I don’t understand why that is so unusual. Associate professor is generally a tenured rank, isn’t it? Assistant is untenured.
…says the guy who voted for the 2004 Presidential candidate who started a war on false pretenses.
Here are the relevant bits from today’s article :
It looks like there is a tenured and non-tenured associate professor postion. He did become a full professor in 1997. There are some eye opening quotes about how the process happened. Apparently American Indian professors are in high demand for diversity goals.
It never ceases to amaze me how some people seem to think that liberals are posessed of incredible witchy powers. They seem to think that sweet, innocent college students will be instantly hypnotized and simultaneously brainwashed by the mere exposure to liberal views. Behold the awesome power of liberalism!
Can it be that the “other side” secretly fears that their position is so weak that if their children are exposed to opposing ideas, they’ll immediately defect? Can it be that we assume students are so incredibly stupid that they latch on to the politics and viewpoints of their teachers without question simply because they heard it for a couple of hours a week?
No, he doesn’t.
*Question: What are some of the solutions? Extreme events, like 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, have mobilized people out of such complacency, albeit temporarily.
Ward’s Reply: I don’t have a ready answer for that. One of the things I’ve suggested is that it may be that more 9/11s are necessary.*
Ward doesn’t say he wants to see more major terrorist attacks. He suggests that more major terrorist attacks may be necessary to shake Americans out of complacency.
I must admit I feel absolutely no need to defend this part of the interview. I think that the balkanization of the USA is a very bad idea. But just because we disagree with him doesn’t mean there is something wrong with his brain or that he should be ignored.
Why does BG, or his words actually since this is GD and not the Ultimate Fighting Championship, need to be defended? They haven’t been attacked. Can you counter his ( IMO ) perfectly reasonable point?
And as for the politics, it’s hardly unusual to find a discrepency between the politic thing to say and the truthful thing to say. These words aren’t something that would help the Democratic Party so they won’t rush out to embrace Mr Ward. That doesn’t make the words untrue.
As for the point in attacking Ward ( rather than his words ), it’s simple. He dared to speak out and is being made an example. So others will be afraid to do the same. The purpose is to stifle “unAmerican” discourse.
Tsk, tsk. You lefties are constantly complaining that the Republicans will say anything to get elected, and here you are, advising the Democrats to hold back with their true feelings. No, I think the Democrats should, through their new party chair, should make their position known:
“My fellow Americans, you had it coming! YEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAARHHHH!!!”
Come on. It’s the intellectually honest thing to do.
I don’t see people shutting up about it here.
Well it seems it’s the left’s agenda to blame the US for 9/11. No wonder you guys are losing your asses in elections.
I’m pretty left, but this guy is a jerk.
Let me answer your questions:
“but since when is it pushing the boundaries of academic freedom simply to say that sometimes the United States is in the wrong?”
It isn’t, exactly, but he said quite more than that.
“Why should these writings keep Churchill out of a panel discussion on ‘The Limits of Dissent’, of all things?”
He shouldn’t be excluded. But if it’s a private event and he pissed off whoever coordinated it…
“Really, what is objectionable about any of Churchill’s writings quoted here by Cockburn? …The WTC was a ‘legitimate target’ by standards proclaimed by the U.S. government itself, and was made so by actions of the U.S. government itself.”
This is easily interpreted as an implicit tu quoque. That’s debatable.
What is not debatable is this: it is not right to harm an innocent. What you and Churchill are saying are irrelevant to that subject. This is really important point, because most people are still stuck on this subject, and unless it is acknowledged, it is assumed you have dismissed it. This is the feeling I get from Brutus.
I find it interesting that people of Churchill’s ilk keep missing the main point: 9/11 wasNOT about the opressed of the Middle East rising up to attack the evil USA. Look at the highjackers-were they Palestinians, outraged at their mistreatment by Israel? Were they Algerians, protesting their mistreatment by France?No…they were all upper class members of elites, from countries (SA, Egypt) who had no reason to attack the US, except for their own insane ideology (Wahabite Islam).
Churchill was right about one thing though-in our arrogance, we forgot that the world is full of evil people, and we did not take Osama and Co. seriously.
Hopefully, we know enough (now) about these fundamentalist muslim crazies, so that we can thwart any new attacks.
Although our practice of granting student visas to young men from SA , strikes me as incredibly foolish. 
OK, so it appears that hroomba and 2sense agree with BrainGlutton that “the American global financial empire is arguably the main impetus behind the American global military hegemony – which is still not equivalent to Hitler’s rule, but it comes a hell of a lot closer. It is, in many respects, a fundamentally predatory system, and nobody deeply involved in making it work can really be classed as entirely innocent.”
apos was a little less unclear. He seems to think that we are indeed better than the Nazi’s but because we bombed cities to defeat them we haven’t done a good enough job of distinguishing ourselves from them.
