University of Hawaii/Ward Churchill-LOSERS!

[Karazenpo]

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


ginshun answered for me, that would have been my exact response. Further, you really have to be kidd'n me. Do you really think this guy is playing with a full feed bag? Man, no wonder the Reverand Jim Jones got so many people to drink the kool aid! Don't tell me, I'm out of line again. Jim Jones had the right to do what he did and I'm infringing on his constitutional rights of being free to practice any religion he wants even though instead of the communal wafer you get the cyanide cocktail. I'm sorry, how stupid and disrespectful of me of this man's rights? Want some Kool Aid?, lol. Nobody seems to want to touch the American Indian scam to get his tenure, I notice.

 

[OUMoose]

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.

I hold that opinion as well. Why? Because society as a whole would stagnate if it weren't for people not afraid to shake up "the general public". I can think of a few people through history who had a similar drive... Columbus... Gallileo... Rosa Parks... MLK Jr...

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.

Not saying this to be snide, but did you go to college? I did, and I can guarantee that there were some teachers there that I had to take that I thought were nuttier than fruit cake. I memorized what they wanted me to mentally regurgitate on a piece of paper, and tossed the rest. Why? Because I was able to reason the difference and form my own opinions. Many times, outside of class, these same teachers had some very thought provoking opinions that lead to some quite memorable debates. That's what college is about, in my opinion. The pencil and paper crap is just there to justify the cost. YMMV.

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.

I agree. So what happens when those "red" states have a professor teaching "blue" ideas? cut em?

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.

They do. If they don't like it, don't go there. There's nothing saying you can't transfer schools once you're in (unless you have a scholarship or something, but I digress).

 

[OUMoose]

Nobody seems to want to touch the American Indian scam to get his tenure, I notice.

Because the conversation is on his ideals vs. school funding for his speeches, not his lineage.

 

[Karazenpo]

Because the conversation is on his ideals vs. school funding for his speeches, not his lineage.

Yes, it is also about his lineage and says a lot about his character for that's exactly how he got his tenured position so he he could have a forum to speak too. They are looking into that now for a way to terminate his tenure for it was under the false pretence he was an American Indian and got his position through 'Affirmative Action'. You also have PeachMonkey stating we're misrepresenting Churchill's positions, well, pardon me, if anyone is misrepresenting himself it's this lunatic!

 

[Karazenpo]

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?

First PeachMonkey you stated: First off, the last time I checked, college students are supposed to be young adults forming their own opinions and ideas. Okay, well tell me this. How old were those people who drank the cyanide cocktail, you know, the Kool Aid from the good Reverand Jim Jones?
How old were they?

PeachMonkey: Or female professors? Or black professors? Or conservative professors? Should we then be able to slience them based on their views?[/QUOTE]

Peachmonkey, get with it. The man is a lunatic by any normal person's standards. I don't care if the professor is the color purple with pink poka dots, if he or she's a lunatic then ya, get them the hell out of there. Maybe you want to give your tax dollars to a nut but many, many more of us would rather not! Ya know, some of you take the liberties this country gives us to extremes without any forethought of the consequences. Remember, rights and freedom isn't a guarrantee to everyone, you break the law you lose them. i'm not saying any criminal laws are being broken but c'ome on, where's your common sense, your character, your standards of conduct. We still have those responsibilities as Americans. Believe me, getting this creep out of there is not going to jeopardize the tenure of good professors out there, you know it and I know it. I think the problem is certain Americans have this thing that government officials stay up nights plotting how to take some of our liberties away from us and this is another one of those plots from the evil conservative right wing fascist pigs. What paranoia! Incredible and you know what, your fascist pig comment is getting pretty old, know what mean? I think the 60's, lol.

 

[rmcrobertson]

"Hide witch, hide
The good folk come to burn thee
Their keen enjoyment hid behind
The Gothic mask of duty."

Just so we know what we're really talking about.

1. Does anybody have the full text of what this guy said, or a collection of reliable witnesses, or access to a videotape? I will bet that NOBODY attacking this guy has actually read his own words, or checked on exactly what he said in what context. Boy, there's standards for scholarship that we should be teaching students.

2. Lovely. If a majority decides evil-lution is wrong, folks like me must stop teaching it. This is because scientific facts are now subject to a vote.

