Gosh - I must have missed something!
Is congress attempting to pass a law to make Churchill shut up????
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!”
Had the Fraud substituted the term queers where he said Eichmans he would have been fire don the spot. He declared the Regents should be allowed to do their job- well they haven't done their job since they recieve dhis resume in 1980.they have denied students and others their forum for
free speech while protecting this fraud. He is a Dr. ,Lied about his military service and decorations, Lied about his purported Indian heritage. Yet the Univeristy has
protected him? Makes one wonder what the 60s commie agitator has on 'em other than their negligence ?
The Libs want to fire the President of Harvard and stroke Churchill.....Stoopid libs.
People don't have the right to employment from a particular employer. Most of us serve to a great extent at the whim of our managers.
People say that Churchill is tenured and, therefore, immune to the irritation of those that pay for his rantings. If that is so, the whole idea of tenure needs to be reviewed, because those that pay his way include the taxpayers. If taxpayers are forced to pay for someone to insult them, then government entities no longer exist at the consent of the governed.
Here's a bit of common sense. Colleges and universities that employ either stupid teachers or teachers who are con artists can't have much self respect.
What's really irritating to me is the way the left is being allowed to frame this discussion. This is not a free speech issue. Nobody is saying that this idiot Ward Churchill should not be allowed to spew his hate and stupidity all over the world if he wants to. This should be strictly a debate of taxpayer funding of hate speech.
Nobody would argue that our colleges and universities should not pay to have KKK spokesmen come to our young skulls of mush and scream about the evil explosion of evil Jews, Catholics, and Blacks. Then why should be allow taxpayer funding of the type of dribble and evil speech coming from Churchill? Allowing him to speak on a college campus is one thing. There should always be areas on college campuses where anybody with any kind of idea can set up shop and preach. But the universities should not pay or reward these people in any way for their horrible and often stupid opinion.
"He is a Dr."
I didn't see anything about him having a doctorate. At UC's website he is listed as having a MA while everyone else in his division is a PHD.
"He is a Dr."
I didn't see anything about him having a doctorate. At UC's website he is listed as having a MA while everyone else in his division is a PHD.
He probably conferred the doctorate degree on himself, why not, he declared himself an Indian and he isn't. UC Boulder lets this asshole do whatever he wants. Next he'll decide he's the Dean of Students, or perhaps he'll put himself on the Board of Trustees. Give Ward whatever he wants, that's the U of C way.
Indeed, tenure needs to be re-examined.
Not sure if you have herd the latest on Churchill.
The State of Colorado, like most other states, requires that professors sign an oath to support the Constitution of the US and Colorado before any person can teach or serve as a professor. Turns out that Churchill apparently has never signed such an oath. It also turns out that the courts have found it legal to fire any professor who refuses to sign the oath- without any hearing or due process.
This could be the needed justification for the spineless Regents and the University president Betsy Hoffman to get rid of Churchill. If they allow him to teach a single class without signing the oath, they are breaking the law!
I heard on O'R last night that he doesn't even have a Master's degree. The guy is a fraud, plain and simple.
Is this not a minimal requirement for being a full professor, which is a prerequisite for the other two?
Anyone know how UC got around the basics? Even if he got hired through AA as a pseudo Indian, he shouldn't have been able to be any more than an Associate Prof...
Just because an employer decides they're not obligated to pay you while you do your speechifying, it doesn't follow that you're not free to speechify on your own dime.
Rent the hall, buy the ads, drum up willing sponsors, and go for it.
SO has anyone heard any explanation as to how he got the promotions without the education? Did someone from UC explain it anywhere, because it's against all academic standards everywhere.
The question really is: "What constructive purpose does he serve?" The easy answer is, None.
Gosh - I must have missed something!
Is congress attempting to pass a law to make Churchill shut up????
Actually, I can think of one or two litigations or potential litigations today which use the exact same reasoning behind this sentence.
did hear he was studying up to become a Master Baiter.
(Old joke I know but fits that old and foul smelling wind
Ward Churchill)
I musta missed it two-- all I keep heairng from the
"already captured press" is how folk are trying to shut
him up-yet my contention all along has been he has every right to speak--but NO right to defraud the people and foment violent overthrow of our goverment while being paid
from the public trust.
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.