Anyone else wanna take a crack? Alternatively, anyone who lives in the United States and benefits from the “fundamentally predatory system” which enables the “American global military hegemony” which in turn is close to Naziism, want to explain what specific steps they’re taking to reduce their guilt? BrainGlutton, care to address that one?
“Specific steps”? Not much . . . I participate in left-wing political organizations (very occasionally as they have little organized presence where I live; I once tried to organize a local chapter of the New Party, but the party is now defunct), vote (always for the Democrat – what’s the point of wasting your vote on a third party under our present election laws?), and contribute what I can to support left-wing viewpoints on this board. Go thou and do likewise.
At this point, I think it’s appropriate to add a few more paragraphs from Alexander Cockburn’s article (excerpted in the OP):
I think you are confusing the US Democrat party with someone like me who likely you would consider well to the left. 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. John Kerry certainly wasn’t blaming the US for 9/11 in the last presidential election. Since the US doesn’t have a parliamentary system, those who truly are well to the left are pretty muched iced out of the political process.
(BTW, it can also be said those truly who are well to the right are also iced out of the political process. The Libertarian party position is that the US shouldn’t be dorking around in the politics of the Middle East. Libertarians would never support something like US aid to Israel.)
Nitpick: It’s not the presidential, separation-of-powers system that freezes out third parties, it’s the single-member-district, winner-take-all system for electing legislatures. The UK has a parliamentary system, but third parties are frozen out just the same. See this thread – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=302002 – posts 9, 10, and 12.
If you would read more closely you would note that I offered no advice. I didn’t say what the Dems should do. I merely offered my view of what they would do.
Speech on annonymous and obscure internet forums is much less dangerous to a person’s career and personal life than a public figure speaking out. Applying one of Ward’s points in the interview, this is because it is much less dangerous to the status quo.
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.
Bin Laden has said why he is attacking America. Basically he wants us out of the Middle East. Presumably so he, and his ilk, can take over. But the actions of the US in the Muslim world do garner him support as an outspoken enemy of America.
It appears that you have no intention of debating the point and will content yourself with attempts to change the subject. Why is that? Afraid to explore your own complicity?
I don’t need you to feel guilty. I’ve been feeling that way since I read the interview with Ward. He’s right, simply protesting in an innocuous manner isn’t doing anything except making us feel better about ourselves. His words will make leftists uncomfortable. No doubt this makes him unpalatable to many of us.
But enough of your red herring. Care to actually debate the main issue?
Hear, hear! And lest we forget, the main issue is not whether Churchill is right or wrong, but whether his published statements justify the right-wing campaign to marginalize him and get him fired. (I’ll admit that Churchill might be a dishonest person in some respects – e.g., falsely claiming Indian blood for career advancement, assuming that’s the true story – but that’s not what this attack campaign is about.)
Yeah, I’d imagine they are.
However, I know of several examples where professor’s tenure status was advanced or accelarated because of competing offers, or even other hiring goals within the dept. or college. It can look odd on paper, but doesn’t necessarily mean that one’s qualifications wouldn’t have gotten them through the usual tenure process.
Of course, this is an academic (ha!) point–I don’t know what Churchill’s quality was, but a few things I’ve read make me a little skeptical myself.
As much as I disagree with Churchill’s views, I find it disturbing that some are calling for him to be prosecuted for treason. One would hope that the civil libertarian tradition of the US is not being replaced with one of intolerance.
Churchill has every right to voice his opinion and those opposed to his views have every right to state their opinion that no sane person would hire such a loon. So long as no law is violated, no outcome resulting from either influence is wrong, per se. Churchill has the right to his opinion, he does not have the right to demand that a University give him a forum. When tax dollars are in play, this is even more the case, IMO.
After reading all this I’m not sure anyone except Churchill has analysed the real question. “Why did the 9/11 terrorists attack the world trade center?.”
IMHO ,yeah I know its the wrong forum, they struck against what they hated most about this country. Its financial base, where they think our real power is, and doing so they knocked off many who have to do with running the base. Churchill didn’t even put much blame on those who operate the financial system. He only called them “little Eichmans”.
If you were them,those who feel opressed by America, where would you strike?
But he does have tenure, which in theory exists for the sake of protecting “academic freedom” – i.e., professors are supposed to be free to say and write whatever they want, however controversial or shocking, without fear of getting fired for it. That applies in public as well as private universities.