3. 'Scuse me--ain't you the guys who keep complaining that leftists and liberals have excluded conservatives from the educational system for their views? So now, you want to exclude this guy for his views. Fine; you've demonstrated that you're not arguing fairness or objectivity, you're arguing bullying and power.

4. It's about, "his lineage and his character." Huh. really. Funnily enough, this is EXACTLY, word for word, what I heard Hannity say. Way to a) think for yourself, b) avoid political correctness.

5. Bill Mahre and the Dixie Chicks had their lives changed for the hoorawing over their ideas on very much the same issue. But hey--no bullying witch hunt here.

6. I'd rather my tax dollars go to an academic nut than the B-2 bomber and Star Wars, if we really want to get into the whole sanity thing. And I might note that there are any number of academics whose views I find as morally repugnant as you find this guy's, and I wouldn't demand that they be fired.

 

[DavidCC]

I know the university was investigaitng his background and qualifications for the position, have their findigns been published? Until they are Prof Joe you are jumping to conlcusions about that topic.


I don't like the guy's ideas, as much as I don't like Hannity's or Ingraham's either. But letting public opinion guide university curriculuum? That's crazy talk! The earth would still be flat.


As bad a taste as he leaves behind, it is probably beter that he be out in the open. At least now we all know what he is about, we can discuss his ideas in a forum that he does not control (classroom). He could be holding private rallies at his farm :/

 

[Karazenpo]

Robert, the bottom line is the guy is a lunatic. I bet if there was a police officer in your community who the vast majority of citizens believed without question that he was a lunatic would you want him stopping you some night at 2:00 am? I'm sure they's send him to a shrink and get him immediately off the department. Dangerous people can wear different faces, some can be physically dangerous but others can assault the mind, hey, some people are easily suceptible, does it mean we should not look out for thme because they are, as what PeachMonkey stated, 'young adults', again, I reference the Reverand Jim Jones, a mass murder who's only real weapon was his demented mind!

 

[Karazenpo]

I know the university was investigaitng his background and qualifications for the position, have their findigns been published? Until they are Prof Joe you are jumping to conlcusions about that topic.


I don't like the guy's ideas, as much as I don't like Hannity's or Ingraham's either. But letting public opinion guide university curriculuum? That's crazy talk! The earth would still be flat.


As bad a taste as he leaves behind, it is probably beter that he be out in the open. At least now we all know what he is about, we can discuss his ideas in a forum that he does not control (classroom). He could be holding private rallies at his farm :/

Hi David, look, I've been dealing with all types of people with all types of agendas for nearly three decades in law enforcement. I've had a pretty interesting and distinguished career and I learned an awful lot, more then I did in any schools and more than I did as a graduate of the Massachusetts State Police Acedemy 72nd M.P.O.C., I learned from actual experience and I'm saying this, Ward Churchill is bad news, nothing good can come from him and his tainted lectures and his warped sense of reality and belief system. In a sense, he's no one new to society, after a while everyone you meet will remind you of another from the past, I swear these guys get recycled. Simple question, if you had a daughter and she said to you Dad, I really want your opinion, this guy asked me out but I will go by your advice, his name is Ward Churchill......needless to say. Several supporting him on this forum do have the right ideas in my opinion but you're backing the wrong dog in the race. Your time would be better spent on good people that sometimes get swallowed up by the system and could use your support and help, Churchill, however, isn't one of them. Time will tell.

 

[PeachMonkey]

They are looking into that now for a way to terminate his tenure for it was under the false pretence he was an American Indian and got his position through 'Affirmative Action'.

... a move that began only after his points of view offended people. How courageous, and genuine... another example of modern-day McCarthyism.

Regardless, if he attained his tenure under false circumstances then he quite possibly deserves to have it stripped. Given that such investigations are actually underway, saying that the man misrepresented himself until evidence is produced violates another classic American tenet, that of being innocent until proven guilty. Why do you hate America so much?

 

[PeachMonkey]

How old were those people who drank the cyanide cocktail, you know, the Kool Aid from the good Reverand Jim Jones?
How old were they?

Jim Jones was a religious cult leader, and had victims that spanned a wide range of ages. This is not even slightly relevant when discussing a college professor who holds unpopular political beliefs.

The man is a lunatic by any normal person's standards.

Actually, I disagree with you (not that I'm convinced either of us are "normal"), just as I disagree with much of what Churchill says. The point here has nothing to do with this man or his beliefs, it is the principle of academic freedom that's at risk -- if a professor holds unpopular beliefs, and can be removed from a witchhunt, that's fundamentally unAmerican.

