Goodbye Freedom of Speech

[davinxtk]

Hello New McCarthyism.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=7&u=/ap/20050206/ap_on_re_us/speaker_protest


Professor Refuses Apology for 9/11 Essay

29 minutes ago U.S. National - AP


DENVER - A professor who likened World Trade Center victims to a notorious Nazi refused to apologize but said his treatise was a "gut response" to the terrorist attacks.


AP Photo
Slideshow: School May Fire Professor for 9/11 Comment




"I don't believe I owe an apology," Ward Churchill said Friday on CNN's "Paula Zahn Now" program — his first public comments since the University of Colorado began a review that could lead to his dismissal.


Meanwhile, Wheaton College in Norton, Mass., and Eastern Washington University canceled plans for Churchill to speak on campus, citing public safety concerns. Stephen Jordan, president of Eastern Washington University, declined Friday to say whether specific threats had been made.


Churchill defended the essay in which he compared those killed in the Sept. 11 attack to "little Eichmanns," a reference to Adolf Eichmann, who organized Nazi plans to exterminate European Jews. He said the victims were akin to U.S. military operations' collateral damage — or innocent civilians mistakenly killed by soldiers.


"I don't know if the people of 9-11 specifically wanted to kill everybody that was killed," he told Zahn. "It was just worth it to them in order to do whatever it was they decided it was necessary to do that bystanders be killed. And that essentially is the same mentality, the same rubric."


In an interview published Saturday in the Rocky Mountain News, Churchill added, "This was a gut response opinion speech written in about four hours. It's not completely reasoned and thought through."


Churchill said his speech had been misinterpreted. "I never called for the deaths of millions of Americans," he said.


Early editions of the Sunday Denver Post reported Churchill gave another magazine interview in which he was asked about the effectiveness of protests of U.S. policies and the Iraq (news - web sites) war, and responded: "One of the things I've suggested is that it may be that more 9/11s are necessary."


The interview prompted Gov. Bill Owens to renew his call for Churchill's firing.


"It's amazing that the more we look at Ward Churchill, the more outrageous, treasonous statements we hear from Churchill," Owens said.


The furor over Churchill's essay erupted last month after he was invited to speak at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y. The speech was later canceled.


Churchill, who recently resigned as chairman of the ethnic studies department but remains a tenured professor, said he would sue if he were dismissed.

[ItalianStereotype]

you're such a drama whore.

[Rongi]

dah

[Brandon]

How is his freedom of speech being violated exactly? There's nothing in the Constitution that says private citizens can't get pissed at you if you say something asinine.

[davinxtk]

*cough* arresting protesters *cough*

[ItalianStereotype]

I'll let you know when the two are even remotely similar.

[ScruU2wice]

Wait I still don't understand how he's making out the victims of the 911 attacks as Villians.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

UC-Boulder has the right to hire and/or fire whomever they like, too.

If I had a faculty member who was making my institution look bad, I'd probably think about canning him. He had his speech, but he may not have a job. That's fair, especially when you're job is premised on the quality and content of a) what you teach and b) the ideas you choose to publish. He chose....poorly.

[El Blanco]

As an educator, he is a representative of the institution. You've claimed W should be forced to step down as a poor representative of the USA (his place of employment), yet, you jump to this putz's defense.

[ziggytrix]

UC-Boulder has the right to hire and/or fire whomever they like, too.

Which is fine, but it's the GOVERNOR of the state who is pushing to have the man fired.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

UC-Boulder is a state institution, so the governor has some right to comment on the matter. And it's not the like the governor is the only person complaining about this guy. He published something incredibly stupid. He continues to say things that are incredibly stupid. He has apparently refused to apologize for the comment, a simple, cursory gesture, even though he himself admits that "This was a gut response opinion speech written in about four hours. It's not completely reasoned and thought through."

There's no executive power allowing the governor to fire this guy. It's not exactly like the governor can do a whole lot if the guy doesn't get fired.

[sspadowsky]

While I agree with Churchill's basic premise that we should fully expect terrorist acts to be attempted against us due to our foreign policy in the Middle East, I think he went over the top. While some people are indeed guilty of perpetuating corporate plundering and pillaging in Third World countries, it's totally unfair and unreasonable to include the guy sweeping the floor at the WTC among the "Little Eichmanns." I haven't read a lot of Chomsky, but I doubt even he would go that far.

[davinxtk]

As an educator, he is a representative of the institution. You've claimed W should be forced to step down as a poor representative of the USA (his place of employment), yet, you jump to this putz's defense.

This "putz" is, as the article states, a tenured professor at UCB.
As an educator, he's not a poor representative of the institution. His abilities as an educator aren't even what's being called into question here.
His dismissal is being demanded by the Governor, and I'm sure the people at UCB aren't taking that lightly. This entire thing smacks of McCarthy-era behavior.

As for your W analogy, I don't believe he should be forced to step down as a poor representative of the USA. I believed that when he was elected in '00. Four years later, I don't think he's a poor representative of the USA, I know that he's a bumbling fuckwit with an arguably sinister motive and imperialistic penis envy.

UC-Boulder has the right to hire and/or fire whomever they like, too.

If I had a faculty member who was making my institution look bad, I'd probably think about canning him. He had his speech, but he may not have a job. That's fair, especially when you're job is premised on the quality and content of a) what you teach and b) the ideas you choose to publish. He chose....poorly.

Again, he's not making the institution look bad. He's voicing his own personal opinion in an educated way. What the hell makes UCB look bad? He's a man, not a school or even a comittee.

While his job is based on the content of what he teaches, he certainly should be teaching about the cultural significance of things like 9/11 -- all aspects of it.

My main point is, he's an educated (and already outspoken) person expressing an idea contrary to the "what a tragedy!" and "evil a-rab!" noise. Because of this, he's feeling a backlash from not the school, but from the state.

I wonder how long it'll be before his name is on a list.

[ItalianStereotype]

he's feeling a backlash from the state because what he said was inappropriate and offensive. a man in his position should learn to accept a little pressure when he goes out of his way to create controversy. there will be no list, this sort of thing has happened many times in the past, and you're a drama whore.



and imperialism is awesome.

[Marine]

you can step on my face. slander my name all over the place. but hey say honey lay offa my shoes dont you step on my blue suede shoes.

