This afternoon the Board of Regents of Colorado University voted 8-1 to terminate the services of tenured professor Ward Churchill. This story has been brewing for the past two years with allegations of fabrications as well as his inflamatory comments about 9-11.
David Lane, professor Churchill’s attorney, stated that “It sends absolutely an atrocious message to the academic community all over the country, which is: if you stick your neck out and make politically inflammatory comments, your reputation will be destroyed by the university bent on destroying you and ultimately your tenured position will be forfeited,” said Lane. “To the public at large the message is: there will be a payback for free speech.”
With members of Congress discussing an effort to muzzle conservative talk radio what is about to happen is a major debate on our First Amendment which reads in part: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”What’s your opinion of today’s actions?
From what I have seen of this fellow in t.v. interviews, he is an arrogant SOB who feels he knows best about most everything, plus has apparently pagerized and misrepresented his heritage. Good riddance, maybe he can find a real job somewhere.
I dislike Churchill because he stretches the truth to the point of ‘white lie'(which is still a lie) and is possibly a plagerizer; integrity in academia is its lifeblood. Had either of these charges been investigated, it probably would have given the college grounds for dismissal.
But that’s not why he was terminated, was it? He was canned for what he said. His words were horrible and reprehensible, certainly as bad as those uttered by Falwell and Robertson in the days following 9-11.
Many on the Left felt that those two should have been taken off the air. But the Constitution gave them the right to say what they wanted about 9/11. Why should it be different just because it was the Right that found Churchill’s words reprehensible? Is he to have his rights to free speech cancelled just because he says them to a cadre of students on a college campus instead of a few million people on the public airwaves? Is that the way the Constitution works in this ‘Post 9-11’ world?
AyQodem
He was canned for plagiarism and academic integrity. Listen to someone other than Katie Couric for the news.
Email response from central O.C.
Why did it take UC so long?
7:07 a.m.
Who is Katie Couric? Is she on FOX News? No, I do not listen to network anchor wanna bees.
dude got fired for plagiarism which is a HUGE deal in the world of Academia. It gets worse, he also wrote articles under assumed names and when he wrote under his real name is used his assumed name papers as sources! Again, another big no no in Academia.
Ayqodem and Syqodem.
The justification for his termination, from what I have read, is that he engaged in plagerism. Settign that aside, while he didn’t yell fire in a movie house he crossed the line. There is a major difference in comparing his work, teaching of 18 to 22 year old students, with those of us who hopefully have more life experience and have the oportunity that students lack to challenge said commentary without fear of retribution. I’m the teacher and your the student, etc.
Again. His termination was not for HIS words but those of others that he was said to have PLAGERIZED.
Email response from central CA:
About time
And the latest:
Professor Churchill just filed a law suit. Partial info below:
The suit claims that both the academic investigation and the decision to fire Churchill were retaliation. It also says Churchill’s right to due process under the U.S. and state constitutions was violated and accuses the university of breach of contract.
Saw Churchill’s attorney on the news a few days ago predicting the firing and stating that a lawsuit would be filed immediately citing the constitutional reasons Larry Gilbert reports (Post No. 9) So far, everything is on schedule. Hope the University does not settle this one out of Court for $$$.
Email response to the termination:
FINALLY…………….
One of the hardest things my student have to comprehend is the concept of plagiarism and academic integrety. Not that my studends even know who he is, people like Churchill make it even harder for them to comprehend.
If he was canned for plagiarism and failure to exercise academic integrety, he deserves to be canned. And #10, if these were the reasons for his termination, I agree: no settlement.
I sincerely hope the case can be made and enforced- as I said, I don’t care for his philosophy, but his philosophy is constitutionally protected.