Should This Professor Be Fired?

[MrsSpringsteen]

I saw on CNN the "other things" he said, maybe his article is available somewhere online

By CATHERINE TSAI, Associated Press Writer

AURORA, Colo. - University of Colorado administrators Thursday took the first steps toward a possible dismissal of a professor who likened World Trade Center victims to a notorious Nazi.

Interim Chancellor Phil DiStefano ordered a 30-day review of Ward Churchill's speeches and writings to determine if the professor overstepped his boundaries of academic freedom and whether that should be grounds for dismissal.

Also Thursday, the Board of Regents issued an apology for Churchill's remarks at a meeting and voted to support the university's review of Churchill.

The raucous meeting drew dozens of protesters who back Churchill; at least two were arrested for disrupting the meeting and another was led away in handcuffs.

The regents refused to take public comment at their meeting, prompting an outcry from some of the 35 students who carried signs reading, "Protect academic freedom" and "Witch hunt." About a dozen professors also attended.

"I wish the regents had agreed to take some public comments," said law professor Barbara Bintliff, chairwoman of the Boulder Faculty Assembly. "Discussion and debate is what a university is all about."

Gov. Bill Owens issued a written statement saying he deplored the behavior of some of the students at the meeting, and that their behavior underscored the "culture of violence" that can be spawned by essays such as Churchill's.

Owens has called for Churchill's firing.

The furor erupted last month after Churchill was invited to speak at Hamilton College in upstate New York. Campus officials discovered an essay and follow-up book by Churchill in which he said the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were a response to a history of American abuses abroad, particularly against indigenous peoples.

Among other things, he said those killed in the trade center were "little Eichmanns," a reference to Adolf Eichmann, who organized Nazi plans to exterminate Jews. The college canceled Churchill's appearance, citing death threats and concerns about security.

University officials have previously condemned Churchill's comments but defended his right to express them. University President Elizabeth Hoffman declined to comment Thursday on Churchill's future.

Churchill, whose pickup truck was vandalized with swastikas in front of his Boulder home sometime late Tuesday, has promised to sue the school if he is removed.

Earlier Thursday, the state Senate passed a resolution denouncing Churchill's comments as "evil and inflammatory." The nonbinding resolution was identical to one passed Wednesday by the House.

Democratic state Sen. Peter Groff cast the lone "no" vote, saying he disagreed with Churchill but that the resolution provides him with undeserved attention and attacks free speech.

 

[melon]

I wish politicians would get their nose out of education. I'd love to read all of Churchill's comments, so I could figure out the connotation. Even if I disagreed, it's an assault on academic freedom and they're just doing a knee-jerk, PC reaction.

With that, I do support the university's decision to comb through his speeches and see if they go beyond reasonable academic freedom.

I also wish academics would actually bother to use "academic language" and stop all this Nazi talk. It annoys the hell out of me.

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

How do you balance academic freedom with academic excellence?

A university will have a finite number of positions for professors. They should fill them with the best individuals available. If one professor's pursuit of academic freedom lowers the excellence provided to the school, I think it would be reasonable to seek a replacement.

I trust this would be done on the body of work, and not the sound bite provided by the media.

 

[CTU2fan]

No he shouldn't be fired.

I too would like to see the context in which he said/wrote that, as it really doesn't make much sense standing alone. And considering what Colorado tolerated re: the football team and sexual assault/misconduct, this smacks of hypocrisy (what a surprise).

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Here's a statement he made about it, maybe someone else has the time to do an online search to find out more

Context or not, I think it's despicable to refer to the 9/11 victims that way, he attempts to explain that in this statement

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42699

I do think some professors like to be controversial just for that purpose

 

[deep]

Buy
Hold
or Sell?

I predict Sell.

His days are numbered.

His opinions and remarks are drawing attention.

But a bigger problem is that he may have been passing himself off as American Indian, while that is not the case.

 

[Klink]

Another attack on the first ammendment. The US public is certainly complicit in the attacks of 9/11. This an exchange of education for popular opinion.

This is one more battle in "The War on Resistance". Opinions, no matter how unpopular, should be welcome in free society. It's dangerous to limit perspectives. This is a deliberate attack on all people in a free and just society.