[ScruU2wice]

How is he making an educated opinion. He's saying something on gut instinct and just trying to justify and being stubborn about it. I don't possibly how he can make himself sound intellegent when he's essentially saying that people who got murdered are responsible for the death penalty a jury passes.

plus, isn't boulder one of the most conservative towns in the nation, that's just like throwing a match on a pile of tires. You're not really planning on accompalishing much.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

and imperialism is awesome.

:lol

BTW, Scru, Boulder is a very liberal college town.


Again, he's not making the institution look bad. He's voicing his own personal opinion in an educated way. What the hell makes UCB look bad? He's a man, not a school or even a comittee.

Once again, college professors are paid to teach and publish. When a professor publishes something, which is mandated, he in fact IS representing the institution he works for. Furthermore, he is the head of a department at the university. He absolutely represents the institution, and whether he means it or not, the stupid things he says reflect upon UC-Boulder.

[ScruU2wice]

BTW, Scru, Boulder is a very liberal college town.


No I meant the actual town. I hear it's super conservative and the whole town hates the college. but then I might be wrong.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Yeah, I think you're wrong.

[ziggytrix]

OK, how many of you folks chirping in that this guy "said something stupid" have actually READ his essay?

[Brandon]

OK, how many of you folks chirping in that this guy "said something stupid" have actually READ his essay?
I have. Have you?

Trust me; nothing was taken out of context in this uproar. You can read a copy for yourself here (http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html).

[ziggytrix]

Well, I didn't trust you, and I gave it a quick skim, and I have to say I agree with a lot of what I read.

For those not inclined to read the whole thing, here's an excerpt with the particularly offensive bits in bold:

Meet the "Terrorists"
Of the men who came, there are a few things demanding to be said in the face of the unending torrent of disinformational drivel unleashed by George Junior and the corporate "news" media immediately following their successful operation on September 11.

They did not, for starters, "initiate" a war with the US, much less commit "the first acts of war of the new millennium."

A good case could be made that the war in which they were combatants has been waged more-or-less continuously by the "Christian West" – now proudly emblematized by the United States – against the "Islamic East" since the time of the First Crusade, about 1,000 years ago. More recently, one could argue that the war began when Lyndon Johnson first lent significant support to Israel's dispossession/displacement of Palestinians during the 1960s, or when George the Elder ordered "Desert Shield" in 1990, or at any of several points in between. Any way you slice it, however, if what the combat teams did to the WTC and the Pentagon can be understood as acts of war – and they can – then the same is true of every US "overflight' of Iraqi territory since day one. The first acts of war during the current millennium thus occurred on its very first day, and were carried out by U.S. aviators acting under orders from their then-commander-in-chief, Bill Clinton. The most that can honestly be said of those involved on September 11 is that they finally responded in kind to some of what this country has dispensed to their people as a matter of course.

That they waited so long to do so is, notwithstanding the 1993 action at the WTC, more than anything a testament to their patience and restraint.

They did not license themselves to "target innocent civilians."

There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . .

Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.

The men who flew the missions against the WTC and Pentagon were not "cowards." That distinction properly belongs to the "firm-jawed lads" who delighted in flying stealth aircraft through the undefended airspace of Baghdad, dropping payload after payload of bombs on anyone unfortunate enough to be below – including tens of thousands of genuinely innocent civilians – while themselves incurring all the risk one might expect during a visit to the local video arcade. Still more, the word describes all those "fighting men and women" who sat at computer consoles aboard ships in the Persian Gulf, enjoying air-conditioned comfort while launching cruise missiles into neighborhoods filled with random human beings. Whatever else can be said of them, the men who struck on September 11 manifested the courage of their convictions, willingly expending their own lives in attaining their objectives.

Nor were they "fanatics" devoted to "Islamic fundamentalism."

One might rightly describe their actions as "desperate." Feelings of desperation, however, are a perfectly reasonable – one is tempted to say "normal" – emotional response among persons confronted by the mass murder of their children, particularly when it appears that nobody else really gives a damn (ask a Jewish survivor about this one, or, even more poignantly, for all the attention paid them, a Gypsy).

That desperate circumstances generate desperate responses is no mysterious or irrational principle, of the sort motivating fanatics. Less is it one peculiar to Islam. Indeed, even the FBI's investigative reports on the combat teams' activities during the months leading up to September 11 make it clear that the members were not fundamentalist Muslims. Rather, it's pretty obvious at this point that they were secular activists – soldiers, really – who, while undoubtedly enjoying cordial relations with the clerics of their countries, were motivated far more by the grisly realities of the U.S. war against them than by a set of religious beliefs.

And still less were they/their acts "insane."

Insanity is a condition readily associable with the very American idea that one – or one's country – holds what amounts to a "divine right" to commit genocide, and thus to forever do so with impunity. The term might also be reasonably applied to anyone suffering genocide without attempting in some material way to bring the process to a halt. Sanity itself, in this frame of reference, might be defined by a willingness to try and destroy the perpetrators and/or the sources of their ability to commit their crimes. (Shall we now discuss the US "strategic bombing campaign" against Germany during World War II, and the mental health of those involved in it?)

Which takes us to official characterizations of the combat teams as an embodiment of "evil."

Evil – for those inclined to embrace the banality of such a concept – was perfectly incarnated in that malignant toad known as Madeline Albright, squatting in her studio chair like Jaba the Hutt, blandly spewing the news that she'd imposed a collective death sentence upon the unoffending youth of Iraq. Evil was to be heard in that great American hero "Stormin' Norman" Schwartzkopf's utterly dehumanizing dismissal of their systematic torture and annihilation as mere "collateral damage." Evil, moreover, is a term appropriate to describing the mentality of a public that finds such perspectives and the policies attending them acceptable, or even momentarily tolerable.

Had it not been for these evils, the counterattacks of September 11 would never have occurred. And unless "the world is rid of such evil," to lift a line from George Junior, September 11 may well end up looking like a lark.

There is no reason, after all, to believe that the teams deployed in the assaults on the WTC and the Pentagon were the only such, that the others are composed of "Arabic-looking individuals" – America's indiscriminately lethal arrogance and psychotic sense of self-entitlement have long since given the great majority of the world's peoples ample cause to be at war with it – or that they are in any way dependent upon the seizure of civilian airliners to complete their missions.

