# Why all the fuss over Ward Churchill? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 20, 2005, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-fuss-over-ward-churchill/290980 "2005-02-20T02:45:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-fuss-over-ward-churchill/290980/61 "2005-02-21T06:25:17Z")
> [@manhattan](#): > > No, I don’t want to debate that. It’s self-evident and one might as well argue “Why all the fuss over cancer?” > > I’ll be linking to this thread later, though. Of course you don’t want to debate. I just keep bringing it up so no one mistakes your carping for anything of substance. ## Imagine how underwhelmed I am at the prospect of multiple instances of you refusing to address the same argument. But whatever, you got what you came for. Run along now. > [@Well](#): > > Oh I don’t know. Maybe because 3000 innocent Americans were murdered while piece of shits make excuses for the murderers. I haven’t seen anyone here excusing the attack. But your reply has nothing to do with the words of **BrainGlutton** that you quoted. ## BTW- Are you going to get back around to the previous misconception I pointed out? Or are you just going to try to bluff it out and hope no one notices? > [@fruitbat](#): > > I never knew I was part of the global financial hegemony, or whatever poppycock consipiracy the left would like to believe exists. Live and learn. Or at least you would if you kept an open mind. > [@](#): > > _I work in a financial institution and every person who went to work that day deserves to be mourned._ Here I will agree with you. I think **BG** went too far by suggesting no one should put flowers on some of the graves. What they were doing, what all of us are profiting from, was reprehensible but they didn’t deserve to die. Certainly their friends and family have a right to mourn. > [@](#): > > \*As for Churchill, he should be fired as a lousy academic and a crackpot. Academics should be forced to defend their viewpoints and provide a rigorous and reasonable defense. I don’t see how Churchill can do that here. \* ## Churchill isn’t “here” but I am. If you would care to attack the notion that the West’s prosperity is gained by plundering the undeveloped nations of the world I will what I can to defend it. Just start a thread. > [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](#): > > For all my assertions about the primary of peer review, we’re still left wondering why a person with such offensive ideas (and possibly questionable scholarship) didn’t seem to be suffering the expected (and deserved) loss of professional stature. That is, why was this nut getting speaking gigs? ## The offer to **fruitbat** is open to anyone. ---
**Author:** ![Well](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/df788c/32.png) [@Well](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Well)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-fuss-over-ward-churchill/290980/62 "2005-02-21T07:31:47Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > I haven’t seen anyone here excusing the attack. But your reply has nothing to do with the words of **BrainGlutton** that you quoted. Beg pardon? _“he does however, and rightfully so, decalre that American foreign policy and the behavior of American corporates, is in part responsbile for 9/11. Guess what? he is right. You can only abuse people for so long before they bite back. They bit.”_ _“I think Churchill has an at least debatable point when he says they were not entirely innocent. And that’s because I have a sense of morality.”_ _" To put it another way, if the US was being treated so poorly by another nation, would anybody be surpri0sed at a 9/11 style attack against that other country?"_ _“While I may blame the US policies for 9/11, offhand at the moment I can’t think of any prominent Democrats at the national level in the US who openly blamed the US for 9/11.”_ … If you don’t call those quotes to serve as justification for, then what would you call them? And from what I got from **BrainGlutton** ’s quote was that the right doesn’t have the right to be outraged at those defending Churchill because they run the country. I was redirecting him to what they were outraged about. > [@](#): > > BTW- Are you going to get back around to the previous misconception I pointed out? Or are you just going to try to bluff it out and hope no one notices? Misconceptions? I’m sorry, is the far left now part of the the Republican party? Or are the “looney liberal’s” obscure parties coming into power with such nonsensical drivel? You guys are losing your asses because you are so far out of touch with reality and then claim the dem’s arn’t left enough for you. Too bad for them that they are listening and going down with you. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-fuss-over-ward-churchill/290980/63 "2005-02-21T08:21:24Z")
> [@Well](#): > > If you don’t call those quotes to serve as justification for, then what would you call them? I call them mostly explanations. They say why the attacks occured not that they were justified. As an example, I was watching the early Hannible Lector movie _Manhunter_ today. If you haven’t seen it it seems to be based on the same book as _Red Dragon_. In it the FBI agent gives an provacative and deliberatly untrue interview with a sleazy reporter designed to entice the serial killer, the “Toothfairy”, into attacking the FBI agent. Instead the Toothfairy kidnaps and tortures the reporter. Now, a person might say that the interview was in part responsibe for the attack. Or that the reporter wasn’t entirely innocent because of his his sleazy tactics. Or that it is no surprise the reporter was attacked. But that doesn’t excuse the fact that the Toothfairy bit back ( literally! ). See the difference? Now the _“While I may blame the US policies for 9/11, offhand at the moment I can’t think of any prominent Democrats at the national level in the US who openly blamed the US for 9/11”_ is less clearcut because it doesn’t mention the terrorists. It certainly does place onus for the attacks on US policy. But that doesn’t directly exclude the hijackers from blame. Perhaps the poster feels there is plenty of blame to go around. Perhaps **rfgdxm** does believe the attacks were justified. I doubt it but we can’t tell from just this short post. > [@](#): > > _And from what I got from **BrainGlutton** ’s quote was that the right doesn’t have the right to be outraged at those defending Churchill because they run the country. I was redirecting him to what they were outraged about._ I’m afraid you misunderstood. **BG** was making a comment upon the feeling of martyrdom exhibited by many conservatives. He wasn’t questioning their outrage but rather the perception that their view is underrepresented despite the fact that conservatives control all three branches of the federal government. > [@](#): > > _Misconceptions?_ ## Misconception. Singular. I was referring to my first reply to you where I explain that “The Left isn’t monolithic. Just because a few leftists say something doesn’t mean all of us believe it. Many of us have little use for the Democratic Party, for instance.” ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-fuss-over-ward-churchill/290980/64 "2005-02-21T16:09:55Z")
> [@Well](#): > > Oh I don’t know. Maybe because 3000 innocent Americans were murdered while piece of shits make excuses for the murderers. WTF? An obscure prof somewhere make some radical statements and this somehow amounts to taking over the country and victimizing the poor little conservatives? How many liberals/Democrats _haven’t_ made radical statements like these? ---
**Author:** ![Well](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/df788c/32.png) [@Well](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Well)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-fuss-over-ward-churchill/290980/65 "2005-02-21T17:16:01Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > I call them mostly explanations. …See the difference? Some crimes against innocent people do not need to be “explained”. By the same logic, Matt Sheppard wasn’t entirely innocent now was he? He was at least partly to blame because he grabbed the dudes balls. And he _was_ a professed homosexual…what more do you want? You can claim intellectual discourse all you want. But that doesn’t mean people can’t be pissed off and offended about your mental masturbation and assertions and called full of shit when they are full of shit. > [@](#): > > I’m afraid you misunderstood. **BG** was making a comment upon the feeling of martyrdom exhibited by many conservatives. He wasn’t questioning their outrage but rather the perception that their view is underrepresented despite the fact that conservatives control all three branches of the federal government. Since they control the government, do you have a cite that says their views are sen to be underrepresented in the government? I thought he was talking about the left and liberal media that is not representing their views? Surely they don’t control that spectrum. I saw the red herring and didn’t take the bait. Seems you did and are defending it. > [@](#): > > ## Misconception. Singular. I was referring to my first reply to you where I explain that “The Left isn’t monolithic. Just because a few leftists say something doesn’t mean all of us believe it. Many of us have little use for the Democratic Party, for instance.” Oh. So it was your misconception that I thought the left was a monolithic entity. I don’t see the need to bluff my way out of your misunderstandings. Especially if you don’t try to clarify. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-fuss-over-ward-churchill/290980/66 "2005-02-21T19:32:13Z")
> [@Well](#): > > Some crimes against innocent people do not need to be “explained”. Depends on what your needs are. If you are interested in preventing another 9/11 from happening again then yes, you do need to understand what happened the first time. I’m sure you don’t want another major terrorist attack upon the United States so in this case we can both agree that an explanation is necessary. > [@](#): > > _By the same logic, Matt Sheppard wasn’t entirely innocent now was he?_ I’m not up on the details of the Sheppard incident but yes he may not have been entirely innocent. But saying so does not excuse his attackers. See the difference yet? > [@](#): > > _You can claim intellectual discourse all you want. But that doesn’t mean people can’t be pissed off and offended about your mental masturbation and assertions and called full of shit when they are full of shit._ Of course not. Open discourse means that everyone is free to say what they think is important. Saying something doesn’t make it true though. > [@](#): > > _Since they control the government, do you have a cite that says their views are sen to be underrepresented in the government? I thought he was talking about the left and liberal media that is not representing their views? Surely they don’t control that spectrum. I saw the red herring