Jon

 

[speedracer]

Another attack on the first ammendment. The US public is certainly complicit in the attacks of 9/11. This an exchange of education for popular opinion.

Jon, this is not a First Amendment issue -- the First Amendment doesn't protect government-funded employees from being fired when they say monumentally stupid things.

This is an academic freedom issue. It's generally understood (and written into tenure contracts, though to what extent I don't know) that tenured faculty are supposed to have a lot of leeway in the things they say and publish, in the spirit of scholarly inquiry. (How "scholarly" Churchill's statements are, of course, is open to debate.)

Big difference.

Just thought this point should be clarified.

 

[AvsGirl41]

This has been *all* anyone in Colorado is talking about, which I find positively shameful considering what else is going on in our world--and our state.

I really wish locals would realize that this is largely a strawman for Governor Bill Owens--for the past 4 years, he's done nothing but find ways to avoid "governing," from trips to Russia, to solving steroid issues in baseball, to his own sports show, to this kind of crap. He doesn't give a about higher education the rest of the time, only when he fears we're being indoctrinated.

I also wish Colorado would realize that CU has long been an academic joke and it is long past time to clean house. I'm beginning to think that CU thrives on these kinds of scandals--rather than respond to my e-mail queries and send me a grad school packet, they'd rather operate on this kind of name recognition!

Personally, I think the guy should be fired because it's obvious he's a subpar professor, who relies on controversial phrases and cheesy claims rather than solid academic research and writing. Any professional academic should be ashamed to write such garbage, and ought to be waiting tables in favor of more deserving faculty. College is too expensive, my money should not be funding some jackass' rants.

I don't think he is a threat to American security, nor do I think he's encouraging terrorism. I'm really getting sick of Owens & Co assuming that as a young college student, I swallow every fact my professors tell me without question--that the evil liberals are brainwashing me. Please. If he was preaching the GOP agenda, I doubt we'd care about brainwashing then.

 

[melon]

I'm really getting sick of Owens & Co assuming that as a young college student, I swallow every fact my professors tell me without question--that the evil liberals are brainwashing me. Please. If he was preaching the GOP agenda, I doubt we'd care about brainwashing then.

Well, a lot of students seem to swallow a lot of crap at schools. Business school and supply-side economics education is a prime example of that.

Melon

 

[AvsGirl41]

I'm not denying that students don't just swallow inaccuracy--but this kind of debate isn't about that. It's not really about improving education, or the critical thinking capacity of students.
It's about making sure we're taught what Bill Owens thinks is correct.

I resent their insistence that because some guy like Churchill is advocating radicalism, I will immediately become a radical because my childlike brain doesn't know any better. I don't like what Churchill is saying--and I have no doubt many Boulder students swallow it, which is a shame. But Owens & Co pull this act constantly and so I don't buy his concerns as being genuine.

 

[melon]

Well, I agree with you, overall. Politicians are a cancer, mostly.

Melon

 

[drhark]

this guy's just a loser, period.


http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3519179,00.html

 

[deep]

What'd I say?

 

[Salome]

perhaps it would have made sense to fire him if he had a history of controversial statements

 

[speedracer]

I don't know how credible Jodi Rave's story is, but if Churchill knocked her course grade down from an A to a C- just for questioning his background, that's a serious offense. Possibly even a terminal offense.

 

[Klink]

Jon, this is not a First Amendment issue -- the First Amendment doesn't protect government-funded employees from being fired when they say monumentally stupid things.

This is an academic freedom issue. It's generally understood (and written into tenure contracts, though to what extent I don't know) that tenured faculty are supposed to have a lot of leeway in the things they say and publish, in the spirit of scholarly inquiry. (How "scholarly" Churchill's statements are, of course, is open to debate.)

Big difference.

Just thought this point should be clarified.