To the contrary, there is every reason to expect that there are many other teams in place, tasked to employ altogether different tactics in executing operational plans at least as well-crafted as those evident on September 11, and very well equipped for their jobs. This is to say that, since the assaults on the WTC and Pentagon were act of war – not "terrorist incidents" – they must be understood as components in a much broader strategy designed to achieve specific results. From this, it can only be adduced that there are plenty of other components ready to go, and that they will be used, should this become necessary in the eyes of the strategists. It also seems a safe bet that each component is calibrated to inflict damage at a level incrementally higher than the one before (during the 1960s, the Johnson administration employed a similar policy against Vietnam, referred to as "escalation").

Since implementation of the overall plan began with the WTC/Pentagon assaults, it takes no rocket scientist to decipher what is likely to happen next, should the U.S. attempt a response of the inexcusable variety to which it has long entitled itself.


You would do well to pick up "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace" or "Dreaming War" by Gore Vidal, and give that a read. Our "tactical strikes" generate collateral damage. We blow up wedding parties. Shit happens. We aren't perfect.

You need to realize that our country has done some seriously sick shit and that the terrorists aren't against us because they "hate our freedom." They hate us bombing their countries and playing Illuminati with their politics. The more we pretend that muslims (and especially the ones who are terrorists, whichever ones they might be) are just evil incarnate, the closer we get to a new era of McCarthyism.

I'm certainly not saying the actions of terrorists are just, nor did I see the essay state such, so if you would care to quote what statements of his were asinine, we can have some meaningful discussion. But if you want to label any sort of discussion of the motivation of these desperate enemies as "asinine" "outrageous" or as Gov. Owens said "treasonous," then all I have to say is "fuck off," cuz your idea of discussion is just waiting for your turn to scream at your opponent anyway. :)

[ziggytrix]

Also, I should concede that the essay's statements are outrageous. It is outrageous, in this society, to look to ourselves when something bad happens, and ask "what did I do to cause this?"

No, in this society, we ask "who did this, so I can sue them?" And since we can't sue dead terrorists we look for live targets, cuz if we can't get justice, we can at least get revenge, right? >:

[El Blanco]

Self righteous asshole. And the guy who wrote this is a dick too.

Some fucking accountant feeding his family, a janitor making ends meet, and firefighter dedicating his life to rescuing others deserved that shit?

OK, fine, we'll go by his logic. He is making money and participating in the government that runs and finances the military.

We all buy products and pay taxes into it.

And this internet thing you are using......courtesy of the DoD.

I guess we've all got it coming.

[Brandon]

Well, Blanco beat me to it.

Honestly, zigs, it was clever how you tried to morph my criticism of the most extreme leftist viewpoint (Chomsky didn't even go that far) into some kind of "America is never wrong" mentality. Do I even need to tell you why the paper-pushers, rescue workers, and firefighters who died on 9/11 were innocent victims?

Go fuck yourself.

[Big Papa Goat]

That essay was pretty fucking far from the scholarly sort of material that a professor should be publishing. A professor isn't really supposed to be writing inflammatory poorly thought out and unresearched editorials at sensitive times.

[El Blanco]

Ya, it was a spur of the moment gut instinct reaction.....that took a few hours to write....,.and he was comfortable enough with to submit for publishing.


Need I even mention proof reading and editing?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I'm certainly not saying the actions of terrorists are just, nor did I see the essay state such, so if you would care to quote what statements of his were asinine, we can have some meaningful discussion.

I think you already went to the trouble of highlighting the asinine comments, no?

[El Blanco]

I think you just quoted one

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I don't know that the substance (I use that word lightly) of his essay is what really matters. "Hey, he makes good points, we should debate them." Uh, well, no. Whether or not he has some good points buried under his idiotic and offensive comments isn't the point. The debate is whether or not the nasty things he said are grounds for termination, particularly based upon the criteria of his job. I, personally, say yes.

The other matter is whether or not getting terminated would be a violation of his 1st amendment rights. I vote no on that count, cuz he already acted upon that right. He got his garble published, and he hasn't been arrested, shot, or beaten by the state for it.

He exercised his freedom, and now UC-Boulder may exercise theirs. Seems fair.

[ziggytrix]

Honestly, zigs, it was clever how you tried to morph my criticism of the most extreme leftist viewpoint (Chomsky didn't even go that far) into some kind of "America is never wrong" mentality. Do I even need to tell you why the paper-pushers, rescue workers, and firefighters who died on 9/11 were innocent victims?

For fucks sake, I'm not saying I believe they were guilty and deserved what they got, I'm just saying that we all have blood on our hands. Our own noble ideal is that our freedom is bought with blood.

Whether or not he has some good points buried under his idiotic and offensive comments isn't the point."

I disagree. I think that anyone who tries to make the point that deviates from flag-waving and an "America is never wrong" mentality gets shouted down on a good day, and a rock through their window most days.

And the guy sweeping the floor at the WTC deserved what he got every bit as much as any innocent child that's been killed by one of our bombs. Which is to say, none of them deserved it, and our blood for blood attitude only perpetuates this cycle of murder.

[ziggytrix]

And blanco, you think I'm a self-righteous asshole cuz I admit that I am enjoying living well in a country that is where it is through fucking other countries whenever it gets the chance? You're a fucking moron. It's the opposite of self-righteousness, it's called self-appraisal. Open your fucking eyes, that's all I'm saying.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Whether or not he has some good points buried under his idiotic and offensive comments isn't the point."

I disagree. I think that anyone who tries to make the point that deviates from flag-waving and an "America is never wrong" mentality gets shouted down on a good day, and a rock through their window most days.

I think you're exaggerating a bit here. I think you'll find several folks just on this message board who don't revert to "flag-waving" arguments, and all our windows seem to be fine.

And the guy sweeping the floor at the WTC deserved what he got every bit as much as any innocent child that's been killed by one of our bombs. Which is to say, none of them deserved it, and our blood for blood attitude only perpetuates this cycle of murder.

With the distinction being that the janitor in the WTC was the target, whereas the unfortunate and horrible death of that child is not. We certainly do kill innocent civilians, and it isn't right, but it isn't the same as 9/11.

[ziggytrix]

You're right on that first point, I'm exaggerating.


But totally wrong on the second. Those men did not get on those planes thinking "oh man, we're gonna take out some janitors, this is GREAT". They were targetting Americans and America, and ALL I'm saying is we'd do well to think about WHY they did it, and not just write them off as hating America because they're just EVIL men.

