University of Hawaii/Ward Churchill-LOSERS!

[Ray]

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).

It's my recollection that, although congress did not declare war, they voted to give the pres permission via the Use of Force Resolution. I know of no Supreme Court ruling, nor case under consideration, that seriously challenges the legality of the president's actions, do you?

As for Churchill: I agree that he has the right to free speech. I don't believe the federal gov't will put him in jail for his book or views. By the same token, as an employee of a private firm, I fully believe that if I espoused the views that Churchill has AND it became publicized as Churchill has then I would not be suprised that my employer would want to remove me from a position where I deal with customers and suppliers. And it is my employer's right to remove me. So, I must conclude that the gov't, as an employer, has the right to terminate [from a job, not execute] an employee for public statements...but that the gov't doesn't have the right to imprision or fine Churchill for his statements.

Also, Churchill speaks historically incorrect of the crusades. Yes, terrible things were done by some of the crusaders - they went way overboard in their actions; but the crusades were a reaction to the killing and harrassment of Christians in the middle east.

Look at the territories that are Islamic and superimpose a map of early Christian lands upon it. Do you suppose that those areas were converted to Islam peacfully? Do you think that Islamic missionaries went door-to-door as Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons do? Nope. Many people who did not convert were killed; others were enslaved. All who held to their original faith were subject to (legal) harrassment and (legal) assault and extra taxes.

Yes, Churchill may write a book and he may speak his mind. But he shouldn't be suprised to get the same consequences as some one privately employeed. And he should expect to be challenged on what he says.

 

[Ray]

It's my recollection that, although congress did not declare war, they voted to give the pres permission via the Use of Force Resolution

And Kerry voted "yea" even though he disagreed with it, only because he thought Bush wouldn't do anything about it.

 

[kenpo tiger]

<snip>
As for Churchill: I agree that he has the right to free speech. I don't believe the federal gov't will put him in jail for his book or views. By the same token, as an employee of a private firm, I fully believe that if I espoused the views that Churchill has AND it became publicized as Churchill has then I would not be suprised that my employer would want to remove me from a position where I deal with customers and suppliers. And it is my employer's right to remove me. So, I must conclude that the gov't, as an employer, has the right to terminate [from a job, not execute] an employee for public statements...but that the gov't doesn't have the right to imprision or fine Churchill for his statements.

<snip>

Yes, Churchill may write a book and he may speak his mind. But he shouldn't be suprised to get the same consequences as some one privately employeed. And he should expect to be challenged on what he says.

Well well. An interesting tangent to be *pondered*. The major difference between those of us who are 'privately employed' and Churchill or civil servants or teachers is that, despite our seniority in our jobs, we can be *let go* for just about any offense if our employer is creative. On the other hand, teachers and civil servants basically have to either retire or be carried out feet first in order to be *let go*. So, if that is the case (and it is), how do you propose to weed out the bad 'uns, other than what Robert has suggested vis-a-vis academics?

The crack about women on page one was not appreciated. Maybe I should stay in the kitchen and clean the house. That way, my husband can shovel all this snow and have a heart attack, and then he can work even longer hours because of the loss of our second income so we'll never see him. Maybe I shouldn't have gotten that college degree. Darn.

Freedom of speech is one of the most precious rights we have as Americans. Also, our right to disagree and freely state that disagreement.

As to the hate groups which exist, I hope there's someone out there who loves them. What a shame to be abhorred and then die alone. But it's certainly their right to believe what they do.

As for 9/11, no one will forget those innocent people who were killed because they were in the right place (at work or traveling) at the wrong time.

 

[modarnis]

>>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.>>

And violent actions and speech are certainly dealt with differently by the Supreme Court. Since you brought up the SDS incident, here is the case HEALY v. JAMES, 408 U.S. 169 (1972) which deals with this group's rights to speech and free association.

There are numerous cases about free speech and dissenting opinions on college campuses both private and public in our Supreme Court's history. In all of them, the notion of a marketplace of ideas is relevant. The court has been very sensitive to the potential chilling effect of regulations of speech that does not give rise to fighting words or express conduct

 

[ginshun]

On the other hand, teachers and civil servants basically have to either retire or be carried out feet first in order to be *let go*. So, if that is the case (and it is), how do you propose to weed out the bad 'uns?

Exactly what I am wondering. It seems that a bunch of people hear feel that since he has tenure, he should just be allowed to say anything he wants, and should have to answer to nobody.

Aren't a teachers ideals part of whether or not he is a good teacher? Apperently not.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Exactly what I am wondering. It seems that a bunch of people hear feel that since he has tenure, he should just be allowed to say anything he wants, and should have to answer to nobody.

Aren't a teachers ideals part of whether or not he is a good teacher? Apperently not.

I don't know that you can hold teachers to standards other than those you would for everyone. Granted, they are in a unique position to alter *one's* opinions and, in some cases, *one's* life, but I don't know that a clear judgment can be made concerning whether someone's ideals are *good* or *bad*. By whose standards? Yours may not be the same as mine. Does that make mine better than yours, or vice versa? Nope. There are parameters within which teachers are expected to operate, and only when they step out of those boundaries can they be censured or worse (see Robert's post upthread.)