I disagree with you, respectfully. What "monumentally stupid things" he said are a matter of opinion and free speech (opinions) are allowed in free societies. To fire someone on these grounds is inconsistent with the first ammendment. It brings education down to the level of a political practice or business. I don't know everything he said but if the point of his analogy was to draw a link between the American public and the terror of the US gov't around the world, then I don't think his point is monumentally stupid. Maybe the context of his thoughts could shed some light on this. Professors often dedicate their lives to studying something and I don't think their positions should be limited by people with political agendas. That undermines the integrity of education. I do happen to think this is a first ammendment issue.

Personal attacks like "loser" do not make what he says untrue.

Jon

 

[Klink]

I should also add that there's plenty of academic research and evidence that the US public (and public in other democratic countries) voted for governments that terrorized people in various countries. That doesn't mean that the indiscriminate WTC attacks are in any way justifiable, but lets not pretend that we're not responsible for the governments we elect. The denial of responsibility is scary to me.

I find the general attitude in this thread quite scary, in fact. There seem to be a lot of people who are against others expressing unpopular and controversial opinions. Why should someone be fired for that? You may argue that it's inappropriate, but I think it might be beneficial to check facts and context and make sure that we're not firing somebody just because his research and positions run contrary to those of the general public. Again, where's the integrity in education if it becomes a matter of political wind.

Jon

 

[deep]

Well, here it is

"Some "Some People Push Back" On the Justice of Roosting Chickens

written by Ward Churchill // 9-11-2001

This article appeared in Pockets of Resistance #11 September 2001

When queried by reporters concerning his views on the assassination of John F. Kennedy in November 1963, Malcolm X famously – and quite charitably, all things considered – replied that it was merely a case of "chickens coming home to roost."

On the morning of September 11, 2001, a few more chickens – along with some half-million dead Iraqi children – came home to roost in a very big way at the twin towers of New York's World Trade Center. Well, actually, a few of them seem to have nestled in at the Pentagon as well.

The Iraqi youngsters, all of them under 12, died as a predictable – in fact, widely predicted – result of the 1991 US "surgical" bombing of their country's water purification and sewage facilities, as well as other "infrastructural" targets upon which Iraq's civilian population depends for its very survival.

 

[diamond]

not only should the professor be fired,
i think he should be banned from Interference.Com

db9

 

[Dreadsox]

Here is the part of his writing that makes me want to puke:

[Q]They did not license themselves to "target innocent civilians."

There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . . Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.[/Q]

 

[speedracer]

I disagree with you, respectfully. What "monumentally stupid things" he said are a matter of opinion and free speech (opinions) are allowed in free societies. To fire someone on these grounds is inconsistent with the first ammendment. It brings education down to the level of a political practice or business.

The First Amendment doesn't prevent you from being fired if you say or print things that your employer could reasonably say hurts its business. People in most public-sector jobs would be canned for publicly saying and printing the things Churchill has.

The question is whether Churchill is hurting the university with what he has done, given that a university is supposed to promote academic inquiry.

As an academic myself, I'd say that Churchill should not be fired, but some of the things he's said are indefensible, both morally and scholastically.

I don't know everything he said but if the point of his analogy was to draw a link between the American public and the terror of the US gov't around the world, then I don't think his point is monumentally stupid. Maybe the context of his thoughts could shed some light on this. Professors often dedicate their lives to studying something and I don't think their positions should be limited by people with political agendas. That undermines the integrity of education. I do happen to think this is a first ammendment issue.

Personal attacks like "loser" do not make what he says untrue.

Jon

Well, there's a difference between saying that the WTC attacks were blowback and saying that all the people who died in the WTC were "little Eichmanns" who deserved to die. Tenured academics like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn have been saying the former for years, and neither of them has ever been in danger of being fired for it.

 

[Klink]

The First Amendment doesn't prevent you from being fired if you say or print things that your employer could reasonably say hurts its business. People in most public-sector jobs would be canned for publicly saying and printing the things Churchill has.

The First Ammendment guarantees you the right to speak freely, assemble freely and think freely among other things: "Article [I.]
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 grievances. "

The public-sector is an extension of the government, which is supposed to protect those rights. That, in fact, makes it even worse for them to fire him because of what he said. Inconsistent and does nothing for academic integrity.

The question is whether Churchill is hurting the university with what he has done, given that a university is supposed to promote academic inquiry.