[Ant10708]

When he says the janitor was the target he means civilians in general were the targets of the WTC attack. We'd also do well to look into why these people did what they did but not to compare innocent civilians killed by these 'combat squads' to a notorious member of the SS because then it makes the opinion seem uneducated and invalid and people will just dismiss it.

[Ant10708]

I think the arguement for Churchhill's firing also stems from the fact that he is getting a nice paycheck from the government he hates so much. He is allowed to say what he said but that doesn't mean tax payers should pay his salary as a teacher.

[ziggytrix]

I think their target was chosen for being a bastion of capitolism, not for an American bodycount. They were aiming a punch at America's wallet, and to them, the death of a thousand infidels was just collateral damage.

The majority of the essay was a look into why these people did what they did. ONE line compared, by use of hyperbole, the vicitms in the WTC to a Nazi murder. I don't agree with that comparison, but the rest of the essay should not be discounted.

"The destruction of the World Trade Center was a criminal act, the loss of life an unforgivable consequence, but it would be a crime of another order, with an even greater destructive potential, to allow the evocation of the word terror to descend like a veil over the event, to rob us of the opportunity to see ourselves as others see us." - John Edgar Wideman

In our eyes the bankers and lawyers just doing their jobs in the WTC were innocent victims, but clearly in the eyes of the terrorists they were not innocents. The first step in truly stopping these terrorists would be doing something about why the hate us, if that's even possible. If they hate us cuz we're good and they're evil, well then it's time for Holy War, and I hope there's something left of humanity when it's done.

[Ant10708]

Is it possible that they hate us because of a radical relgious belief that was inbedded into their heads by their culture? I mean if you look at Middle Eastern textbooks and what they say about America and Israel, its pretty obvious why they hate us.

And Israel is one of the main reasons they hate us. Another reason they hate us is when we do something good like donate millions to mostly Muslim tsunami victims, the Arab press ignores it and would rather show Abu Grab photos. I mean could it be possible that America is misrepresented in many places in the world and seen as the scapegoat for most of the world's problems? We are the only current 'superpower' I mean who else you going to blame.

But I mean Israel is just committing genocide agaisnt Palestinians and only use the Holocaust as a way to divert attention away from it. Go Churchhill!

I'm not saying America is a saint. I mean we did commit genocide against Churchill's ancestoers which might be why he hates the US so much but I don't believe the United States and capitalism in general are the cause of all the bad things that happen.


Was Timothy McVeigh just setting off a bomb against the evils of capitalism and the little Hitlers filling the federal building? Or is his act not justified because he was a white American who didn't have 'genocide' committed agasint his people by our government?

[ziggytrix]

Yeah Ant, that's exactly the kind of one-sided "America is never wrong" attitude I'm talking about. America is just a scapegoat, we never DID anything to hurt anyone. We certainly haven't manipulated, lied to, or broken promises to other nations.

Geeze man, why do you think we're the only superpower? Cuz God blessed us and made us his favorite?

[Ant10708]

I think their target was chosen for being a bastion of capitolism, not for an American bodycount. They were aiming a punch at America's wallet, and to them, the death of a thousand infidels was just collateral damage.
. I have to agree with you here but what about the comabt squads who hit Madrid's trains. It was in response to our war but are these guys not 'evil' for obviously targeting civilians who are just trying to travel somewhere. Most of Spain's population was agaisnt the Iraqi war. Did the comabt squads not know this or did they not care because they were in fact just murderers claiming to be fighting for a greater cause? Or is their intelligence gathering just as bad as ours?

[Ant10708]

Yeah Ant, that's exactly the kind of one-sided "America is never wrong" attitude I'm talking about. America is just a scapegoat, we never DID anything to hurt anyone. We certainly haven't manipulated, lied to, or broken promises to other nations.

Geeze man, why do you think we're the only superpower? Cuz God blessed us and made us his favorite? I'm just using saying we aren't the reason for all the bad in the world. I also know we do tons of bad shit. I'm not uneducated. I know about what we did in El Salvador in the 80s. But should my sister's(who went to El Salvador last year to help poor people) train be targeted by a 'combat squad' because someone believes that two wrongs make a right and gets you a special spot next to Allah.

If you honestly are so taken away by Churchhill's essay then thats your problem. Its poorly written and he makes several bad analogies which in my opinion will cause lots of people to dismiss it. I wonder if he really hates capitalism or he is like Moore and thinks capitalism is evil but reaps in the tremendous benefits of it. I mean I bet more people have read his article in the past week than in the past three years. He is probaly happy and selling tons of his other books. I'm sorry I may come off as one sided but I am trying to defend the U.S.(without approving of everything in our history). I just believe that if Bin Laden could he would kill Western civlians by the millions systemically like Hitler did if he could. Our country has the ability to do it if we wanted to but we don't. We do tons of shitty things but I don't think we are worthy of the worldwide hatred that we have towards us. Which is why I come to the conclusion that we are scapegoats in a way. And I just think if people like Churchhil are really concerned about genocide they should start doing some stuff about Sudan. I mean that is a real genocide and America and the rest of the world is just going to let it happen again. I just think Churchill and the others with his opinions have more of a hatred towards capitalism and our government in general than about human rights.

Capitalism can be a great thing thou. Bill Gates gives shots for tons of stuff to like every fucking kid living in the third world countries. And he is a monopoly! The worst breed of capitalistic scum.

[Ant10708]

I mean for fuck's sake, we had slaves for a large portion of our history. You can't say the United States is free of no harm but I'm a grateful I'm living in this country where I don't get killed for having a cross on my neck or for saying the shit Churchhill says about the citizens of the country he lives in. I mean the option of him losing his job is the only thing being discussed. What a terrible and unfair country filled with murderous capitalistic scum we are.

[Ant10708]

When do you guys think the gypsies will get their priorities straight and fly a plane into a German building?


