Who’s calling for a treason prosecution? All the sources I’ve found say Churchill’s critics are merely trying to get him fired.
The Hamptons, or Westchester County . . . one of the places where America’s owners live! 
What’s the main issue again? I read it as “why are people upset that a lying anti-American piece of garbage has a prominent position of trust in a government-financed institution and what might reasonably be imputed to those who would defend him?”
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.
:rolleyes: No, manhattan. The issue is whether this situation justifies chucking out the principle of academic freedom. Debate that, if you can.
Nobody supposes academic freedom to be this hanky you can wave that can make all of your critics go away. Nor does anybody suppose that the consequences for your speech won’t include the loss of your job.
Lawrence Summers is finding that out at Harvard, for remarks that should be considered far less inflammatory. Why should Churchill be treated any differently?
Yes, they do. That’s precisely what academic freedom means.
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. And although he bowed to pressure and ate a lot of crow in public, he’s probably going to keep his job. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=513293
So you feel its OK to target american homes rather than the actual institution?
Those twin towers in Americas “financial center” were an American icon. They were a show of Americas pride and might.
Of course it’s not OK, either way. Chill. I was answering (jocularly) a purely hypothetical question: What target should a terrorist with a grudge against America find most inviting?
Well, here’s one, although this is to be expected from certain people. (I mean, if they were calling for Michael Moore’s head–literally–this hardly comes as a surprise.)
But I would also like to amend my previous statement. After some deliberation, I’ve reached the following conclusions:
- Ward Churchill is a shitstirrer.
- He is at least partly right.
This obviously doesn’t change my position on academic freedom and free speech but, seeing as how the legitimacy of his opinion is being tied–albeit unjustifiably–to the broader issue of academic freedom, I thought I’d register my dissent (or concurrence, as the case may be).
And I stand by my earlier comparison of the Churchill brouhaha to the Faurisson affair.
Conservatives should take note: do we really want to stoop to the level of the French? 
Genuine question, because I’m not sure I’ve followed everything. Is that how you see it? I don’t think it’s as self-evident as you do (if so).
It’s perfectly clear why people are upset over what he said . It’s less self-evident to me why the fact that he’s a tenured professor at CU makes what he said worse. I mean, of course I get why many people feel that way–that’s what my first post was about. But I don’t think his profession should play into it as much as it does.
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. [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.
Is that absolute? Where is the line? If Churchill became an advocate of killing all black people, if he felt there was moral justification for this belief, if he espoused this evil in his classes–would tenure shield him? Again, where is the line?
Perhaps it would protect him. I think the University is within its rights to say that they support Churchill. The University’s leadership is empowered to do so. And the public is entitled to express its outrage over this support. It’s all free speech. And if the University decided to pursue legally permissible means of limiting Churchill’s ability to advance his nonsense as a representative of the school, that is the leadership’s right as well. “Academic freedom,” like all freedoms, is not absolute.
Why the fuss?
I think it comes from a few sources:
-
The belief by conservatives that his views are representative or symptomatic of the politics of academia and/or liberals in general.
-
The belief that he is being lauded and/or mollycoddled for his views by the media and liberals at large, while those who have diametrically opposing views on the other end of the aisle would be pilloried.
-
The idea, however erroneous, that the lauding/mollycoddling mentioned above means that liberals think that American citizens are “fair game” - the ultimate proof of accusations on the part of some conservatives that the far Left “hates America.”
Or offered Cabinet posts. Really, how can the right-wingers claim martyrdom or persecution, when they’re the ones running the country at the moment?
Oh I don’t know. Maybe because 3000 innocent Americans were murdered while piece of shits make excuses for the murderers.
:dubious: And who was running the country when that happened? And who has harvested and used all the political capital from it? Hint: Not liberals.
I never knew I was part of the global financial hegemony, or whatever poppycock consipiracy the left would like to believe exists. I work in a financial institution and every person who went to work that day deserves to be mourned. I can’t say anymore about Brain Glutton’s responses in this thread that wouldn’t have to go to the pit so I will stop here. I will say that I can see why you have decided to change the debate back to academic freedom, because I don’t think you want to defend your previous posts.
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.
ps. Hey **Bricker, Manny, Brutus, duffer ** et al. I am not really on the right, but for this board I would henceforth like to be on your guy’s side. My side is looking neither sane nor defensible at this point. So what do you say, am I in the club?
What was the price of tea in China at that time? :rolleyes:
Well, this may be small comfort, but generally, they are “forced” to defend their viewpoints. Just not to the general public. Publishing of any note requires peer review. Any major idea or theory should be well-defended in the same piece of writing in which it appears. Otherwise it will be rejected for publication–at least from any journal (or publisher) that would matter in one’s professional milieu. That doesn’t mean that nothing controversial get published; of course it does. And others respond to it. I’ve read some pretty saucy back-and-forths in some otherwise staid journals when one scholar thinks another scholar’s published research is wrong or their arguments are poor.
It also goes without saying that in the realm of opinions, you can do a solid job defending why you feel a certain way, and still have people believe you are dead wrong. Alas, there is no arbiter of who is absolutely right. So we are left with requiring that one must explain why one has drawn the conclusions that one has.
There are certainly flaws in the peer review system, and of course an academic can also say/write things that will never be peer reviewed. The question then becomes what do you think constitutes material that must be defended? And to whom? Because I’m guessing that this is what dissatisfies you. Not to put words in your mouth, but I’d expect your follow-up comment would be “If there’s a system in place, how did this crappy idea get past it?”
Someone more familiar with the original piece of Churchill writing might be able to shed light on what sort of justification Churchill had to make to the scholarly community–if any.
The peer-review process applies only to publication in scholarly journals in the academic’s field. Of course, academics are also free to publish their work in other venues, without peer review, and still enjoy the immunity of academic freedom, i.e., not getting fired for writing that; it doesn’t carry the same professional prestige as getting published in a peer-reviewed journal, but there might be real money in it. I don’t know where Churchill’s 2001 essay was published, but the book in question, which includes that essay, was published by something called AK Press – http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1902593790/qid=1108956701/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-1323676-6018442?v=glance&s=books&n=507846.
There is also peer review in academic book publishing. Certainly it’s the case in edited volumes. Once tenured, you stay tenured, but there are performance reviews. Lack of quality scholarly output may effect one’s merit raises–certainly one’s standing among peers at the home institution and elsewhere.
I acknowledged that not everything an academic utters or writes is peer reviewed. But to change that implies a level of scrutiny that seems extreme to me, and I assumed fruitbat wasn’t calling for something like that. Just guessing.
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?