University of Hawaii/Ward Churchill-LOSERS!

[Karazenpo]

Look, those that have come to know me and my posts over the years know that I'm fair and open minded and attempt to use diplomacy to settle disputes rather than name calling and insults. I always try to see the other side. I try.... but this moron, idiot, fuitcake, loser, liar, imbecile, nazi, Ward Churchhill is an insult, embarrassment to all that is American. Please, before anyone hits me with left wing 'EXTREMIST' liberal progressive b.s. (I said left wing 'extremist') about freedom of speech, 1st ammendment rights and all that happy horsesh_t just totally research this a-hole and know exactly what you're talking about. Despite what he has said about 9/11 victims, the 'Ikemans' (Americans murdered, yes, that's how this embecile referred to them as that they deserved to DIE!), he also condoned the Oklahoma bombing, yes, check it out, this moron condoned it! Remember the daycare center? The babies, the children and innocent adults? The University of Hawaii paid him to speak!!! and there were rounds of applause for him! WTF!!! I hope the hell there isn't gong to be some idiots answering this post in defense of not only this lying dirtbag but the University of Hawaii for hosting him but in this country, who knows? This guy gets into an American University to teach our kids through 'Affirmative Action' on the pretence that he's an American Indian of which is complete b.s., I'm as much of an American Indian as he is and believe me, I'm not. Please send letters or e-mails to the University of Hawaii in protest to this or any where else this idiot is hosted to speak.

 

[KenpoTess]

Mod Note

Moving to Study where you most likely will have more replies

~Tess
-MT S. Mod

 

[PeachMonkey]

First, there's nothing left-wing or extremist about insisting about constitutional rights for all.

Second, you've misrepresented Churchill's statements. He stated that American foreign policy led directly to the 9/11 attacks, and that we should not be surprised when "chickens come home to roost". He also referred to the victims (and himself, and all of us) as "little Eichmanns", meaning that none of them directly committed injustices but that all of them, by not intervening in US foreign policy, had direct responsibility for the injustices of that policy and for the attacks themselves.

As for the Oklahoma city bombing, there is exactly one anecdotal account of a student claiming that Churchill said, in class, that the "FBI deserved it". Not that, as you claim, innocent babies deserved to be murdered. This account isn't even substantiated.

One can debate the logic and justice of Churchill's statements, of course, but it's best to actually do so from the actual information rather than from propaganda.

In a world where right-wing attack ideologues can get away with calling anyone who disagrees with them traitors, where popular columnists can call for the targeted murder of journalists, and where our own government suggests that anyone who dissents with them is assisting "the enemy", I refuse to demand the boycott or removal of an academic (or any other) citizen.

 

[ginshun]

First of all, I think that this guy has every right to say whatever he wants, that is what freedom of speech is all about.

The thing is, whether or not a place pays him to speak, or whether he keeps his job at a public funded university has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Sure he can say what he wants, but freedom of speech doesn't protect him from getting fired for what he says.

The University of Wiscosin - Whitewater is supposed to have him speak I think too. There is still debate going on as to whether or not they are going to let him though. I think that the school itself decided that they would let him, but the state legistlature or some state body here has condemed it, and is trying to get him cacelled.

While I believe that he has the right to say what he wants, I don't think that my tax dollars should have to go towards paying for that scumbag to speak to and try to influence the opinions of the college students in my state.

Thats my take on him anyway.

 

[PeachMonkey]

While I believe that he has the right to say what he wants, I don't think that my tax dollars should have to go towards paying for that scumbag to speak to and try to influence the opinions of the college students in my state.

Welcome to the world of academic freedom, which is why tenure was created. If the waves of public sentiment determine what kind of speech, opinions, and research should be protected by universities, then we will lose the advantages of higher education. Anytime people find someone's opinion distasteful, they will be able to have that professor or researcher removed, having a devastating chilling effect.

It continues to amaze me how people propose blatantly dictatorial and fascist measures out of their love for the United States, a country founded on principles diametrically opposed to both doctrines.

 

[Karazenpo]

Sorry, you're opinion, fine but this guy hates America and just like there are right wing extremists, there are left wing extremists too and he's one of them. He goes well beyond any freedom of speech or first ammendment rights. Perhaps you have not heard of any of the fallout this caused amongst family members of the 9/11 victims but who cares about them, right? Let's protect Churchill's constitutional rights while he steps on everyone in his way. He's a great role model for our youth, no wonder why society is so screwed up. I misrepresented Churchill, lol, gimme a break! If this guy's your hero, fine, and if you wish to defend him, well, that's fine too, maybe Churchill and his supporters should relocate to France or somewhere else.