And to answer your condescending question about why we are the only superpower: we are the only current superpower because the Soviet Union went bankrupt and collasped. We also have the largest arsenal of nuclear missles which I guess is one of the things you need to be classified as a superpower nowadays. We have established fair and unfair trade deals with many countries. To go back farther we became one of two superpowers after WW2. And we increased our power abroad after WWI which has now lead us down the road of a superpower. Its funny how you mock me about thinking we are a superpower because of God because you assume Christians are dumb, all the while defending(or coming close to it) the actions of people who believe in the most radical and dangerous forms of Islam. I heard claims that the 9/11 hijackers may actually of been more secular than many of their contempories but even so the main financer of the 'combat squads' is someone who orginally declared Holy War on us for having troops based in Saudi Arabia. As far as I know we didn't drop many bombs on innocent Saudi chrildren recently. And Bin laden was in favor of Saudi Arabia attacking Iraq if Iraq posed a threat to them until they allied themselves with the Great Satan, good old US of A. Good old Osama is also one fo the main reasons the Soviets lost in Afghanstan(and later collapsed) which evntually led us to become the sole super power. People always find it convenient to ally themselves with us when there is a greater threat to them. Even the one who has declared war on us and sent the freedom fighting combat squads at our Towers has American taxpayer blood money on his hands!

[Ant10708]

While I agree with Churchill's basic premise that we should fully expect terrorist acts to be attempted against us due to our foreign policy in the Middle East, I think he went over the top. While some people are indeed guilty of perpetuating corporate plundering and pillaging in Third World countries, it's totally unfair and unreasonable to include the guy sweeping the floor at the WTC among the "Little Eichmanns." I haven't read a lot of Chomsky, but I doubt even he would go that far.

Hits the nail on the head. I missed your post before. I didn't even need to post it seems. :(

[ziggytrix]

And to answer your condescending question about why we are the only superpower: we are the only current superpower because the Soviet Union went bankrupt and collasped.

The condescention your reading into my statements is just me being a sarcastic, jaded asshole - it's not personal.


Its funny how you mock me about thinking we are a superpower because of God because you assume Christians are dumb, all the while defending(or coming close to it) the actions of people who believe in the most radical and dangerous forms of Islam.

I believe religious extremism in ALL forms is the single greatest threat to the future of all humanity. You assume I assume Christians are dumb, but you're wrong there chief, I don't think they're dumb, though I do think most of them aren't paying attention, except through extraordinarily biased filters.


I heard claims that the 9/11 hijackers may actually of been more secular than many of their contempories but even so the main financer of the 'combat squads' is someone who orginally declared Holy War on us for having troops based in Saudi Arabia. As far as I know we didn't drop many bombs on innocent Saudi chrildren recently. And Bin laden was in favor of Saudi Arabia attacking Iraq if Iraq posed a threat to them until they allied themselves with the Great Satan, good old US of A.

Yeah, you're right. We should have invaded Saudi Arabia, not Iraq! They have more oil anyway. In all seriousness, OSB is a bastard child of Saudi Arabia, they've revoked his citizenship, ya know. They're our allies (even though what, 9 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals).

People always find it convenient to ally themselves with us when there is a greater threat to them. Even the one who has declared war on us and sent the freedom fighting combat squads at our Towers has American taxpayer blood money on his hands!

Yeah, he'd probably say he was used and discarded by America. I'm pretty sure the chronology backs me up here. WE financed a good bit of his actions in Afghanistan. I don't think he sent anyone to the US to ask for that backing. We were allied with Saddam Hussien too, hell we practically set him up and gave him the keys to Iraq. It's kind of strange the people we say are our allies when we stand to benefit from it, but you make your bed with snakes, you get bit. And then you get mad and kill all the snakes. It's the American way!

[ziggytrix]

If you honestly are so taken away by Churchhill's essay then thats your problem. Its poorly written and he makes several bad analogies which in my opinion will cause lots of people to dismiss it. I wonder if he really hates capitalism or he is like Moore and thinks capitalism is evil but reaps in the tremendous benefits of it. I mean I bet more people have read his article in the past week than in the past three years. He is probaly happy and selling tons of his other books. I'm sorry I may come off as one sided but I am trying to defend the U.S.(without approving of everything in our history).

I missed this bit before, but you're totally right. As I failed to make clear, I hadn't read the essay before Brandon posted a link, and responded before giving it a very thorough read. There are many much BETTER authors who more eloquently state the message against our corruption of capitolism and imperialistic behavior like Gore Vidal or Chomsky or heck, even Al Franken - this guy is pretty weak. BUT I don't think it right for an elected official to call the man treasonous and push for his dismissal because of what he wrote.

Also, since you mentioned it, I think you mischaracterize Moore when you say he "hates capitalism." One can hate the sleazy things our big corporations do without hating free enterprise. It's not such a stretch.

[kellychaos]

Is the question whether we have done things in the past to warrant such hostility or that they think that we have? And, if we have in their minds, done such actions as to warrant retribution; do two wrongs make a right? Are the two evil acts equally evil? Or, in the end, is there an underlying cause of money and/or power that has nothing to do with the questions I posed above.

I'd like to thank my fans, my family and, especially, God for helping me win this Super Bowl. Peace!

[Ant10708]

BUT I don't think it right for an elected official to call the man treasonous Agreed. Thats going way to far.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Those men did not get on those planes thinking "oh man, we're gonna take out some janitors, this is GREAT". They were targetting Americans and America, and ALL I'm saying is we'd do well to think about WHY they did it, and not just write them off as hating America because they're just EVIL men.

I have an opinion on the 9/11 attacks, as do I have an opinion and some thoughts on American foreign policy, globalization, Islamo-fascism, etc.

BUT, as I said before, I think that's a bit off topic. You seem to be jumping to this guy's defense because you feel he makes some good points about 9/11 and American policy abroad in general. Fine. You're entitled to that, and you may even be right about some stuff.

However, what we're talking about is freedom of speech and censorship. That's the discussion. So-called "McCarthyism," that's the discussion.

Whether or not he makes valid points isn't the point. You yourself have acknowledged that his comments were sensational. You said "The majority of the essay was a look into why these people did what they did. ONE line compared, by use of hyperbole, the vicitms in the WTC to a Nazi murder. I don't agree with that comparison, but the rest of the essay should not be discounted."


Now the true debate is whether or not he has had his 1st amendment rights violated, and whether or not he should get fired for the Nazi comparison.

On the latter point, I think enough has been presented to justify his termination. On the former, regarding his rights, they have not been violated, IMO. He had his speech, and like all of us, he may need to deal with the consequences of that speech. Nothing in the 1st Amendment guarantees absolute shelter from any backlash that might result from your free speech. It merely states that Congress (i.e. "the state") will not prevent citizens from exercising their freedom.