Example: my senior year of high school (back in the Dark Ages), my Social Studies teacher was a gay man (referred to back then as a fag or a swish.) He was probably one of the best teachers I had during my primary and secondary education, and one of the very very few whose name I remember and whose classes had the most profound effect on me and my life. Am I gay because I was in his classroom and was absorbing his opinions about the arts and history? Absolutely not. He was a wonderful teacher and a class act in spite of what he had to endure daily from some of his students (I don't think I need to draw you a diagram.) Where would I be without his influence on my life? Probably not in the arts. Our school board recognized his value as a teacher and chose to ignore his personal lifestyle. In certain places these days he'd probably be under close scrutiny by certain people and subject to harassment to try to get him fired.

As kids these days say, he rocked.

RIP Mr. Blake.:angel:

 

[hardheadjarhead]

JAMJTX in bold:


But shouldn't a college professor be expected to show common sense, character, intelligence, etc?

Common sense? That's defined as sound, practical judgement. Would you fire a respected developmental biologist who acquired AIDS from having unprotected sex? Would you fire an English professor who was jailed for DUI? Neither of these activities show common sense, and have some political controversy attached to them due to their stigma...but they have NOTHING to do with the abilities of those professors as educators or as scholars.

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.

That depends on several things...none of which have anything to do with whether YOU think of him.

The American Assembly of University Professors stated in 1940:

College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.

Churchill's comments are themselves not enough to get him fired without some sort of due process. The AAUP gives detailed means of providing a professor that form of due process. In otherwards, he can't be fired merely because what he says is unpopular with the taxpayers or the administration.

Currently his position is under review. If he's fired, it'll likely be because of what he did as an academic, not what he said as a political firebrand.


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.

Taxpayers have to pay taxes. Funding is brought about by administrations and legislatures. We don't get a choice insofar as funding. You have no choice but to fund welfare, and I have no choice but to fund the war...unless, that is, we want to go to jail for tax evasion.




Regards,


Steve

 

[ginshun]

I don't know that you can hold teachers to standards other than those you would for everyone.

I don't want him held to different standards, I want him held to the same standards. If I got on a stage, in front of news camera and all of America, and gave the same speaches that this guy is giving, I'd be fired. I have no doubt about it. Whether or not I am speaking of behalf of my company, what I say reflects on them, and I think it should for a university professor too.

And as far as the AAUP goes, it must be nice to be able to tell your employer what they are allowed to fire you for. Apperently I am in the wrong proffession.

 

[modarnis]

Exactly what I am wondering. It seems that a bunch of people hear feel that since he has tenure, he should just be allowed to say anything he wants, and should have to answer to nobody.

Aren't a teachers ideals part of whether or not he is a good teacher? Apperently not.

So a student couldn't learn from a teacher who may have a different belief structure? I would think things like effective communication of the particular curriculum would be the primary measure of their teaching ability. Do they make the subject matter interesting, get the relevant points across, and ultimately the students retaining the knowledge in a manner where they can apply it would be more important than what someones ideals are.

Communicating narrow, government regulated ideas would be indoctrination and not teaching in my opinion

 

[modarnis]

>>And as far as the AAUP goes, it must be nice to be able to tell your employer what they are allowed to fire you for. Apperently I am in the wrong proffession.>>

Again there is a long line of Supreme Court cases that deal with regulation of speech by private versus public employers. Private employers are not bound by the First Amendment when the speech would occur on their property or time

Public employers are only allowed to regulate speech for content neutral reasons(things like time place or manner). Any regulation for content based reasons is subject to strict scrutiny.

Like it or not, its the state of the law on the subject. If one takes the time to read some of the cases I cited earlier, the reasoning of the Supreme Court will make more sense. Findlaw.com has a great primer on all aspects of First Amendment jurisprudence. In an hours worth of reading one can get the Cliff's notes version of a law school class on First Amendment

 

[ginshun]

So a student couldn't learn from a teacher who may have a different belief structure? I would think things like effective communication of the particular curriculum would be the primary measure of their teaching ability. Do they make the subject matter interesting, get the relevant points across, and ultimately the students retaining the knowledge in a manner where they can apply it would be more important than what someones ideals are.

Communicating narrow, government regulated ideas would be indoctrination and not teaching in my opinion

Different belief structures are one thing, but preaching that the USA should be wiped off the face of the planet is something else, IMO at least.


I still just don't see this as a case of first ammendment rights. Nobody is trying to silance him. All I am saying is that the university should be allowed to fire him if they want to, based on whatever they see fit.

If this guy was a neo-nazi preaching how whites should start a race war and kill all the minorities whould there be any outrage at the university wanting to fire him? Myabe, but I doubt it. I honestly don't see the two situations as much different.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

And as far as the AAUP goes, it must be nice to be able to tell your employer what they are allowed to fire you for. Apperently I am in the wrong proffession.

What profession would that be?

The AAUP doesn't set standards for what people are allowed to be fired for. They set standards for academic freedom and for proper review of abuse of those freedoms. They have no legally binding enforcement power over any academic institution.