and didn’t take the bait. Seems you did and are defending it._ The term “red herring” implies not only that it was off topic but that it was an attempt to derail the real debate. That didn’t happen. **BrainGlutton** didn’t even make the comment to anyone he was debating. It was an aside to another party. Nor do you have any call to demand that citation from me. I didn’t make the statement in question so I’m not responsible for the truth or falsehood of it. I was just explaining it to you. > [@](#): > > _Oh. So it was your misconception that I thought the left was a monolithic entity. I don’t see the need to bluff my way out of your misunderstandings. Especially if you don’t try to clarify._ ## You made an assertion that only makes sense if a person assumes the Left is monolithic. If I made a mistake it was in assuming you were being sensible. Personally, I don’t get upset when people make that assumption about me. In fact, if you give me that much credit then my post is perfectly clear. Since I have only addressed you once before my reference to a previous reply must have referred to that, if I am being sensible. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-fuss-over-ward-churchill/290980/67 "2005-02-21T19:58:27Z")
> [@Well](#): > > Some crimes against innocent people do not need to be “explained”. You mean like [these?](http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) I remain amazed at the people who are outraged by the 3,000+ folks killed on 9/11 but don’t bat an eye when it’s done five times over. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-fuss-over-ward-churchill/290980/68 "2005-02-21T20:49:50Z")
> [@Well](#): > > Some crimes against innocent people do not need to be “explained”. :dubious: Yes, they do, **Well.** And the more senseless the crime appears to be, the more urgently we need to find the explanation (which is not the same as an excuse). What could be more obvious than that? ---
**Author:** ![Well](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/df788c/32.png) [@Well](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Well)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2005, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-fuss-over-ward-churchill/290980/69 "2005-02-22T07:37:12Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > Depends on what your needs are. If you are interested in preventing another 9/11 from happening again then yes, you do need to understand what happened the first time. I’m sure you don’t want another major terrorist attack upon the United States so in this case we can both agree that an explanation is necessary. Didja notice the quotes on the key word I put there? It seems too many liberals feel the need to “explain” the terrorists motives with whole lot of empathy peppered in. I don’t need BG or any other lefty to tell me why they did it. We kinda get that daily on the news from the horses mouths so to speak. > [@](#): > > I’m not up on the details of the Sheppard incident but yes he may not have been entirely innocent. But saying so does not excuse his attackers. See the difference yet? Shephard was beaten almost to death and tied to a fence post and left to die. Wich he obliged by the way. His attackers said he made a pass, grabbed one of their privates and was a homosexual was the reason they did him like that. Nothing that they claim he did did anything to deserve what those fuckwhits did to him. So _yes_ he _was_ entirely innocent. Do you see the difference? Now you could say that what he did and what he was kinda provoked the losers. Partly his fault right? And we want to know what he did wrong so it doesn’t happen again. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > ## You made an assertion that only makes sense if a person assumes the Left is monolithic. If I made a mistake it was in assuming you were being sensible. Personally, I don’t get upset when people make that assumption about me. In fact, if you give me that much credit then my post is perfectly clear. Since I have only addressed you once before my reference to a previous reply must have referred to that, if I am being sensible. I think I explained my assertion because you were mistaken. I said “left” and you said that only makes sense if I mean the Democratic Party. Don’t just disregard what I said to go back to your old argument. The only one making assumptions is you. The left lost their asses last election. Whether they be Green or Liberal Party or Democrat or whatever you want to name yourself. And it’s crap like this OP that I think is the root cause of it. I can’t make it any more easy for you. If it still doesn’t make sense then lets drop it because it’s as simple as I’m willing to go on the subject. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2005, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-fuss-over-ward-churchill/290980/70 "2005-02-22T13:55:06Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That’s different – he’s not a tenured professor, he’s an administrator, a university president, one of those who set hiring and admissions policies – so his opinions about the fitness of women to pursue scientific careers is not a purely academic question. Sure, and Churchill was an administrator as well. He was the head of his department. And Summers is, in addition to his numerous other qualifications, a respected professor of economics. Your position seems to be academic freedom for some but not for others. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2005, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-fuss-over-ward-churchill/290980/71 "2005-02-22T15:00:02Z")
> [@Well](#): > > Didja notice the quotes on the key word I put there? It seems too many liberals feel the need to “explain” the terrorists motives with whole lot of empathy peppered in. I did see that you scare-quoted the word “explain” but it’s not clear if were casting doubt upon the quality of the explanations or if you still don’t understand that they are explanations and not the justifcations you thought they were. A straight answer seemed best. > [@](#): > > _Shephard was beaten almost to death and tied to a fence post and left to die. Wich he obliged by the way. His attackers said he made a pass, grabbed one of their privates and was a homosexual was the reason they did him like that. Nothing that they claim he did did anything to deserve what those fuckwhits did to him. So yes he was entirely innocent. Do you see the difference?_ I see that you have missed the point yet again. To repeat: merely saying that Shephard wasn’t completely innocent, whether true or not, does not excuse his attackers. > [@](#): > > _Now you could say that what he did and what he was kinda provoked the losers. Partly his fault right? And we want to know what he did wrong so it doesn’t happen again. :rolleyes:_ If I were a gay man I would be intensely interested in an explanation of the attack so that I could avoid having the same thing happen to me. But I wouldn’t be interested in a justification so it helps to be able to tell the difference. > [@](#): > > _I think I explained my assertion because you were mistaken. I said “left” and you said that only makes sense if I mean the Democratic Party. Don’t just disregard what I said to go back to your old argument. The only one making assumptions is you. The left lost their asses last election. Whether they be Green or Liberal Party or Democrat or whatever you want to name yourself. And it’s crap like this OP that I think is the root cause of it. I can’t make it any more easy for you. If it still doesn’t make sense then lets drop it because it’s as simple as I’m willing to go on the subject._ Hmmm. I’m not sure how you would want me to respond. You think we should drop it if that doesn’t make sense but I have no trouble understanding what you are saying and no trouble realizing it is inaccurate. I didn’t say you had to be referring to the Dems; I said that the Left isn’t monolithic. As I subsequently explained, I said so on the assumption that you were being sensible. Instead of devolving into baby talk how about you try to tell us a way your original post could make sense without the assumption of a monolithic Left? Some few leftists have criticized the US, yes. How does that translate into the agenda of the entire Left? ## Or perhaps just dropping it might be best. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2005, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-fuss-over-ward-churchill/290980/72 "2005-02-22T15:20:16Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Your position seems to be academic freedom for some but not for others. Did I ever say Summers **should** lose his job? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2005, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-fuss-over-ward-churchill/290980/73 "2005-02-22T16:23:50Z")
So are the attacks on Summers an attack on academic freedom, or aren’t they, **BrainGlutton**? You can’t have it both ways here. Either Churchill and Summers have to answer for their statements despite some protections afforded to them under the rubric of academic freedom, or they both are protected entirely. Seems consistent to me. I’d go for the first one, myself, since there are no freedoms in America that are absolute and unconditional. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2005, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-fuss-over-ward-churchill/290980/74 "2005-02-22T16:42:46Z")
BrainGlutton, I’m glad to see you’re smart enough to change the discussion from whether the people in the World Trade Center deserved to die, to a discussion of academic freedom. How inviolate is tenure? Can a tenured professor be fired for their views? What if a tenured biology professor tried to stop teaching evolution and only wanted to teach creationism? What if a tenured history professor tried to teach holocaust revisionism? What if a tenured professor claimed that the people in the World Trade Center deserved to die? Well, not all of them…not the janitors and such, but the bankers and stockbrokers. Sure, academic freedom. Freedom of speech. Yeah, but the rest of us have freedom of speech too, not just professors. He has the freedom to claim that the people in the World Trade Center deserved to die, we have the freedom to claim that he’s human pond scum who should be refused any sort of venue for espousing his horrific views. He has the right to say whatever he likes, we do not have the obligation to provide him with a forum to express those views. In your view, is there any circumstance where firing a tenured professor for their statements would be justified? What makes you so afraid of holding people accountable? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2005, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-fuss-over-ward-churchill/290980/75 "2005-02-22T17:29:05Z")
