) has issued an official statement accusing the CRs of “having a cavalier attitude toward the taking of a human life.”

I found the university’s official statement to be interesting since your own library refers to Planned Parenthood as “an excellent resource for information on women's health and global reproduction issues.” Furthermore, Marquette’s Association of English Graduate Students (http://www.marquette.edu/aegs/) is allowed to promote Planned Parenthood on your website. Could it be argued that Planned Parenthood has “a cavalier attitude toward the taking of a human life?”

I also noticed that there will be a Gay and Straight Alliance (http://www.marquette.edu/um/pastoral/glb/) “rose sale” on Valentine’s Day at Marquette University. Does that sale “comport” with the university’s mission of promoting a “Catholic identity?”

You have, according to my research, at least two gay organizations on campus. Both organizations seem to enjoy “unfettered pursuit of truth” at Marquette. They are allowed freedom of speech on your website and freedom of association on your campus. Although, as a private school, you are not bound by the First Amendment, you seem to grant these organizations certain rights voluntarily, in the name of academic freedom.

So, how are we to resolve the university’s position that, a) pro-abortion speech is permissible, b) pro-gay speech is permissible, and c) pro-war speech is impermissible?

The answer is simple: Marquette University is not committed to serving God or the Catholic Church. It is committed to advancing the policies of the Democratic Party...

Over and over again, you see 'conservatives' arguing for more discussion, not less. It's the 'liberals' who are trying to take away both the freedom of speech and assembly:

http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200502/NAT20050211a.shtml

Ohio Republicans Seek 'Academic Bill of Rights'
(CNSNews.com) - The Ohio Senate is considering a bill intended to encourage different viewpoints at state-funded colleges and universities.


Conservative supporters call it the "Academic Bill of Rights," but critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union, call it an "academic bill of restrictions."


The bill's co-sponsor, Sen. Larry Mumper (R-Marion) was quoted as saying the bill would "open up debate" by curbing a perceived left-leaning political bias at the state's colleges and universities.


The bill directs public colleges and universities in Ohio to "adopt a policy recognizing that students, faculty, and instructors of the institution have the following rights."


Those rights include:


-- "a learning environment in which the students have access to a broad range of serious scholarly opinion pertaining to the subjects they study." That includes "dissenting sources and viewpoints."


-- grading based on students' "reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge" of the subjects they study. The bill says students will not be discriminated against because of political, ideological, or religious beliefs. And it says faculty "shall not use their courses or their positions for the purpose of political, ideological, religious, or antireligious indoctrination."


-- freedom from the persistent introduction of "controversial matter" into the coursework that has no bearing on the subject at hand.


-- freedom of speech, assembly, and expression, when it comes to student organizations.


-- distribution of student fees "on a viewpoint neutral basis."


The bill also says faculty members "shall be hired, fired, and granted tenure on the basis of their competence and appropriate knowledge in their field of expertise and shall not be hired, fired, promoted, granted tenure, or denied promotion or tenure on the basis of their political, ideological, or religious beliefs."


(The latter provision might protect people such as the leftist Colorado professor, who is now fighting for his state-funded job amid a furor over his description of some 9/11 victims as "little Eichmanns.")


Ohio Senate Bill 24 is said to be modeled after the "academic bill of rights" proposed by conservative activist David Horowitz.


The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio says the bill would "censor" Ohio colleges and universities because it could be used to "curtail academic freedom and to encourage thought policing in our institutes of higher education."


The ACLU-Ohio says the bill would discourage faculty from teaching anything controversial and require them to offer alternative views, even if those views don't have merit.


"Senate Bill 24 would shift the responsibility for course content and student evaluation from highly trained faculty to the state government or the courts," ACLU-Ohio says.


The group is mobilizing opposition to the bill.

 

[no1tovote4]

It's a little bit of California tucked away in the rockies... I went to Jr High there. You'll find little difference between Boulder and Big Bear, except for the college.


A

Locally we call it the People's Republic of Boulder.

I am getting tired of hearing about this guy though. It seems to be the only topic of discussion on every talk radio show.

The school has received more than its fair share of negative publicity lately, the only thing I could think of when the story broke was, "Man, couldn't it have been a different school for once!"

I also find it amazing that they suspend the Coach for saying a girl was a bad place kicker, but this guy gets to just keep on keeping on....

 

[freeandfun1]

I also find it amazing that they suspend the Coach for saying a girl was a bad place kicker, but this guy gets to just keep on keeping on....

Another fine example of the double standards of those on the left.

 

[sagegirl]

UC Professor's Tone Defiant During Speech

41 minutes ago U.S. National - AP


By ERIN GARTNER, Associated Press Writer

BOULDER, Colo. - An embattled Colorado University professor who compared Sept. 11 victims to Nazis struck a defiant tone during a campus speech, saying "I'm not backing up an inch."


Ward Churchill, who had filed a lawsuit after officials at the state-funded university threatened to cancel his address, was interrupted several times by applause as he spoke to more than 1,000 people Tuesday night.


Churchill has resigned as chairman of the university's ethnic studies department. Gov. Bill Owens has called for Churchill to be fired, and the university's Board of Regents is investigating whether the tenured professor can be removed.


"I don't answer to Bill Owens. I do not answer to the Board of Regents in the way they think I do. The regents should do their job and let me do mine," Churchill said to thunderous applause. "I'm not backing up an inch. I owe no one an apology."


In an essay, Churchill wrote that workers in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns," a reference to Adolf Eichmann, who ensured the smooth running of the Nazi system. Churchill also spoke of the "gallant sacrifices" of the "combat teams" that struck America.


The ethnic studies professor said Tuesday his essay was referring to "technocrats" who participate in what he calls repressive American policies around the world.


A longtime American Indian Movement activist, he said he is also culpable because his efforts to change the system haven't succeeded. "I could do more. I'm complicit. I'm not innocent," he said.


The Boulder Faculty Assembly, which represents professors at the Boulder campus, has said Churchill's comments were "controversial, offensive and odious" but supports his right to say them based on the principle of academic freedom.


During his 35-minute speech, Churchill said the essay was not referring to children, firefighters, janitors or people passing by the World Trade Center who were killed during the attacks.


The essay and follow-up book attracted little attention until Churchill was invited to speak last month at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y., which later canceled his talk out of security concerns.


University of Colorado officials cited those same concerns but backed off after Churchill filed a lawsuit earlier Tuesday asking a judge to force the school to let him speak.


The crowd Tuesday night was loud and orderly as Churchill spoke: "I do not work for the taxpayers of the state of Colorado. I do not work for Bill Owens. I work for you," he said.


About two dozen police officers were scattered inside and around the ballroom where the speech was given. Most of those attending supported Churchill.


"I've read some of Ward's work," said 26-year-old Vinita Laroia, an environmental studies major. "I think what he has to say is true and interesting. I wanted to hear his actual voice say what he's thinking."


The ACLU issued a statement defending Churchill's right to speak out and called on regents, legislators and the governor "to stop threatening Mr. Churchill's job because of the content of his opinions."


David Horowitz, a champion of conservative causes who has long accused American universities of overstocking their faculties with leftists, has said firing Churchill would violate his First Amendment rights and set a bad precedent.


He called instead for an inquiry into the university's hiring and promotion procedures to see how Churchill managed to rise to the chairmanship of the school's ethnic studies department.

My only comment....the targets were chosen for what they represented to the terrorists.