July 24, 2007
BOULDER – The University of Colorado Board of Regents voted to terminate controversial professor Ward Churchill on Tuesday evening.Churchill touched off a firestorm in 2005 after an essay surfaced which he wrote shortly after 9/11 likening some victims in the World Trade Center to Adolf Eichmann, who helped carry out the Holocaust.
University officials concluded he could not be fired for his comments because they were protected by the First Amendment, but they launched an investigation into allegations that he fabricated or falsified his research and plagiarized the work of others.
So, Churchill couldn't be fired for his comments, which were protected by the First Amendment. How stupid can university adminstrators get? The First Amendment grants the freedom of speech. The government cannot arrest someone and charge them with a crime for speaking his mind. That's it.
However, employers are completely within their rights to demand that people who work for them to adhere to certain standards of conduct and to not involve the employer in their controversies. The greeter at WalMart cannot tell everyone coming in the store to go to hell without expecting to be fired.
Two-and-a-half years...but, the firing will be contested in a lawsuit, so it's not really over. John Rocker formerly with the Braves and Michael Vick soon to be formerly with the Falcons have learned that what one says or does in his own time can get them fired in less time. Even the former president of private Harvard University, found out what happens by issuing an honest statement--but, he wasn't tenured and offended the politically correct crowd.
Why are our leftist, ivory tower campuses so intent on keeping bad employees? When and how will tenure end?
Posted at 03:00 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 356 words, total size 3 kb.
Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at Wednesday, July 25 2007 03:22 AM (YQFD4)
Posted by: Jeremayakovka at Wednesday, July 25 2007 03:34 AM (q4OiF)
Posted by: nanc at Wednesday, July 25 2007 04:59 AM (uRBJl)
I believe that the quote within the wikipedia is germain to this topic:
"To be clear: the issues here have nothing to do with the quality of Ward Churchill’s scholarship or his professional credentials. However one views his choice of words or specific arguments, he is being put in the dock solely for his radical critique of U.S. history and present-day policy in the wake of the events of September 11, 2001. Apparently, 9/11 is now the third rail of American intellectual life: to critically probe into its causes and to interrogate the international role of the United States is treated as heresy; those inquiring can be denied forums, careers, and even personal safety. . .The Churchill case is not an isolated incident but a concentrated example of a well-orchestrated campaign launched in the name of “academic freedom” and “balance” which in fact aims to purge the universities of more radical thinkers and oppositional thought generally, and to create a climate of intimidation.
– An Open Letter from Concerned Academics"
He may be wrong, but you might first want to read his essay. I thought he was a bit extremist, but I do agree with his quote of Malcolm X. I have always believed that the events of 9/11 had everthing to do with chickens coming home to roost. That thought is sour medicine , but true nonetheless.
Posted by: psyberwolfe at Wednesday, July 25 2007 10:01 AM (tulYH)
Posted by: Woody at Wednesday, July 25 2007 12:46 PM (Eb/8J)
A quote by James Billington is appropriate here, "Intellectual and cultural freedom is the most important single precondition for the breakdown of the kinds of tyrannical and totalitarian systems that periodically threaten us."
Wether the thoughts are right or wrong the truth will come out in the end.
Posted by: psyberwolfe at Wednesday, July 25 2007 03:00 PM (tulYH)
Posted by: Woody at Thursday, July 26 2007 12:59 AM (Eb/8J)
"the government will not tolerate statements that create dissonance in our society and disrespect for others"
You would think that the position of minister for multi-culti and the quote itself were a gag. They are not. The woman who said this, and the quote itself are real. In her previous incarnation, she was of course a school principal. That not being enough damage done, she was groomed for political office, by the natural ruling party of canada, the Liberals.
Posted by: earl west at Thursday, July 26 2007 01:41 AM (zdiNe)
The "B" is a bit more complicated and I don't know that I can make y'all understand my ideas. First, I can't believe that this is the FIRST time that this professor has made a 'controversial' statement. Professors of this type usually have a record of this.
So, the university offered him tenure anyway. And now they are reaping the harvest. You can't fault a snake for acting like a snake.
Woody, you made a comment to the effect of teaching things that are really useful. Is it not useful to be given a nugget of opinion and to utilize my own mind to decide whether said nugget is valid or worthless?
I had a professor that spouted tripe much like this at university. I had two choices:
a) keep taking the class
b) drop the class
I chose to drop the class because I had heard his kind of drivel before and I didn't choose to waste my time hearing it again.
I just kind of think it's a bit worrisome that people have to worry about being fired because of unpopular speech/thoughts.
Woody, don't you automatically lose the argument because you brought up Nazis? Whose law it that? Ask GM, he knows whose law it is. :-)
Posted by: Jennifer at Thursday, July 26 2007 03:44 AM (tulYH)
On the choice issue, students pick professors because some are easy graders, because they agree at their impressionable age with some nonsense being spewed, or because the other class they wanted was closed. Wouldn't it be better, however, if they had the best life and career choices available rather than classes from kooks?
On the tenure, the university offered it to him and was constrained by that when he crossed the line of sanity. If tenure didn't exist at all, as I propose, then this would not have been a problem.
Come to think of it, when was the last time that a professor challenged our intellectual pursuits by proposing that we drop tenure? Wouldn't that be more useful than some other topics that they pick? No, they don't want to give up the free ride.
BTW, professors tend to mind their manners and toe the line while waiting for tenure. After they get it, many go into semi-retirement. Some get crazy. Hopefully, some still do their jobs as intended by their customers, which are the students and/or the parents who pay the tuition.
P.S. See G.M.'s post above, which continues this topic. He mentions that Churchill called the 9-11 victims of Al Qaeda "Little Eichmann's." So, my mention of the craziness of discussing Nazis in the classroom isn't so far off base.
Posted by: Woody at Friday, July 27 2007 03:03 AM (Eb/8J)
Sure there are limits, and I don't have a hard and fast opinion on whether tenure is worthwhile or not.
But opinions are like... and what you think is worthless topic could be quite vital to someone else. Gee, look at how much fun it has given us here.
And BTW, I did NOT say that you called someone a Nazi, I just mentioned that you brought them up. And if GM brought them up, then he loses the argument too. I was making a small, and probably poor quality joke based on:
Godwin's Law
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
Godwin's Law does not question whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued,[3] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.
Posted by: Jennifer at Friday, July 27 2007 04:27 PM (tulYH)
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