Remember, rights and freedom isn't a guarrantee to everyone, you break the law you lose them. i'm not saying any criminal laws are being broken but c'ome on, where's your common sense, your character, your standards of conduct.

You're right, no laws appear to have been broken. And there's nothing in the Constitution that says you have to have common sense, character, intelligence, or any of that stuff to deserve the same level of rights and protections as anyone else.

Believe me, getting this creep out of there is not going to jeopardize the tenure of good professors out there, you know it and I know it.

Actually, no, you're wrong. As long as lynch mobs get to define what a "good" professor is, this jeopardizes academic freedom in its entirety.

Incredible and you know what, your fascist pig comment is getting pretty old, know what mean? I think the 60's, lol.

I never called you a pig. And if you don't like being called a fascist, stop espousing fascist beliefs.

 

[Karazenpo]

I never called you a pig. And if you don't like being called a fascist, stop espousing fascist beliefs.


And so what are you? A socialist/communist then? Believe me, Peach, I've grown a rather thick skin over the years, comes with the job, I really don't care what you call me it's just that is such an overused name calling tactic by liberals just like you being called a socialist/communist, know what I mean? it kind of gets sickening that's all. By the way, in all sincerity, excellent debate, I haven't had a good political type discussion like this in a while, gets the blood pumping, lol. Gotta go, just got some terrible news, my wife's best friend passed away, cancer.........I'll catch you tommoro. "Joe"

 

[michaeledward]

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

I am pondering the possibility of this statement, and finding it conflicted in and of itself.

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 probably wouldn't be defending his right ... but, I also wouldn't be listening to his Nationwide Syndicated Talk Radio Show.

What people are disputing is whether or not public money should go to him to express his opinions to our nations youth.

So, let us debate then, the root of your argument. As I see, you are discussing two root arguments.
1 - Freedom of speech has limitations.
2 - Because of financial assistance, the public should be able to dictate 'speech' in institutions of higher education?

I don't think you are arguing #1 .
On position #2 - I don't think my financial assistance should be used to develop 'missle shield systems' that don't work, and will quite probably never work. How do I exercise control over that financial aspect of my tax dollars?

I trust you see my point. We don't get to pick and choose. Either we value higher education, and support it; or we don't, and we don't. Which are you proposing?



I think somebody is listening to too much Bill O'Reilly.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Generally speaking, tenured faculty may be removed from their positions if:

a) they are guilty of "moral turpitude," (which used to be defined, famously, as, "getting caught in bed with a live boy or a dead co-ed);

b) they are convicted of a felony;

c) their program is abolished;

d) they have seriously lied on their application.


The thing to do, if he's really said such objectionable things (still waiting on more than hearsay!) is to have him censured by his Academic Senate, receive a letter of admonition from the University, or have him censured by a group like the AARP.

Regrettably for some, our Supreme Court has spent some two hundred years asserting that it is precisely unpopular speech that the Bill of Rights was created to protect. Oops, those silly Constitutionalists.

There are many countries on this earth in which the government and the mob control intellectual life, political thought, and dissent. I hear Iran is nice this time of year...

 

[hardheadjarhead]

ginshun in bold:

Public sentiment should determine what kind of speech, opinions and research are be conducted at publicly funded schools.

Absolutely not. A scholar ought never be intellectually restricted because of public opinion. If you advocate this, then you no doubt approve of scholars being censured and fired for their questionable conservative comments, correct? You wouldn't set a double standard, certainly. Would you?

I think this guy is a flake and will lose his job due to academic fraud. He should have never been hired in the first place due to his questionable credentials. He has an honorary PhD.

But no...he shouldn't be fired based on popular opinion for what he says publicly.

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?

Yes, I would. And I think this guy is a nutbar.

For gods sake the guy hates this country and is publisizing the idea that we deserved what happened on 9/11!

I wasn't aware that "love of country" was an academic credential.

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.

So you're from Colorado? You pay taxes there? Or are you from Hawaii? Which?

A difference of opinion is one thing, but this guy is nuts, the stuff that he says boarders on sedition.

As defined by the 1798 laws, or those passed in 1918? Which?

Karazenpo in bold:

He's a great role model for our youth, no wonder why society is so screwed up.