The real reason for the “fuss” over Ward Churchill? The Republican outrage machine is like a microwave oven. You’re at least supposed to put a cup of water in it when you run it. Ward Churchill was all they had at the moment. I take that back. It does forever give them a referent for charges like “Liberals think it was good that the US was attacked on 9/11! They hate America!” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2005, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-fuss-over-ward-churchill/290980/76 "2005-02-22T18:39:07Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > So are the attacks on Summers an attack on academic freedom, or aren’t they, **BrainGlutton**? You can’t have it both ways here. The way I see it, Summers’ position as president of Harvard is fair game, but his status as a tenured faculty member isn’t. As for Churchill, he was merely the chair of a small sub-department, not an administrator in the sense that Summers is; and in any case he has rendered the question moot by resigning his chairmanship. They should leave it at that. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2005, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-fuss-over-ward-churchill/290980/77 "2005-02-22T18:41:48Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > What if a tenured biology professor tried to stop teaching evolution and only wanted to teach creationism? What if a tenured history professor tried to teach holocaust revisionism? Such professors would be exposed to ridicule or worse in the academic community, further career advancement for them probably would be out of the question, but their tenure would not and should not be threatened. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2005, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-fuss-over-ward-churchill/290980/78 "2005-02-22T18:47:16Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > What if a tenured history professor tried to teach holocaust revisionism? What if a tenured professor claimed that the people in the World Trade Center deserved to die? Well, not all of them…not the janitors and such, but the bankers and stockbrokers. He never said they deserved to die, only that (1) they were not entirely “innocent,” and (2) what happened to them was an instance of “chickens coming home to roost,” i.e., the United States (not the individual victims) suffering a backlash for the way it has behaved in the wider world – which is a theory to explain what happened, not to justify it. He’s not saying two wrongs make a right. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2005, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-fuss-over-ward-churchill/290980/79 "2005-02-22T18:51:16Z")
For that matter, when Malcom X said the assassination of JFK was an instance of “chickens coming home to roost,” he was not defending Lee Harvey Oswald. For that matter, he was not even disparaging JFK. But, at the time, a lot of angry, frightened, and narrow-minded Americans could not see the distinction. I hope we’ve learned better since then. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2005, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-fuss-over-ward-churchill/290980/80 "2005-02-22T19:15:41Z")
> [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](#): > > First, I’d challenge the idea that he’s in a “prominent position of trust.” He’s just some chair in a small, nine-person department. He wasn’t writing for the University or his department. Well, I guess it depends on your perspective. I’ll agree the guy ain’t Secretary of State. 🙂 To me, “teacher” is itself a prominent position of trust. “Teacher and supervisor of teachers” (or cirriculum designer, or whatever is involved in being Department Chair besides filling out forms) is an even more prominent position of trust. That said, see below. > [@](#): > > [Actually, I don’t even think he’s writing much in his field–he said it’s part of his book on the chronology of US military interventions (and their effects). That’s related to his field of native american studies, but I wouldn’t expect him to be an expert in the area]. He’s just some moron with dumb ideas writing his opinion for people to take or leave, as they can take or leave the opinion of any academic. The fact that public tax dollars helped pay for the computer on which he typed the crap? It makes the comments more galling and disturbing, sure, but overall it’s not such a big factor, particularly given the long history of academic freedom and the relative independence from the state with which most faculty are viewed (and treated). And also the long history of academics just being plain weird. Here I’ll confess some ignorance, and depending on the resolution I may back away from my statement. To what extent were he and his hosts publicizing his professional affiliation? If the program information of the events where he appeared read something like “author of such and such a book, Chairman of the Anti-American Creeps Committee of Southwestern Colorado and all around asshole” and his university affiliation came up only incidently or not at all, then I guess I tend to agree. If, however, the publicy described him as “Chair of the…” at his university than I do think it’s a big factor. Whacko fringe groups (of all stripes) are often on the lookout for a patina of respectibility; that’s why Creationists are constantly championing people with a “PhD” somewhere, even if it’s in a wholly unrelated field. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-fuss-over-ward-churchill/290980.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-all-the-fuss-over-ward-churchill/290980.md?page=5)