Goodbye Freedom of Speech

[davinxtk]

Hello New McCarthyism.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...peaker_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]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

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]

Originally Posted by ItalianStereotype

and imperialism is awesome.

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

Originally Posted by davin

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]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

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]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

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.

[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.