It is? How is our society screwed up? Compared to what period in history? How did Churchill screw up our whole society, given that he's only 57?

maybe Churchill and his supporters should relocate to France or somewhere else.

Ah, the old "America, love it or leave it" line. I was worried a conservative would post in a thread and NOT mention France. Thanks for meeting my expectations.

Maybe you and your conservative ilk all should move to Great Britain! If you don't want to support and defend the Constitution, leave America! Get on the boat and go back where you came from! Leave America for Americans who believe in the First Amendment (the one with two letter m's, not the one with three.)

<GASP!>

My God...I...I...ranted like a conservative. I used excessive exclamation marks, made histrionic and jingoistic statements, and offered suggestions that violated reason and insulted the intelligence.

And it felt gooooooood.

I feel so...naughty.

Will this make me grow hair on my palms?



Regards,


Steve

 

[rmcrobertson]

Not on your palms, no.

The thing that's at once depressing and hilarious about this argument is that these are the guys who're always going off about conservatives being persecuted by "liberal intellectuals," always lecturing about political correctness, always ranting about the Party line, always preaching about thinking new thoughts--but boy, let one dippy prof say something unusual, and the repetitions of what they heard on, "Crossfire," and the demands tro ride this guy out of town on a rail for saying what he thinks, they just stretch on forever.

And it also shows a real ignorance of the Constitution. You CANNOT go, "beyond free speech," or past First Amendment rights--you can be in trouble if you clearly advocate violence...and oh by the way, where were you guys when G. Gordon Liddy got on the air and told his audience to shoot the FBI and ATF agents in the head, not the chest, because, "they wear body armor?" Where were you guys when Ollie North broke about six sets of American laws, and not only traded arms for hostages against the explicit will of the Congress and Senate, but used some of the proceeds to finance death squads--also against Congressional explicit mandates? Where were you guys when Falwell and Robertson got on the air and declared that 9/11 was God's punishment for this country's evil, and there'd be more of the same coming if we didn't all become fundamentalists right quick? You all seem curiously silent when we have right-wing nut groups building compounds and screeching about the Jews, or creeps go around firebombing women's clinics and shooting doctors. You don't seem to have much to say when tub-thumping pseudo-patriots whip up hatred so they can start wars based on WMDs (whoops...an teensy error), or collaboration with Al Quaida (whoops there too...), or...? You don't seem to have much to say about (for example) the endless procession of bumper stickers advocating violence, hatred, and loathing of women that I see everywhere.

And funnily enough, neither do the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world.

But let one goofy college professor get on a soapbox, and oh my GOD, the end of America is at hand.

 

[JAMJTX]

"And there's nothing in the Constitution that says you have to have common sense, character, intelligence, or any of that stuff to deserve the same level of rights and protections as anyone else."

True. But shouldn't a college professor be expected to show common sense, character, intelligence, etc? And if a professor does turn out to be a liar, a moron, have no common sense and embarrasses the univerisity, they should be able to fire him.

He may have the right to say what he wants. But the tax payers do not have to fund it. And in the case of Ward, they are being forced to fund it by continuing to pay his salary.

If for nothing else, he should be fired for pretending to be a Native American in order to get the job.

 

[michaeledward]

He may have the right to say what he wants. But the tax payers do not have to fund it. And in the case of Ward, they are being forced to fund it by continuing to pay his salary.

How do I stop paying for the friggin' war I don't approve of in Iraq?

The country has every right to fight it, but tax payers do not have to fund it. (Unless the war is declared by Congress - as described in the Constitution).

 

[ginshun]

I hold that opinion as well. Why? Because society as a whole would stagnate if it weren't for people not afraid to shake up "the general public". I can think of a few people through history who had a similar drive... Columbus... Gallileo... Rosa Parks... MLK Jr...

Pesonally I make a distinction between someone argueing scientific research or argueing for minority rights, and someone who argues that the entity of the USA should be wiped off the planet. I guess maybe I am crazy.


Not saying this to be snide, but did you go to college? I did, and I can guarantee that there were some teachers there that I had to take that I thought were nuttier than fruit cake. I memorized what they wanted me to mentally regurgitate on a piece of paper, and tossed the rest. Why? Because I was able to reason the difference and form my own opinions. Many times, outside of class, these same teachers had some very thought provoking opinions that lead to some quite memorable debates. That's what college is about, in my opinion. The pencil and paper crap is just there to justify the cost. YMMV.