[ziggytrix]

1st amendment violated, no. Fired? Myabe, but check this (http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill_wp.html) out.

At first, the colleges involved stood by the professor, citing the transcendent value of unfettered scholastic debate. "Prof. Churchill's comments have precipitated a discussion we ought to have," said Colorado President Elizabeth Hoffman. Chancellor DiStefano said, "I must support his right . . . to hold and express his views, no matter how repugnant." At Hamilton, Prof. Nancy Rabinowitz, who runs the forum where Churchill was to speak, argued last week that "the students should hear his whole argument before they boil it down to a few sound bites."

and

Students said Churchill makes a similar argument in his undergraduate course called "American Holocaust." His books, including "Fantasies of the Master Race" (1992) and "Colonization and Genocide in Native North America" (1994) regularly compare the American establishment to the Nazis, the same comparison he made about financial industry workers killed on 9/11.

That shows that this is pretty much nothing new out of the guy's mouth. It's just some rubbish shitstorm whipped up by the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, or whomever is currently upping their ratings by calling this guy a disgrace for somethign he wrote 3 and a half years ago.



It should also be noted that he's offered something in the way of justification for his words, though not an apology:

Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies.


It should be emphasized that I applied the "little Eichmanns" characterization only to those described as "technicians." Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack. According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.

But either way this guy is still fucked. The conservative media machine will do it's thing, Rupert Murdoch will get richer, and Americans can feel OK about themselves. Yay, happy ending.

[El Blanco]

That shows that this is pretty much nothing new out of the guy's mouth. It's just some rubbish shitstorm whipped up by the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, or whomever is currently upping their ratings by calling this guy a disgrace for somethign he wrote 3 and a half years ago.


And what exactly have they said about it? Aside from their usual cheerleading?

And how does this make Rupert Murdoch richer?

This man's employer decided that they would not let him use their resources to bring unwanted heat onto them. He's done it before, this was just the last straw.

You can get all uppity and pissy and cry about how wrong things are all you want. It won't change that the university was well within their rights to drop him.

[ziggytrix]

1. I don't know what they've said, and I don't really fucking care.

2. Rupert owns FOX News, if ratings are good he get's richer.

3. This man's employer hasn't dropped him, they've started a process that MAY lead to his dimissal.

4. You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about, I'm not being "uppity and pissy," I'm just saying what's on my mind. I'm not "crying about how wrong things are" - I'm just setting myself up for the big "I TOLD YOU SO" when some shithead releases a doomsday virus or some shit and we all get to meet up in hell.

5. El Blanco can SUCK MY COCK.

[El Blanco]

1. I don't know what they've said, and I don't really fucking care.

And yet you have an opinion

2. Rupert owns FOX News, if ratings are good he get's richer.

And this is good ratings? Its not that slow a week.

3. This man's employer hasn't dropped him, they've started a process that MAY lead to his dimissal.

So, why are you and davin upset?

4. You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about,

I have no clue what you are talking about because you keep trying to switch up and back pedal. You've even managed to cross yourself up.

I'm not being "uppity and pissy," I'm just saying what's on my mind.

You're whining about some imagined freedom of speech violation and getting all dramatic over this non-issue

I'm not "crying about how wrong things are" - I'm just setting myself up for the big "I TOLD YOU SO" when some shithead releases a doomsday virus or some shit and we all get to meet up in hell.

OK, tell your mommy you need more lithium.

5. El Blanco can SUCK MY COCK.

While I am flattered that you would find me attractive, I am not gay. I'm not judging you or your lifestyle. I am just not a homosexual.

I hope you don't take this too harshly and try and hurt yourself. I'm sure in due time you will fin d someone to return such affection. I am just not that person.

[ziggytrix]

"And yet you have an opinion"

About some schmuck getting fired for running his mouth in a unpolitically correct manner: yes; about what Hannity may have said: no. I don't see why I should have had to explain that to you.

"And this is good ratings? Its not that slow a week."

It's not as good as when Clinton got a blow-job, I'll give you that, but it's a story about WTC and Nazis and liberal professors and something every good American can get self-righteous over.

"So, why are you and davin upset?"

I can't speak for Davin. As for myself, I'm upset that I used a genric insult "suck my cock" and you mistook it for a come-on. I mean, that's REALLY depressing.

"I have no clue what you are talking about because you keep trying to switch up and back pedal. You've even managed to cross yourself up."

Yes, I can tell by the way you quoted examples of me back pedalling, no wait, you didn't do that. I think you're full of shit.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

But either way this guy is still fucked. The conservative media machine will do it's thing, Rupert Murdoch will get richer, and Americans can feel OK about themselves. Yay, happy ending.

I agree that there is clearly a (dare I say) coordinated attempt by the Right-Wing talking heads to play this up, blow it up, and harp on it.

Blanco, you made some comment about it not being that slow of a news week. I think that's the point. The president is trying to sell his s.s. package, Condi is throwing the gauntlet at Iran, and other more important things. But these pundits, the Sean Hannitys, the Brit Humes, and the Joe Scarboroughs, ARE in fact focusing a LOT of attention on this. I don't think it's about money. The Weekly Standard has never made a dime for Rupert Murdoch, but it serves an ideological purpose for him. That's why these guys are focusing on this Churchill guy. It's not about him per se, but rather, it's about the "liberal campus elites" who hate America, and the south, and are the antithesis of "Joe Six-pack."

This is a culture war thing to them, no doubt.......BUT, that doesn't make them wrong about this one. The guy is a douche bag, and frankly, he sounds like a shitty professor who would only be able to teach in the most liberal, esoteric departments in the country. He said at a rally yesterday that he stood by his Eichman comments, and that all of the so-called "techno-crats" in the WTC were silently in compliance with the evil American regime. Please.

[davinxtk]

I'm sorry I'm not contributing much to this, but I've got books, tuition, and homework coming out of my eyeballs all of a sudden. I barely have enough time to keep up with the conversation, but I like where it's going.

I agree that there is clearly a (dare I say) coordinated attempt by the Right-Wing talking heads to play this up, blow it up, and harp on it.
...
But these pundits, the Sean Hannitys, the Brit Humes, and the Joe Scarboroughs, ARE in fact focusing a LOT of attention on this. I don't think it's about money ... it serves an ideological purpose for him. That's why these guys are focusing on this Churchill guy. It's not about him per se, but rather, it's about the "liberal campus elites" who hate America, and the south, and are the antithesis of "Joe Six-pack."