Again sorry for being so passionate on this but c'ome on, that's the problem with tenure, some of these teachers think they can get away with these far, far left wing fundamentalists viewpoints and brainwash some of those who are easily led and you know that can happen. If you want to talk constitiutional rights and first ammendment then let's pay with our tax dollars for a representative of the Aryan Nation to speak, how about the KKK? Where do we draw the line? or do we? This is ridiculous and it's funny, because you know what they say a conservative is? A liberal who was mugged! Perhaps if you lost someone close to you in 9/11 you'd have a different attitude toward this scumbag! By the way, I misrepresented him? Ha! How about Churchill misrepresenting himself as an Amercian Indian to manipulate the system of 'Affirmative Action' and land that tenure? By the way I'm not fully conseravative or fully liberal, i make independant decisions on how I personally feel about specific topics and situations. I don't see the world in either black or white. There are many gray areas. There was a time I was a registered Democrat and a staunch supporter of Jack and Bobby Kennedy. The Democrats that my father and grandfather voted for are not the democrats of today and the Kennedys must be rolling over in their graves right now! I doubt if I'll respond anymore to this. I'll let the public decide in the sense just keep abreast of the media on this issue and we'll see what happens to this scumbag's fate. by the way, nothing personal against anyone of you, just passionate and venting on this issue. Thanks for the response. Take & be safe, Joe

 

[modarnis]

>>He goes well beyond any freedom of speech or first ammendment rights.>>

Not according to the current interpretations of the First Amendment by the Supreme Court. While I may not like what he has to say, robust, free exchange of ideas about issues of the day are exactly what the First Amendment contemplates.

 

[ginshun]

Welcome to the world of academic freedom, which is why tenure was created. If the waves of public sentiment determine what kind of speech, opinions, and research should be protected by universities, then we will lose the advantages of higher education. Anytime people find someone's opinion distasteful, they will be able to have that professor or researcher removed, having a devastating chilling effect.

I'm sorry but that is B.S. And that is why people shouldn't be tenured. Public sentiment should determine what kind of speech, opinions and research are be conducted at publicly funded schools. If this was a guy giving speeches on how all minorities should be rounded up and kicked out of the US or not allowed to vote would you be defending his rights as adimantly? I really don't, know maye you would. I don't find that idea any more ludicris or offensive that what he is saying right now. For gods sake the guy hates this country and is publisizing the idea that we deserved what happened on 9/11! If he were employed and speaking for private orgaizations I wouldn't have near as big of a problem with him, but my (and many others) tax dollars are paying for this guys salary and for him to speak at a state funded school.

A difference of opinion is one thing, but this guy is nuts, the stuff that he says boarders on sedition. And as far as his tenure goes, it seems that the guy has major character flaws and lies which bring into question whether or not he should have ever been tenured.

 

[Karazenpo]

I'm sorry but that is B.S. And that is why people shouldn't be tenured. Public sentiment should determine what kind of speech, opinions and research are be conducted at publicly funded schools. If this was a guy giving speeches on how all minorities should be rounded up and kicked out of the US or not allowed to vote would you be defending his rights as adimantly? I really don't, know maye you would. I don't find that idea any more ludicris or offensive that what he is saying right now. For gods sake the guy hates this country and is publisizing the idea that we deserved what happened on 9/11! If he were employed and speaking for private orgaizations I wouldn't have near as big of a problem with him, but my (and many others) tax dollars are paying for this guys salary and for him to speak at a state funded school.

A difference of opinion is one thing, but this guy is nuts, the stuff that he says boarders on sedition. And as far as his tenure goes, it seems that the guy has major character flaws and lies which bring into question whether or not he should have ever been tenured.

I wasn't going to post again but I can't help myself, lol. Ginshun, excellent post, I couldn't have said it better!

 

[ginshun]

To quote Mr. Churchill:

“I want the state gone: transform the situation to U.S. out of North America. U.S. off the planet. Out of existence altogether.”


I don't know about anyone else, but this sure as hell isn't the message I want government funded university professors teaching the youth of America.

 

[modarnis]

>>Public sentiment should determine what kind of speech, opinions and research are be conducted at publicly funded schools. If this was a guy giving speeches on how all minorities should be rounded up and kicked out of the US or not allowed to vote would you be defending his rights as adimantly? I really don't, know maye you would. I don't find that idea any more ludicris or offensive that what he is saying right now. >>

That is not how our founding father's viewed freedom of speech. While I disagree with this guys views, I understand how dissenting viewpoints stimulate robust and fruitful discussion.