So no. Churchill can not tell his employers what they can fire him for.


Regards,


Steve

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. Good to know that Hannity and Coombs have become the standard for intellectual discourse. And good to know that people who are parroting the politically-correct right-wing line of Hannity, Limbaugh, Larsen et al simply pulled their words out of the luminiferous ether because they never heard of them.

2. Unlike others, college professors are paid not only to teach, but to come up with wacky ideas and discuss them with students. That's their job.

3. If Churchill's students and colleagues are too gutless to argue back, whose problem is that? Look at the post upstream, from somebody who described his own life as a student as one of mindless memorization and regurgitation--whose fault is that? You don't have to take these classes. You are perfectly empowered to argue back. The prof behaves badly, talk to the guy. That doesn't work, file a complaint. {Insert religious name here}, show a little moxie, and a little responsibility for your own education!

4. I'm going to track down, a little, what was up with Hamilton College, where this particular flap started. I smell one of our new right-wing student police groups; they're appearing everywhere now, and they're getting outside financing to go after professors whose views they don't like.

 

[ginshun]

You are perfectly empowered to argue back. The prof behaves badly, talk to the guy. That doesn't work, file a complaint. {Insert religious name here}, show a little moxie, and a little responsibility for your own education!

That all sounds great on paper. Until you find yourself fighting for the next few years to get the F taken off your transcipts. And don't even try to insinuate that proffesors (left or right wing) don't fail students or reduce their grade if they disagree with their point of view, especially if they raise a daily fuss in class.

Plus what kind of a learning environment is it if a student either has to stifle his opinions or worry about them adversly affect his grade?

What kind of a grade do you think the campus leader of the young Republicans club gets in one of Mr. Churchills classes if they stand up for there opinions? Based on listening to some of the guys speaches and reading some of his essays I bet I can guess.

 

[OUMoose]

from somebody who described his own life as a student as one of mindless memorization and regurgitation--whose fault is that?

The teachers, as it's hard to argue math... :whip:

 

[rmcrobertson]

OOOOH, an "F." Would that this was the only consequence of speaking out the world had to offer. Instead, all over the world professors and students are getting killed, tortured and imprisoned for speaking out, and Americans have sunk so low that they cannot express what they deeply feel to be their convictions because they might get an, "F."

Just incidentally, my nearly-universal experience with good teachers was that they loved engaged students who read the material and argued. it was the ones who didn't read and sat in class like lumps that they got cranky with.

For an actual thoughtful discussion of the issue, I suggest reading all the essays on the Hamilton College student paper website.

http://spec.hamilton.edu/insight.cfm

And color me surprised at finding out that this whole thing got whipped up when something called the Kirkland Project invited Prof. Churchill as one of their controversial speakers, some profs/students had problems with him and with the Project, they called Bill O'Reilly, and good old Bill whipped up an e-mail, letter, and phone campaign. Surpirse, surprise, surprise.

Sorry, but I am truly offended by this, "F." business. College profs in China get thrown in jail in god knows where if they speak up. A teacher in Algeria got BEHEADED in front of her class a few years back--seems some fundamentalists objected to women teaching. In Africa and in Southern Mexico and Latin America, assorted death squads come kill you if you disagree with the government. There are good teachers and students all over the world, standing in line outside refugee camps with everything they own in a blue plastic bucket, hoping there's still rice and millet left when they get to the head of the line, and you're sweating the, "F."

Oh--read about the career of H. Bruce Franklin, an excellent writer, scholar and teacher who got canned from a tenured position at Cornell around 1972 for opposing the Vietnam War. This crap's been going on a long time.

 

[ginshun]

I will agree, in the large sceem of things, an F in college doesn't seem like a huge deal. (And I will admit, that it wasn't for me, I had to retake more than one class, stupid Fluid Dynamics :angry: ) But to your average college kid trying to get into law or med school, it is potentially disasterous. At the very least it is enough insentive to not rock the boat.

and last time I checked, I wasn't calling for a death squad to hunt this guy down. Just questioning whether or not university officials should be allowed to fire him.

 

[modarnis]

>>Just incidentally, my nearly-universal experience with good teachers was that they loved engaged students who read the material and argued. it was the ones who didn't read and sat in class like lumps that they got cranky with.>>

I would echo these sentiments. I had several classes in law school with a professor who held views completely opposite mine. She always enjoyed being engaged in a well reasoned debate. That'w what she was paid to do, to encourage people to think.

When I have a tough case with issues in her area of expertise, I always call her to get some perspective on what the other side may be thinking. We never succeeded in changing each other's views, but I certainly appreciated being taken to task on mine. It has paid off tremendously in the real world

 

[ginshun]

I would tend to agree also, all the teachers that I have had welcomed debate and didn't hold personal beliefs against me. I also know that this is not always the case.

What happens when it is not?

 

[Ray]

I will agree, in the large sceem of things, an F in college doesn't seem like a huge deal. (And I will admit, that it wasn't for me...

Scheme not sceem. But that's beside the point about getting F's.