Posted on 02/28/2005 11:31:52 AM PST by Pendragon_6
"Who is defending Ward Churchill, may I ask?" That was the question posed by John Holbo, a philosophy professor and contributor to the leftwing academic blog Crooked Timber, when news broke that the University of Colorado was harboring a leftist extremist in its midst. The gist of Holbo’s question was that no respectable person on the Left could come to the defense of someone so demonstrably in leave of his senses as the former Weatherman accomplice, academic fraud, and faux-Indian.
One can only hope that the professor’s academic acumen is better than his news judgment. In fact, no sooner had the media picked up on Churchill’s now-notorious essay than his leftwing enablers rushed to rescue his reputation.
Carrying the flag of the pro-Churchill campaign was the academic community. Colorado University President Elizabeth Hoffman, before revising her views in the face of broad public condemnation, initially condoned Churchill’s likening of the victims of September 11 to Nazi apparatchiks, insisting that “Prof. Churchill's comments have precipitated a discussion we ought to have.”
Continued
That is the biggest pile of BS.
Ward Churchill is defending the actions of these terrorists and trying to demoralize the people fighting against them. That is going to cause more people to get maimed and killed.
People who want to shut up Ward Churchills stupid nonsense and stop him from corrupting and deceiving students are not harming this country one whit.
The BS arguement you make that if the rights of perverts, traitors and scum are not protected then everyones rights are in danger is the lowest grade of fertilizer. It is simply amazing that even cretins like yourself still use it.
And if you want to school marm my prose; then marm this - ESAD.
RIGHT ON BRO!
ZEROISANUMBER
0 is right you obviously can't read and are a leftist apologist
I got a response from one when I emailed the regents. They're definitely listening
Ward the Fraud.
Please send these, your thoughts, to the Regents....some there care...FR has already had response from one Regent....FREEPING WORKS
Thank you....everyone FREEP all the addresses are here...
governorowens@state.co.us ;
editor@coloradodaily.com; kusa@9news.com ;
Peter.Steinhauer@colorado.edu; Regent.Schauer@Colorado.edu; Jerryrutledge@adelphia.net; tommyjclay@aol.com; Regent.Hayes@Colorado.edu; Gail.Schwartz@colorado.edu; Regent.Bosley@colorado.edu; Regent.Carlisle@Colorado.edu; Carrigan@colorado.edu
just copy and paste
Please send these, your thoughts, to the Regents....some there care...FR has already had response from one Regent....FREEPING WORKS
Thank you....everyone FREEP all the addresses are here...
governorowens@state.co.us ;
editor@coloradodaily.com; kusa@9news.com ;
Peter.Steinhauer@colorado.edu; Regent.Schauer@Colorado.edu; Jerryrutledge@adelphia.net; tommyjclay@aol.com; Regent.Hayes@Colorado.edu; Gail.Schwartz@colorado.edu; Regent.Bosley@colorado.edu; Regent.Carlisle@Colorado.edu; Carrigan@colorado.edu
just copy and paste
tenure was instituted after ww2 by leftists to protect leftists.
you're right...it has no basis whatsoever in law and is quite commonly shown to be a sham proposition...remaining in force ONLY at the whim and convenience of the administration whose appointment , of course, is approved by the faculty in a revolving you scratch my back proposition...again a mutual admiration society...not law
"This speech was classical hate speech."
ping
Universities should harbor those thought to be extremists. That's their friggin' purpose (see: Socrates, Plato, the first University, etc.)
They should NOT harbor liars, cheats, thieves, plagiarists, etc. (and surely Churchill is at least one of those)
The university is a refuge for academics of all stripes. Some conservatives can't stand the existence of radicals who disagree with them. I say, phooey. Ideas stand on their own. If your ideas are so fragile they cannot survive dissent, they deserve to die.
I am currently employed.
The government may not put him in jail for his speech. But everyone who ever had a job knows that if you say or do certain things that draw attention to your employer to his detriment, your are history.
The university system is different. Tenure was created to protect contreversial professors from losing their jobs over things that they publish or say publicly. Freedom of speech means that from time to time I have to see idgits dressed up as Nazis screaming about "da joos" on the 10 o'clock news, academic freedom means that I have to tolerate dumbass professors from time to time. I'd rather live with the headache than not have the freedom.
And do tell, do you support the restrictions on free speech visited on students in the name of not having "hate speech". This speech was classical hate speech. And are you aware he took a loyalty oath to get his job, I think his speech makes it clear he has violated that oath. And if what he published is a lie, a fraud, then he ought to be fired for that.
No, I don't support hate speech restrictions for the same reason that I don't support the idea of firing Churchill for what he said or wrote.
As for the fraud, I think that I've made it quite clear that I would support his firing if it was proved that he plagarized or otherwise committed academic fraud.
All of which is entrusted to the dean, who is in turn answerable to the board. It's their opinion that counts, not public opinion.
Do you think that this college, with its 200 profs already on record wanting a halt to this inquiry, is capable of judgiing its own.
Are police departments? Is the government? The simple answer is, "I don't know" but they are the ones who will make the decisions, like it or not.
I think you are an academic wetting your pants. You know tenure can be given and taken away and this case will make the latter more likely.
I work at a hospital. And before you speculate further, most of my family is in the medical field.
I have seen tenure and its ills, it protects people who never do anything but loaf after getting it, who use a university as a podium and who are not scholars. Real scholars are rarely in need to tenure.
Tenure has its downside and its upside. I believe that there are more ups than downs. Every scholar, whether "real" or "fake", conservative or liberal, wants tenure.
Again, your hubris is amazing. And your sanctimony.
It's often difficult to get the tone of a written message right. Rignt now, for example, I'm quite calm, but you might imagine me as angry or histrionic. If I come off as short or sanctimonious, I'm sorry.
I'll add to that: What if he plagerized art work and made money off of it?
How do you draw the line of "demoralizing" speech vs. protected opinion? If I say that Commander So-and-so is a screw-up or the Boots in Operation MacGuffin went too far, is that criminal "demoralization"? Or is it just my opinion?
You seem to think that I like or agree with what Churchill wrote, I don't. But I don't think that the man should lose his job over it.
People who want to shut up Ward Churchills stupid nonsense and stop him from corrupting and deceiving students are not harming this country one whit.
Yes, you are. The problem is that you either don't understand that you are, or you don't care.
The BS arguement you make that if the rights of perverts, traitors and scum are not protected then everyones rights are in danger is the lowest grade of fertilizer. It is simply amazing that even cretins like yourself still use it.
Plato once wrote that the best way to judge the true character of a society was to observe how it treated its lowliest members. Perverts, traitors, and criminals are entitled to the same Constitutional protections as you and I are. Otherwise the Constitution is meaningless and anyone, whether innocent or guilty who is accused of being a pervert, traitor, or criminal is up for what amounts to an extra-judicial lynching.
He should be fired because he lied and cheated and was caught.
You want this fraud to be "overlooked"? That is not practicing what this country was founded on: Everyone is equal under the law. It has NOTHING to do with the freedom of speech.
OK. This is about the fifth time I've addressed this issue in the thread. I know that it's hard sometimes to read a long thread front to back, but please, at least follow the posts that I've made before you comment.
What I've been saying is that Churchill should not lose his job for anything that he's published or said publicly. The other accusations of fraud, plagarism, etc. should be investigated by the university and they should act as they deem appropriate.
Zero...you are out of line....Cajungirl has more degrees and a helluva lot higher IQ than you can ever imagine....take your troll CRAP someplace else ...enabler ! Come call me names and I'll give you an address...
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.