As an academic myself, I'd say that Churchill should not be fired, but some of the things he's said are indefensible, both morally and scholastically.

The first part again, makes education subject to political will and allegiance. You are the first academic I've ever heard to believe that that is ok.

What did he say that is indefensible, I'm curious? I think the above quote is a perfectly acceptable analysis of the events of September 11th, while not mine and not a real justification for the attacks. But US gov't intervention, elected and sponsored by the public is certaily the root cause of todays terrorism and that of September 11th.

Well, there's a difference between saying that the WTC attacks were blowback and saying that all the people who died in the WTC were "little Eichmanns" who deserved to die. Tenured academics like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn have been saying the former for years, and neither of them has ever been in danger of being fired for it.

And what makes his analysis any less defesible than Chomsky's? I wouldn't hold his point of view, but why should it be discounted? Simply because the popular opinion isn't consistent with it? You're treating your conception of morals as an absolute, which I'm not so sure is defesible.

Jon

 

[A_Wanderer]

What if a hypothetical academic were to say that all Muslims are the moral equivalent of Nazi's and they are all responsible for terrorism? If they said that all the Muslims that died in the war in Iraq are the equivalent of "little Himmlers" and that their deaths could be justified? Would you be so quick to leap to the defence of such free speech even though it is blantantly politically incorrect and anti-Muslim?

We are free to say profoundly stupid things in this world but you must accept that people will call you on it and criticism does not equal censorship.

I think that you are talking out one side that opinions cannot be silenced and that there must be diversity but on the other you claim it as a fact, undisputed, that 9/11 and terrorism in general is caused by US government intervention. This is the almost unanimous opinion of the left and it represents a dangerous level of group think. Do you not consider the religious factors involved? The US has meddles in every country and screws over many but not all of those produce terrorism. Is it so inconcievable that religion and believe is a tool for indoctrination of a totalitarian political system and that much of the terrorism in the world today is a spread off effect of this. Do we consider the role reversal in the victim mentality ~ the attacker becomes the poor defenseless victim of America's actions in the world and is driven to murder thousands of innocents (yes innocent, the people in the towers did not all go about murdering children or running wars). Do we not question what we are told about Islam by organisations such as CAIR or do we wallow in sweet PC ignorance about the various factions involved - there are definitely moderate peaceful Muslims out there but it does them a disservice to ignore their suffering so that we can host terror supporting bastards as pillars of the Moderate community.

There is a level of blame for terrorism on the US ~ things that it has done in the past or could have done may have made tragedy inevitable but to only blame the US and totally ignore the decades of Islamic Terrorism around the world ~ from the Middle East to the Subcontinent all the way to Indonesia and the Phillipines ~ is wrong.

 

[melon]

We are free to say profoundly stupid things in this world but you must accept that people will call you on it and criticism does not equal censorship.

I would not be a hypocrite on this issue. I still think that myopic politicians should get their nose out of these issues. What the hell do they know about education?

Melon

 

[A_Wanderer]

They know that parents pay good money to get and education and that many may not like their kids being taught to hate America (very selective quoting applies of course) ~ its all about the votes.

 

[Klink]

What if a hypothetical academic were to say that all Muslims are the moral equivalent of Nazi's and they are all responsible for terrorism? If they said that all the Muslims that died in the war in Iraq are the equivalent of "little Himmlers" and that their deaths could be justified? Would you be so quick to leap to the defence of such free speech even though it is blantantly politically incorrect and anti-Muslim?

We are free to say profoundly stupid things in this world but you must accept that people will call you on it and criticism does not equal censorship.

I am careful to draw conlcusions based on ultra-soft terms like "political correctness" because they are simply opinions often premised on people's personal moral beliefs. That's not a lot of solid land to build a house on.

To answer your question: I would find such comments inflammatory and lacking inference, no doubt. The Eichmann comment is certainly very contentious and I don't agree with it. But in its context as an analogy meant to link the American public to the state terror of its government and the retail terror that is its consequence (9/11), I find it less insulting and more thought provoking. The most he is guilty of, is a gross exaggeration. Exaggerations are often used to drive home a point and I don't think they are legitimate reasons for dsimissal, especially when the point has legitimate academic justification. The justification for the root of his exaggeration is what differentiates what he is said from your Himmler-Muslim example.

