Posted on 02/18/2005 5:18:57 AM PST by TGOMedia
Ward Churchill comes to mind. Churchill is a tenured professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder (home of Division 1A’s most rape-happy football team) who, not long after the Tragedies, wrote an essay referring to those who died at the World Trade Center as “little Eichmans” and suggested the attacks were a reasonable response to American policy. (Or something like that. It’s hard to know exactly what he’s saying for sure; the piece reads like it was written during the third hour of a PCP bender.) The thesis, “Some People Push Back,” was later expanded into a book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens.
Fast forward two-and-a-half years. Churchill’s “little Eichmanns” blast was pulled from obscurity – first by journalists at Hamilton College (who were alerted to “Some People Push Back” by a professor doing background research on Churchill), then by the New Media in its entirety. Churchill’s speech at Hamilton was canceled due to security concerns brought about by death threats. During a rant on campus at Boulder, Churchill said he takes full responsibility for his words, he will not back away from them, he’s not sorry. Which is fine with me, believe it or not. There are few things more annoying than someone who honestly speaks their mind and then denies having ever done so (e.g., Eason Jordan). Ward Churchill is an intellectual barbarian, but at least he doesn’t deny his barbarity.
There were students in Boulder screaming their approval of Churchill at the tops of their lungs. Sadly, the throng is emblematic of the student body, which gives pause, and they weren’t screaming because they were so enamored with free speech. They were screaming because they agreed with his basic premises – that the world would be better off if the United States didn’t exist (insofar as to suggest it should be obliterated tomorrow), that America deserves many more Tragedies, that those who supported the Persian Gulf War were the equivalent of “Good Germans” during Hitler’s world conquest campaign, et cetera. Afterward, in the corridor with television cameras in their faces, many said their support for Churchill was more about free speech than it was stark anti-Americanism.
But how was Churchill’s right to speak freely actually impeded, as to justify this wave of Leftist support? Yes, speaking engagements were canceled after some nutcases made death threats, but you’d be hard pressed to prove that those threats seriously his impeded his freedom to utter nonsense. And to prove it, he gave the speech at Boulder, despite what must have been several similar threats.
One should be struck by the circles in which free speech is forced to travel these days. Though it has since been proven untrue, Churchill spent years selling himself as an Indian. So let’s say I was invited to speak at the University of Colorado, and at that speech I said these things: 1) It’s not modern America’s fault the Indians vanquished by pale faces didn’t have adequate military intelligence, and there’s no point in caring about them, anyway. They were only savages. 2) Small pox infected blankets were an acceptable means toward the end of American expansionism. 3) The federal government should give some thought to suing Indiana tribes – in particular those with casinos – as a means of recouping money spent through Medicare to treat cancer patients, because it was Indians who introduced tobacco to the white man. Would anyone scream about my right to free speech? Not likely. In fact, I would need overwhelming security just to get off the campus, and justifiably so; there are fewer strings of thought one could find more pointless or thoughtless.
But with all things being equal, what’s the difference between saying Indians had it coming and saying Cantor Fitzgerald’s employees had it coming? Intent. Each argument paints America as genocidal, but only the Churchill argument justifies targeting thousands of innocents when your beef is with a government you can’t touch. Free speech counts, even for the very dumb. However, it does us well to understand the difference between a legitimate free speech concern and unique nonsense that cannot be defended by anything other than your supporters yelling, “Free speech!”
I believe the point in question is that he is not free to perpetrate fraud on the students at UC, and the taxpayers of Colorado who are funding this phony.
They have to be VERY careful to make that clear.
Precisely. It is the fraud that is the problem, and the taxpayers who are funding it.
Depends on your perspective. Ward has a position in the "Ethnic Studies" department at CU, and like any _____________ Studies departments at CU and universities across the land, the CU Ethnic Studies department exists solely as a political wing of the university. They're there simply to push the left-wing agenda prevalent at college campuses everywhere. Their main activities include political activism, indoctrination and promulgation of left-wing propaganda.
Although I didn't make it is clear as I should have (sorry) my point is simply that unless and until Congress attempts to make a law abridging freedom of speech arguments of " infringement upon or violation of" free speech are nonsense and we should never buy into anyone's misuse of the 1st Amendment as a defense.
I agree, but mostly disagree. I had an Ethnic Studies professor who could have passed for Churchill's clone. When you take Churchill's activities in balance he's on a destructive course, not one that contributes to the greater good.
UC website Dept of Ethnic Studies has him listed as BA, MA, Sangaman State University. Take a look at Sangaman. He must have been there before it was absorbed by U of Illinois. Don't have a clue as to what his major was since Sangaman didn't have a catalog of classes or even departments or Deans. A real academic hippie heaven for budding commies.
Read the rest of my post--we're on common ground.
I'm a prof with an MA......an adjunct only. In some colleges I could be an Associate, but in NONE could I be a full professor, which is required to be a department head.
Even if the Masters is legit, the department headship cannot be, nor can the tenure.........at least as far as I know.
(Sangaman State, eh? One of your more prominant places of higher learning......)
Arrghh!! I HATE when I do that!
Most certainly do agree. Our Courts need be reminded that there are laws/Constitutional Quotes (Constitution.org)
and there is that precedent discovered by the Judiciary
committees of the Senate Jan.19,1853;and House-March 27,1854
that discuss the Establishment clause-and these can be
reconciled to what Joseph Story and other significant Jurists and politicians had to say about that Amendment.
Their minds are become feeble with too much education and
too many distractions I fear -So I reckon it's up to We the
people to remind them they serve under the Constitution and
the laws pursuant to it -Nothing other than that will suffice.
You are correct.
He claimed to be an American Indian - but 2 tribes have refused to authenticate him. He was hired under affirmative action because of his claim - and I believe that allowed him to claim that because American Indians are a "sovereign nation", Churchill might not have been required to sign a statement declaring to uphold the Constitution.
Churchill also claimed he "served" in Vietnam - but he only worked there - but he allowed people to assume he was in the military.
Being a LIAR - makes his whole application a lie - and he should be fired for those lies - and not because he's a nut case spewing junk about 9/11.
Free speech is cool. Free from consequences or responsbilities of one's speech is not.
"Churchill also claimed he "served" in Vietnam - but he only worked there - but he allowed people to assume he was in the military. "
It seems he was in the military, but not the combat grunt he claimed to be. He was a Jeep driver and a project operator.
It's a bit silly, really. Churchill's right to free speech is not impeded one bit. In fact, he'll land more speaking gigs and sell more copies of his rancid little book off this than he would have had it never come up.
Hmmmm? Interesting!
According to a guest on O'Reilly last night, Ward does not even have a Master's Degree.
In the “Headlines We Would Like to See” category: Huge blast completely destroys CU campus. Coloradoans celebrate millions in improvements. Liquor industry laments. The only casualty appears to be the remains of 13/16ths of an old wore out hippy clutching a copy of the first amendment and half a pack of Pall Malls.
Gosh - I must have missed something!
Is congress attempting to pass a law to make Churchill shut up????
You didn't get the memo? :-)
(Seriously)
I want this....person(?) to have a primetime special on all the major networks. I want the entire country to hear what he has to say.
You overlooked the scorched and faded photo of the hippie
in hapier times embracing Che Guevarra under a Commie flag.
FREE SPEECH is only truly FREE if that speech can be freely rebutted, refuted, contradicted, and countered. Otherwise, it is the dictatorial speech of a tyrant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.