For some basic information on freee speech, I would suggest these US Supreme Court cases as a primer

Schenk v US 249 US 47

Abrams v. US 250 US 616 (of particular interest is the reasoning in Justice Holmes dissent) here is one germane quote:

>>> Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.>>>

Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568


Findlaw.com has a great overview of the First Amendment and relevant jurisprudence. It is difficult to have a productive discussion on free speech without a fundemental understanding of the decades of handwringing done by the Supreme Court to balance a variety of interests. I would suggest spending some time with the evolution of the "Clear and Present Danger Test" as it relates to free speech

 

[rmcrobertson]

As a grad of the University of Colorado at Boulder, I agree--I should very much like to see some quotes and documentation.

As a professor, sorry. This is EXACTLY why we should have tenure--to protect not only this idjit, but the endless legions of rightist idjits I've heard from over the last thirty years.

Gosh, call me a crazy leftist. I have the old-fashioned, tradition American notion that there should be SOME place in our society where people can go and lean and study without having to worry quite so much about a) the market, b) public yahooism from the likes of Sean Hannity and Michael Savage.

For one thing, then maybe students have a chance of learning that evidence, actual evidence is good--and that flaps blown up by multi-millionarie talk show hosts who profit by fanning hate, stupidity, ignorance and by promoting the interests of the wealthy are probably not getting blown up to help ANYBODY who's posted on this thread.

Churchill's probably an idiot--wouldn't be the first, nor the last to be a professor. But so is the guy I teach with--math professor--who regularly tells his students, mostly women, that they should be home cooking and cleaning because that's their place.

 

[Karazenpo]

As a grad of the University of Colorado at Boulder, I agree--I should very much like to see some quotes and documentation.

As a professor, sorry. This is EXACTLY why we should have tenure--to protect not only this idjit, but the endless legions of rightist idjits I've heard from over the last thirty years.

Gosh, call me a crazy leftist. I have the old-fashioned, tradition American notion that there should be SOME place in our society where people can go and lean and study without having to worry quite so much about a) the market, b) public yahooism from the likes of Sean Hannity and Michael Savage.

For one thing, then maybe students have a chance of learning that evidence, actual evidence is good--and that flaps blown up by multi-millionarie talk show hosts who profit by fanning hate, stupidity, ignorance and by promoting the interests of the wealthy are probably not getting blown up to help ANYBODY who's posted on this thread.

Churchill's probably an idiot--wouldn't be the first, nor the last to be a professor. But so is the guy I teach with--math professor--who regularly tells his students, mostly women, that they should be home cooking and cleaning because that's their place.

Robert, you and I may not agree all the time but I consider you a 'good guy' college professor with tenure-a professional, and that math professor, although out of line, I don't think is dangerous from what you said (although I'm sure he's pissing off a lot of women,lol) but this guy Churchill is downright scary, know what I mean? Man, he shouldn't be put in a position of trust and influence with the younger generation. "Joe"

 

[ginshun]

>>Public sentiment should determine what kind of speech, opinions and research are be conducted at publicly funded schools. If this was a guy giving speeches on how all minorities should be rounded up and kicked out of the US or not allowed to vote would you be defending his rights as adimantly? I really don't, know maye you would. I don't find that idea any more ludicris or offensive that what he is saying right now. >>

That is not how our founding father's viewed freedom of speech. While I disagree with this guys views, I understand how dissenting viewpoints stimulate robust and fruitful discussion.

For some basic information on freee speech, I would suggest these US Supreme Court cases as a primer

Schenk v US 249 US 47

Abrams v. US 250 US 616 (of particular interest is the reasoning in Justice Holmes dissent) here is one germane quote:

>>> Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.>>>

Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568


Findlaw.com has a great overview of the First Amendment and relevant jurisprudence. It is difficult to have a productive discussion on free speech without a fundemental understanding of the decades of handwringing done by the Supreme Court to balance a variety of interests. I would suggest spending some time with the evolution of the "Clear and Present Danger Test" as it relates to free speech

You can quote all the supreme court cases you want, I agree with them. I have always maintianed that this guy should be able to say whatever he wants.

The thing is, I don't think that the issues we are talking about have anything to do with free speech. To my knowlege, nobody here or anywhere else has ever said that he doesn't have the right to say the things that he is saying.

What people are disputing is whether or not public money should go to him to express his opinions to our nations youth. In my eyes, public opinion of the guy and his ideas is a perfect measure of whether or not public money should be given to him. It has nothing to do with his free speech.

Should he be able to give the speeches he is giving and express his opinions? Absolutely, that is free speech, he can say anything he wants.

Should we, as the public have to pay him to give these speeches and teach this stuff? Hell no.