Kevin, you just handed me my argument. This is a culture war, and the more the public is able to call (http://www.freerepublic.com/~ajolympian2004/in-forum) him (http://glocktalk.com/sitemap/topic/338811-1.html) a traitor (http://www.aimovement.org/moipr/churchill05.html), the closer we are to his name topping a big black list. Or worse, he could end up like Sami Al-Arian (http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo02052005.html), rotting in a prison for expressing his opinions.

"Goodbye Freedom of Speech, Hello New McCarthyism" wasn't me saying "HEY GUYS NEW RED SCARE IN DA HOUSE WUT WUT," and I'll admit it was a sensationalist thing to say -- but no more sensationalist than accusing this guy of treason.
This is where it begins, this is where we set the precedent that it's A-OKAY to fire people as sympathizers.

It merely states that Congress (i.e. "the state") will not prevent citizens from exercising their freedom.

The NCAC has even picked this one up, linky (http://www.ncac.org/action/alerts.html).
We're not talking about UCB staff (http://newmedia.colorado.edu/silverandgold/messages/4177.html) pushing for his dismissal or protesting his lectures. We're talking about Governor George Pataki (NY, of course) and Governor Bill Owens (Colorado). Which one of them is the next McCarthy?

He knows that he's pissing people off and he resigned as chairman of ethnic studies (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3513399,00.html).

"I don't think it is appropriate that under these conditions, that I represent my department," said Churchill, who added that he has recently received numerous "credible" death threats.

So he doesn't represent his department anymore. Why does his opinion get to end his career just because it's "traiterous?" And why the fuck is this happening at the demand of Governors and radio hosts?

[Brandon]

Oh stop being so fucking dramatic. Has any legal action been taken against him? Have the big black government helicopters started hovering over his house? Has he been hauled off to Gitmo?

No, he lost his job because he chose to write nasty, stupid, hateful, hurtful things. The man slandered the victims of a national tragedy and then openly declared that he thinks more 9/11's should occur. If Churchill had been boycotted or fired for writing something racist or homophobic, you'd be quite fine with it -- hell, you might even be participating in the movement and signing petitions.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

And Brandon just handed me my argument.....

[Big Papa Goat]

As a professor, it's your job to publish well thought out and researched papers. Publishing some spur of the moment opinion piece on a controversial issue is pretty much the opposite of that part of your job description.
There's nothing wrong with firing a professor for the ideas he publishes, because writing down ideas is part of the job, and if his ideas are offensive and poorly thought out, not to mention poorly expressed, then he is just doing a poor job, and there's nothing wrong with firing him.

[ziggytrix]

There's nothing wrong with firing a professor for the ideas he publishes, because writing down ideas is part of the job, and if his ideas are offensive and poorly thought out, not to mention poorly expressed, then he is just doing a poor job, and there's nothing wrong with firing him.

I agree with poorly thought out and expressed, but offensiveness should not be criteria for dismissal. Biology teachers' ideas are offensive to strict creationists, do you think they should be calling for the dismissal of professors who write about evolution?

[davinxtk]

Also, an idea that's spur of the moment isn't necessarily poorly thought out. It's hardly poorly thought out to take a look at this not from an emotional, "holy shit look at those dead guys, tragedy, terrorism" standpoint, and think about it rationally as collateral damage in an ongoing religious and economic war. If anything it's poorly thought out to, three years later, not take an objective fucking look at this.


On top of which, if this was really about publishing poorly expressed ideas or points that haven't been thought out, it would have been addressed when he first wrote the goddamn thing.

What are you guys not seeing about this situation that would make it as bad as I'm saying it is? Because it's really fucking getting there.
Did either of you even check on any of the links I included?
Here, I'll make it really easy for you:

While the government has no obligation to fund educational institutions, once it provides funding it cannot dictate what ideas may be expressed in the classroom or in professors' published work. The university is a special kind of marketplace where all kinds of ideas can be voiced and argued, error discovered, and truth affirmed. If academia became subservient to political concerns, if controversial and oppositional ideas were banned, education would become indoctrination. Thus, the announcement by the University of Colorado Board of Regents and Chancellor they have launched a "thorough examination of Professor Churchill's writings, speeches, tape recordings and other works," searching for "cause for dismissal" is particularly distressing.

[ziggytrix]

Modern McCarthyism or justice?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/02/11/ulawyer.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/02/11/ixportaltop.html

We were watching the news about this at lunch. I'd like to know exactly what evidence they had against her, that she willingly conspired with her client. But those kind of details don't make it into the papers.

I'm done with this thread, but I want to end on the note that I don't think we've entered a new era of McCarthyism where terrorists/arabs are the new commies/ruskies. I just wish I could say I were certain that we have not.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Okay, I think that case is COMPLETELY different than what we've been discussing here.

How about we make a deal? If some politician, like George Pataki for example (a lark if you lived in NYS) turns into the next Joe McCarthy, and some sort of "list" begins to grow, then you guys can unearth this thread and tell us you told us so. How about it?

[derrida]

from counterpunch:

surprisingly (!), churchill doesn't sound nearly as EDGY or controversial when not presented in we report, you decide sound bites:

Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies.

It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad, this placement of an element of the American "command and control infrastructure" in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a "legitimate" target. Again following U.S. military doctrine, as announced in briefing after briefing, those who did not work for the CIA but were nonetheless killed in the attack amounted to no more than "collateral damage." If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these "standards" when the are routinely applied to other people, they should be not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them.

It should be emphasized that I applied the "little Eichmanns" characterization only to those described as "technicians." Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack. According to Pentagon logic, they were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.

The bottom line of my argument is that the best and perhaps only way to prevent 9-11-style attacks on the U.S. is for American citizens to compel their government to comply with the rule of law. The lesson of Nuremberg is that this is not only our right, but our obligation. To the extent we shirk this responsibility, we, like the "Good Germans" of the 1930s and '40s, are complicit in its actions and have no legitimate basis for complaint when we suffer the consequences. This, of course, includes me, personally, as well as my family, no less than anyone else.

