Skewed perspective
It is not difficult to see why someone who makes his living as a writer, such as Bill Johnson, might be overly sensitive to another writer’s fate, in this case Ward Churchill’s, and tend to ascribe it to what he wrote (“Freedom of speech took a hit along with Churchill,” July 27).
But Johnson’s perspective is somewhat skewed on this one.
It may have been the hyperbole and the shock value in Churchill’s writing that gave the regents the impetus to pursue firing him, but it was the fraud that gave them the leverage.
Churchill got stopped for careless driving, but on closer examination they found he was driving a stolen car, so to speak.
Without the plagiarism and fraudulent claims, Churchill could still be beguiling students with his slanted views, his hyperbole and his shock values.
Furthermore, this is not a “hit” on free speech but a victory for free speech. It will go a long way to help assure that speech that’s free is also speech that’s truthful, at least in academia.
It’s been too long in coming.
Martin Barlau, Loveland
Right on Martin. And the quality of Churchill's writing stinks. Tenured professors should be held to a higher standard. Maybe Churchill can write for the RMN or the Post instead?
Posted by Andanotherthing on August 3, 2007 11:13 AMI'm sure Ward has a nice job waiting for him as a democratic strategist. His lack of integrity will really help when writing the dimmocrabs talking points.
Posted by Cho on August 3, 2007 11:27 AMGlass houses, throwing rocks, etc:
...His lack of integrity...
Bush and GOP have made Clinton at his worst look like the epitome of integrity. But Churchill would also need to be incompetent, immoral, and delusional to fit in with the current republican party.
Posted by on August 3, 2007 09:01 PMIt's too bad that Churchill had the stupidity or audacity to refer to the victims of 9/11 as "Little Eichmanns" - his essay, "Some People Push Back" On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, which can be read at http://www.darknightpress.org/index.php?i=print&article=9, actually makes some excellent points about US 'interventions' of choice - which the Iraq war clearly is. That said, while Churchill was investigated because of the public embarassment to CU caused by the essay (despite the fact that CU clearly chose to ignore any red flags about his plagiarizing, lying about background, etc) - the investigation did prove a basis for those allegations - and THAT is why he got fired.
Perhaps it is a concern for members of the press that he lost his job for - while Rush didn't lose his for hypocrisy - but then maybe the self-righteous with skeletons in their closet will think twice before engaging in such outrageous hyperbole (or even being incredibly hypocritical, as Limbaugh was). I am not sure that is such a bad thing.
By the way - the essay was pubished in 9/2001 - shortly after the 9/11 attacks, but didn't hit the fan as an issue until 3 years later - you don't suppose it was another misdirection by the administration and/or its supporters, do you?
Posted by Mary on August 4, 2007 04:31 AMThe reason for terminating Ward Churchill may be valid. However, to say that he was "beguiling" the students is nothing more than a the same "our poor children" idiocy that we so often hear from the "witless." It these university students are so easily influenced by what a professor has to say, maybe they don't belong at that institution. Whatever happened to the requirement for intellectual curiosity and verification of what one is told, even by a college professor? Isn't it about time that these kids engage their minds and beginning learning instead of "waiting to be taught" and regurgitating whatever they read or are told? Isn't it about time that they grow up and come to the realization that the entire responsibility for becoming "educated" is theirs, not the teacher's or professor's? Open up and engage your minds boys and girls and get off mommy's teats!
Posted by Robert I. Laitres on August 4, 2007 08:34 AMCho...
All you have to do is watch the Fox Noise Channel to see the talking points for the ReTHUGliCONS.
The difference Mary between Limbaugh and Churchill is that you can change a channel and free yourself of Limbaugh. I have. You will not have your entrance to graduation school dependent on the grade that Limbaugh gives you.
Posted by Yaakov Watkins on August 4, 2007 11:34 PMI'm not sure what all the fuss is about. If Ward Churchill is indeed the academic wunderkind of the American left, he should have absolutely no problem finding another job, right? Certainly there is an accredited institution of higher learning that will snatch him up in a heartbeat?
In fact, I'm rather interested to see if Churchill will ever teach at a major university again. His credentials as an academic are, based on the facts, highly tarnished if not ruined. He brings a maelstrom of controversy with him wherever he goes. His inflammatory words still rile a very large section of the populace which may hinder any institution's ability to solicit money or attract students. In short, he may have a great rapport with his students, but what institution will hire him with all the other baggage?
To use a sports analogy, just like a free agent in baseball, he will finally realize his value on the open market... he's a career minor leaguer with occasional power (his ability to create big news), a low batting average (reflected in his academic accuracy) and he's a defense liability(for his public relations flubbs and errors that have cost the team dearly), whose off the field issues lower his value, since a loyal but narrow fan base is more than offset by the ire he incites in a much wider audience (possibly resulting in declining admissions). He's really a career minor leaguer whose only real value would be on a small market team in a market most suited to his game and tolerant of his temperment. That is if anybody wants to take on that kind of a team distraction.
So all this jibber-jabber about academic fairness and first amendment rights is moot. His chances of appeal are slim to non-existent. CU is in his past. He is now a free agent and can realize his true value and potential as a professor at an institutiuon that will value his particular skill set. The problem is, people tolerate Barry Bonds because despite the controversy, they guy is a bonafide major league hall of famer. Can Ward Churchill boast the same skill set in the academic world? I doubt it... not even close.
Welcome to the minor leagues Mr. Churchill. The bus leaves at seven sharp and don't miss it cause you probably won't get another opportunity to play ball at any level if you do. Then you'll be stuck signing autographs on a sleezy circuit with other former over-rated under-skilled fallen champions of the left and wondering how you sank so low.
Posted by FreeToChoose on August 5, 2007 11:29 AM“It these university students are so easily influenced by what a professor has to say, maybe they don't belong at that institution.” –wow, that’s a new one! Than by the same logic why would anyone waste their time to go there to begin with? If you can’t believe what professors teach than what good is it to attend any college? And if it’s about critical thinking, than why isn’t a head dragon from the KKK a full time member of the academia to balance out the hatred spewed from the left?
Posted by Uno on August 5, 2007 12:53 PMIt is quite possible to use a position of authority to influence young people. Many are free from their parents' homes for the first time and are drifting in that freedom. Any person with honed skills can intimidate a majority of those students who fear for grades and really don't know what they, the students, are capable of doing. Average age is 18 so many of them have just begun to develop their abilities and attitudes. Too many have never learned to analyze statements or situations so they fall back on the "safe" course of giving the professor back a mirror image of what is taught in class without really thinking about it.
Parents often let their kids grow up without the ability to analyze because the public schools don't want the kids to think for themselves in "subject areas." Many parents either don't know or don't care that their kids lack it are guilty of neglect in my opinion.
I have an 8 year old grand daughter. I've written elswhere that after school we listen to a talk show host and I get her the show transcripts. We then go back to the articles and people this host references and talk about whether it was accurate, fair or slanted. She loves this host and I am teaching her that we must examine every statement of fact to determine if it is really true. When she turns 13 or 14 she will probably rebel against my opinions but I feel confident she will base hers on thinking instead of feeling. That is what I think is the responsibility of all parents. The Ward Churchills of this world would cease to have any influence if most of their students had this skill.
Momma Y;
A normal 8 year old should be out playing not listening to Babbling from a TV set. And then analyzing the content? ANd an after school talk show, who would that be Oprah or Jerry? I would hate to have to sit next to that one in Jr High.