Yes, I did go to college, and no offence taken. Maye being that I have engineering degree, I just never had to deal with guys like this. There were very few things in my college class work in which opinion had anything to do with it.
I do see your point, and sure it is good to make people see both sides of issues. I guess I just fail to see anything constructive or thought provoking in anything that this guy says.


How do I stop paying for the friggin' war I don't approve of in Iraq?

The country has every right to fight it, but tax payers do not have to fund it. (Unless the war is declared by Congress - as described in the Constitution).



I think that you are right, it is pretty much the same thing. We elect representatives to speak for us on both of these matters. If our elected officials in Congress decide we should go to war then we do. Does everyone agree with it? Of course not.
The same rules should apply here. The people that are part of the school board, or whatever group control this guys job, were either elected to those postions or they were appointed by someone who was. (I don't know enough about the power structure of state funded colleges to know exactly). They should be given the same power. If they decide that this guys stays, then he stays, thats fine, I can disagree with it the same way you disagree with the war. What I am saying is they should also be allowed to make the decision to fire him for the ideals he holds, without fear of him and the ACLU sueing them and the university if that is thier decision.


And just for the record, I have never watched Bill O'Reilly's show, and I think that Hannity is nothing more than a yes man for the republican party, which I am not a part of.

When it comes right down to it, obviously I would just assume the guy be removed. All I am saying, is that if the University thinks the same thing, they should be allowed to do it.

I am sure that they are going to try and prove the allagations of fraud/lieing on his application, simply to avoid the huge debate that we are having here, but in the case that those things turn out to not be true, they should still be able to fire him if that is what they feel is in the best interest of the university, for whatever reason they see fit.

 

[Karazenpo]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karazenpo
He goes well beyond any freedom of speech or first ammendment rights.


I am pondering the possibility of this statement, and finding it conflicted in and of itself.


Michael, I later elaborated on this issue and it is not conflicting at all. When I stated well beyond freedom of speech my point was it is not a freedom of speech issue when we, the taxpayers are compensating him for it. Don't I have rights too? I do not wish to pay to hear this clown spout off. Something else I'd like to add. I don't know where this Churchill is going but there is a time when what starts out to be a freedom of speech becomes a disorderly person which can escalate into a riot. I will not argue this one because I've seen it in my job, you haven't unless you've worked in law enforcement and the arrest and convictions have been upheld. If this Bozo continues his rants and it should escalate into disruptions, or breaches of the peace, and causes violent reactions by the weak minded then we have a problem. Don't tell me this can't happen because it has. I remember back in college S.D.S (Students for a democratic Society) instigated violent reactions which led to arrests at various college campuses to the point some colleges would not welcome their appearances and would call the authorities to have them removed. Now, you can stick your head in the sand and pretend these things don't happen or you can deal with it.

It was also nice to see David Duke, you know former Louisiana State Representative (right wing extremist) and former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan stick up for Churchill's rights and freedom of speech on television last night. That right there should tell you there's something wrong with this picture!

Next, don't any of you even care how this man's comments are weighing on the survivors of the 9/11 victims, show some compassion and respect!

Some mention Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. There is no bigger buffoon than the liberal Alan Combs. Last night he was speaking up for N.A.M.B.L.A. (North American Man Boy Love Association). Let me clarify it. Someone started a program where he went after members of NAMBLA to expose them to the public and for investigation. He put them on a wanted list and offered a $1000 reward. One pedifile who was married with kids turned himself in for the reward (go figure) He also stated although he thinks about children in a sexual way all the time he hasn't acted on it.(yet) WOW, you should of heard Combs all concerned about this man (and others like him) rights, he sounded like a complete a-hole. Hey, ladies & gents, we're now talking about child molesters yet the liberals can't come forward and adjust their viewpoints for the protection of our children, no, of course not, they have to kick up some b.s. and worry about N.A.M.B.L.A. members rights and protection. Well, I'm all broken up over a pedifile's rights. So while you making fun of Hannity and O'Reilly, take a good look at a typical far left liberal reaction (Combs) to NAMBLA. I do admit Hannity is strong right wing but you're off base with O'Reilly, I've seen him swing to the left, to the right and down the middle. man, some of you see things in black and white, what's wrong with being an independant thinker and also checking out the gray areas? Thanks for the discussion. Joe