If that is a reason for dismissal, then I would imagine that you support the dismissal of the entire Bush administration for their "exaggeration" (lie) about WMD in Iraq, which has now cost the lives of over 100,000 civilians?

Criticism does not equal censorship, but dismissal of dissenting academics critical of the apathetic public and US foreign policy does equal censorship.

Jon

 

[speedracer]

The First Ammendment guarantees you the right to speak freely, assemble freely and think freely among other things: "Article [I.]
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 grievances. "

The public-sector is an extension of the government, which is supposed to protect those rights. That, in fact, makes it even worse for them to fire him because of what he said. Inconsistent and does nothing for academic integrity.

Churchill has a right to say these things. He doesn't necessarily have a right to get paid to say these things.

The first part again, makes education subject to political will and allegiance. You are the first academic I've ever heard to believe that that is ok.

I said that Churchill's writings were morally reprehensible and intellectually dubious. I don't think that all leftists have to act this way.

What did he say that is indefensible, I'm curious? I think the above quote is a perfectly acceptable analysis of the events of September 11th, while not a justification for the attacks. US gov't intervention is certaily the root cause of todays terrorism and that of September 11th.

And what makes his analysis any less defesible than Chomsky's? I wouldn't hold his point of view, but why should it be discounted? Simply because the popular opinion isn't consistent with it? Not so sure about that.

Adolf Eichmann was one of the chief architects of the Nazi extermination schemes. Churchill is trying to draw a comparision between WTC workers and Eichmann. And make no mistake, Churchill applauded the attacks and said that the WTC victims got what they deserved. (The quote that Dreadsox posted was taken from Churchill's book "The Justice of Roosting Chickens", if I'm not mistaken.)

Okay, so let's look at his analysis:

1. The US military commits atrocities in other countries.
2. The US military is "enslaved" to America's "global financial empire".
3. Therefore, America's global financial empire is complicit in these atrocities.
4. The WTC victims are intelligent people who should understand point (3), yet willingly choose to work for the large banks and firms that constitute America's global financial empire.
5. Therefore, the WTC victims are complicit in US military atrocities.
6. Therefore, the WTC victims deserve death.

Let's see...I'd say that points (1) and (2) are sufficiently vague and controversial that it's morally acceptable not to agree with point (3). Hence points (4) and (5) are invalid, and the argument breaks down.

Or instead of analyzing the argument point-by-point, we can argue by reductio ad absurdum: Churchill's analysis could be extended to imply that secretaries in the WTC, people who use credit cards, people who drink coffee, and George Soros all deserve death.

Or even better: Churchill is an employee of the University of Colorado, a large research university that does military research and receives funds from the DoD for a wide variety of other projects. Hence Churchill deserves death.

That's why I think Churchill's work is intellectually dubious. And claiming that people deserve to die based on such work is morally reprehensible.

 

[Klink]

They know that parents pay good money to get and education and that many may not like their kids being taught to hate America (very selective quoting applies of course) ~ its all about the votes.

Again, academic integrity is lost here. There has to be a balance between political and educational agendas. Breeding an ignorant society is certain to lead to future ignorant interventions (state terrorism) by Western govt's and more reciprocal terrorism at home, like 9/11. Neither are justified, but isolating the causes is not difficult. Maybe it's an ignorant, apathetic public which will no doubt be accentuated by the firing of dissenting, controversial educators.

Jon

 

[joyfulgirl]

But a bigger problem is that he may have been passing himself off as American Indian, while that is not the case.

Wow, I don't know why I didn't bother to read this yesterday; it's actually quite interesting and especially to me since I have met Ward Churchill through my work a number of times. The guy is definitely far out there and I've never quite known what to make of him; not sure that I like him, actually. I too have heard allegations that he is not Indian but I certainly thought he was when I met him (not that I'm any expert). His comments are certainly inflammatory but he is a rather brilliant man and I don't think teachers should be fired everytime they say something controversial. Let there be an open debate about it in the classroom.