[kellychaos]

I think that they chose the target on account of it's symbolism more than any legitimate military/intelligence threat posed by it. It inspired outrage and fear which was their goal. In other words, it was kind of a "Look what I can do!" :stuart

P.S. By this, I'm not doubting that the terrorists aren't capable of intelligent thought or planning, I just don't see taking on such a complex target (which they've attempted before) on the basis of it's military or intelligence value when easier targets could have been taken without the collateral damage. Besides, how much could the fear an intelligence agency that wasn't even doing that great of job of keeping tabs on them?

[ItalianStereotype]

Incendiary in Academia May Now Find Himself Burned
By KIRK JOHNSON
<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/11/national/11professor.html>
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/11/national/11professor.html
BOULDER, Colo., Feb. 10 - Prof. Ward L. Churchill has made a career at the
University of Colorado out of pushing people's buttons, colleagues and
students say, clearly relishing his stance as radical provocateur and
in-your-face critic.

Whether it is getting arrested by the Denver police for trying to disrupt
Columbus Day, which Professor Churchill has described as a "celebration of
genocide" because of the deaths of Indians that resulted from European
colonization, or ruffling feathers in the faculty lounge, hyperbole and
bombast have always been ready tools in the Churchill kit bag, people here
say.

Now many of the offended are pushing back. The storm of controversy that has
blown up around Professor Churchill over his essay about the Sept. 11
attacks, with its reference to the Nazi Adolf Eichmann - the "technocrats"
at the World Trade Center were "little Eichmanns," Professor Churchill said
- has turned the professor into a talking point and a political punch line.
On conservative talk radio, on campuses across the country, and especially
here in Boulder, debate about Professor Churchill means debate about freedom
of speech, the solemnity of Sept. 11 and the supposed liberal bias of
academia.

Many people here say that the professor - with his scholarly record under
investigation by the university l and with Gov. Bill Owens, a Republican,
calling for his dismissal - has become a symbol of academic expression under
fire. Others worry that subjects like Sept. 11 have become "sacred," and
cordoned off from unpopular analysis. Some say that the vitriolic debate
itself is the message and that people have been transformed into mirror
images of the man they love or loathe - little Churchills, as it were, who
are just as entrenched, over-the-top and, apparently, eager to offend as he
himself.

"Two sides are being presented without a lot of people listening," said Joe
Flasher, 24, a graduate student in astrophysics. "You already have your
opinion, right. So it's one person saying what they think and then the other
person saying the complete opposite. It seems very polarized. But I guess it
is the ultimate exercise in free speech."

Student organizations like College Democrats and College Republicans have
skirmished over Professor Churchill, a member of the ethnic studies
department. The Democratic group began a petition this week saying, "The
attacks on Professor Ward Churchill are attacks on the academic freedom of
the university." The Republicans, in calling for his dismissal, said that
alumni should freeze donations and that parents should send their children
elsewhere until political balance is brought to the professorial ranks.

"It's probably in their best interest to get rid of guys like that, but why
hide what this place really is: a bunch of lunatic leftists," said Matthew
Schuldt, senior vice chairman of College Republicans.

The undercurrent of the debate, faculty members and students say, is anxiety
about how the outside world regards the university. A football recruiting
scandal and several alcohol-related deaths among students over the last year
created waves of bad publicity for the institution. Now some people fear
that everyone will think the university is full of people like Professor
Churchill, whose essay, which drew little attention at its publication after
the attacks, gained notoriety when he was scheduled to speak at Hamilton
College in upstate New York last week. It suggests little emotion about the
deaths of thousands of people on Sept. 11 and a cold logic of foreign policy
analysis salted with terms that seemed calculated to enrage rather than
enlighten.

"If he had just been a little more thoughtful, nothing would have happened,"
Uriel Nauenberg, a professor of physics and the former chairman of the
Boulder Faculty Assembly, said. "He did not have to say these things in the
manner that he did."

Nonetheless, Professor Nauenberg said he did not believe that Professor
Churchill should be forced out because of the essay, though he added that he
personally found the expressions in the essay obnoxious.

Professor Churchill, 57, a Vietnam War veteran who became a lecturer at the
university in 1978 and was granted tenure in 1991, has claimed affiliations
over the years with many vociferous left-wing groups, including the Black
Panthers, Students for a Democratic Society and the American Indian
Movement. He said in an interview that winning peoples' attention often
meant not being nice. The United States' foreign and domestic policies, he
said, are brutal, and the words to describe that can be painful.

"I don't believe in the theory that we get to treat people like dogs, but
you have to talk to us in a polite way," he said.

Faculty members say that an objection to his writing style or opinions,
however outrageous or unpopular, is not enough to justify firing him. The
30-day review of his "writings, speeches, tape recordings and other works,"
that was announced last week by the university's governing body, the Board
of Regents, must find evidence of outright academic dishonesty, said R L
Widmann, a professor of English and the chairwoman of the Academic Affairs
Committee of the Boulder Faculty Assembly.

" 'I published a falsehood and I knew it to be untrue' - that's what they'd
have to find," Professor Widmann said.
But the passions have led to some dishonesty. University officials said on
Monday, for instance, that they were canceling a speech by Professor
Churchill because of security concerns. The student organizers of the speech
had received death threats because of their support for the professor,
university officials said, and safety could not be guaranteed.

The students, whose names were not released, admitted on Tuesday that the
death threats were embellished.
"They said, 'We were just being political,' " Ron Stump, the vice chancellor
for student affairs, said. "We expressed our disappointment."

The speech came off without incident - and without any apologies from
Professor Churchill.
Many students interviewed on campus in recent days said they feared that the
lines being drawn around Professor Churchill were also creating boundaries
about what could be freely and safely talked about in the United States.

"I think it's no longer about free speech - it's turned into this kind of
thing that we can't talk about Sept 11, that it's kind of become a sacred
issue," said Erin Langer, 22, a senior humanities major from Naperville,
Ill. "People forget we're in a university setting, and the way ideas are
challenged is by looking at an extreme view. The fact that he is so extreme
challenges people to think more."

Michelle York contributed reporting from New York for this article.


a decent article, though I don't agree with everything that was said. this guy just seems like a major douche, but I'm sure nobody is questioning that.

[davinxtk]

How about we make a deal? If some politician, like George Pataki for example (a lark if you lived in NYS) turns into the next Joe McCarthy, and some sort of "list" begins to grow, then you guys can unearth this thread and tell us you told us so. How about it?


:bow