 

[Karazenpo]

"Should we, as the public have to pay him to give these speeches and teach this
stuff? Hell no."

Exactly, like I stated before, this goes beyond the bounds of freedom of speech, perhaps I should have clarified myself better, I thought I did, he should not have a captive audience at the expense of the taxpayers, that is not a first ammendment right!

 

[PeachMonkey]

Man, he shouldn't be put in a position of trust and influence with the younger generation. "Joe"

First off, the last time I checked, college students are supposed to be young adults forming their own opinions and ideas. How can they do that if we select and forcefeed only certain viewpoints?

Second, what if a majority of Americans decided that they didn't think, say, evolutionary scientists should be put in a position of trust or influence, as you say? Or female professors? Or black professors? Or conservative professors? Should we then be able to slience them based on their views?

 

[PeachMonkey]

Exactly, like I stated before, this goes beyond the bounds of freedom of speech, perhaps I should have clarified myself better, I thought I did, he should not have a captive audience at the expense of the taxpayers, that is not a first ammendment right!

How does he have a captive audience? Is anyone being forced to take his courses, or to enroll at CU-Boulder?

Moreover, are you certain that his salary is paid from taxpayer funds rather than tuition, or research grants, or endowments? In those cases, your argument has even fewer legs to stand on.

In the end, this sort of reactionary behavior serves only to silence education and the free exchange of ideas.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Aren't some of you the same guys who were shocked and horrified that a group of protesters were trying to run Army recruiters off campus where, you felt, that had a perfect right to be?

If you want to be bothered by this guy, do some research. Find out what he actually said; find out what his publications are, find out what his teaching and admin service record is. Then, you can yack about whether or not he shoulda been tenured. It's quite possible that he's another tub-thumping phony--but find out, first.

The attacks are specifically directed against his ideas, and the attackers ahve been specifically saying that they DO NOT WANT his views represented at a public university. Beyond the fact that, mirabile dictu, this is PRECISELY the line I heard on Hannity the other night--you've just declared that you want his ideas suppressed as much as possible.

It's the same argument that gets advanced to run them evil-lutionists and them gays out...

 

[ginshun]

Second, what if a majority of Americans decided that they didn't think, say, evolutionary scientists should be put in a position of trust or influence, as you say? Or female professors? Or black professors? Or conservative professors? Should we then be able to slience them based on their views?

First off, we are not talking about an entire group of people or ideas here, we are talking about one professor, one who happens to think, by his own admission, that the USA should be wiped off the planet. But ya, if the majority of people decided that evolution was BS, then I would accept that it not be taught at government funded schools. Let them teach anything they want in private schools. What this comes down to is that personally, I think that the public should have some say in what is being taught at a publicly funded learning center. Apparently you are of the opinion that a professor can say anything he wants, without any regard for what the general public has to say.


How does he have a captive audience? Is anyone being forced to take his courses, or to enroll at CU-Boulder?

Nobody is forced to do anything. I'd be willing to bet that there are some people at that that university, for which his is a required class.And anybody who has his class better pay attention if they want a good grade.

Moreover, are you certain that his salary is paid from taxpayer funds rather than tuition, or research grants, or endowments? In those cases, your argument has even fewer legs to stand on.

I will concede that taxes don't pay his entire salary, but if he is a teacher at a state college, then a portion of his salary can sure be considered to come from the money that that school gets from the government. I really don't think that it is divided up so that tuition pays for the professors salaries, and the money that the school gets from the government pays for something else.

In the end, this sort of reactionary behavior serves only to silence education and the free exchange of ideas.

Again, nobody is saying that this guy is can't express his ideas all he wants. He can shout them from the highest mountain throught the worlds biggest megaphone for all I care. I just think that the people should have some say as to what is being taught in a state funded university.

Plus I think he is a total douchebag, and wouldn't consider him telling students that we deserved 9/11 to be "education" but that doesn't really help the relavence of my point at all, so I won't mention it.

Whoops

 

[PeachMonkey]

So you're advocating:

-- the transformation of higher education from a process of research, study, debate, dialectic, and actual, gosh, education into one of publically-approved opinions being repeated, by rote

-- the censuring, silencing, and firing of an academic based entirely on his written points of view

I thought we grew past this kind of McCarthy-esque crap some time ago.

Moreover, you clearly don't understand public university finance. Different professors are funded in different ways depending on their courses of study, their expertise, prestige, experience, and the amount of money they bring into the institution. Neither of us know how Churchill is funded (let alone what he's really teaching -- you know only about his public statements), so to suppose that your "taxpayer dollars are in use" is simply unsupportable.