The "Little Eichmann's" at the World Trade Center

[Cowperson]

A controversy to warm the cockles of the off-topic board.

An embattled Colorado University professor who compared Sept. 11 victims to Nazis struck a defiant tone during a campus speech, saying "I'm not backing up an inch."

In an essay, Churchill wrote that workers in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns," a reference to Adolf Eichmann (search), who ensured the smooth running of the Nazi system. Churchill also spoke of the "gallant sacrifices" of the "combat teams" that struck America.

The ethnic studies professor said Tuesday his essay was referring to "technocrats" who participate in what he calls repressive American policies around the world.

A longtime American Indian Movement (search) activist, he said he is also culpable because his efforts to change the system haven't succeeded. "I could do more. I'm complicit. I'm not innocent," he said.

In case you hadn't noticed, Bill O'Reilly has been after him, predictably, but he's also being torched in various other places. The normally sedate and professional Paula Zahn on CNN the other night greased him pretty good in a rare display of anger.

Aside from the issue of whether or not a stockbroker in the WTC on Sept. 11, 2001 was a "little Eichmann," does he have the priviledge of "academic freedom?"

Is he saying anything different than the eminently employable Noam Chomsky?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146833,00.html

Cowperson

[transplant99]

This guy, and the radical left wingers like him, can say whatever they like...it's a free country.

My problem with this guy though? From what I understand, he is being paid by taxpayers...and as such, he has to be held to a higher standard than that of some loose lipped radical being funded privately.

Is this something you would want your children being "taught" in a state sponsored institution?

[MarchHare]

My problem with this guy though? From what I understand, he is being paid by taxpayers...and as such, he has to be held to a higher standard than that of some loose lipped radical being funded privately.

So what? Is he to be denied his freedom of speech because he's employed by a state university?

Anyway, obviously what he said is reprehensible, but I'll be the first in line to defend his right to say it.

[arsenal]

For him to say that the victims in the WTC are "Little Eichmann's" is in my mind completely wrong. But the issue of him being paid by tax payers, so he shouldn't speak his mind, is wrong.

Should Don Cherry speak the mind of the Liberals becuase they pay his salary? Nope. Should the CRTC put a 7 second delay on Cherry becuase he said something that people don't agree with? Nope.

Both are forms of cencorship. You should have the right to say what you want to say, when you want to say it. You just better have the proof to back up your statements.

If the University chooses to keep him employed that is really up to them.

[transplant99]

Is he to be denied his freedom of speech because he's employed by a state university?

He doesn't lose his "freedom of speech". He does however have to lose that kind of rhetoric (or prove it), or get another job. Would it be OK if he spouted out Nazi beliefs as well, praising the holocaust? There is no reason that Colorado taxpayers should be lining this clowns pocket.



He has to live up to different standard than that of independently funded nutbars...i thought I covered that already?

[transplant99]

But the issue of him being paid by tax payers, so he shouldn't speak his mind, is wrong.

It isn't when it's simply an opinion and has no basis of fact. Geez, here I thought University was about learning, not what someone else "thinks".

You just better have the proof to back up your statements.

Thanks for agreeing.

[MarchHare]

He doesn't lose his "freedom of speech".

If he loses his job over this, then yes, he did lose his freedom of speech.

He does however have to lose that kind of rhetoric (or prove it), or get another job.

Does the same standard apply to people who denounce evolution and spout off rhetoric about creationism, for example? Do they have to prove their rhetoric or get another job too?

Would it be OK if he spouted out Nazi beliefs as well, praising the holocaust?

Yes. Freedom of speech doesn't just protect popular speech. In fact, it's unpopular speech that needs to be protected most of all.

Where I would draw the line, though, is if he said something that directly incited violence. Praising the holocaust is much different than saying "Go forth and kill all the Jews!" and then people actually did.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by transplant99@Feb 9 2005, 11:47 AM
But the issue of him being paid by tax payers, so he shouldn't speak his mind, is wrong.

It isn't when it's simply an opinion and has no basis of fact. Geez, here I thought University was about learning, not what someone else "thinks".

You just better have the proof to back up your statements.

Thanks for agreeing.

There are a lot of fields of study about what people think.
Any sort of literature, or philosophy is about opinions. I'd like to see you prove the meaning of a poem.

Do I disagree with the guy? Absolutely, I think he's a nutball, but saying he shouldn't be able go give his opinion (however stupid it is) because he works at a university is just wrong. Look at guys like Galeleo, they got persecuted for speaking their minds and not teaching what the scientific community (in his case also the church) accepted as true. Now I'm in no way suggesting that this guy is in any way like Galeleo, but people that think that professors sholdn't be able to voice a desenting opinion have been responsible for a great many setbacks in almost every field of study.
Anyone who isn't already leaning towards crackpot themselves is going to see this guy and his theories for what they are, a bunch of groundless yammerings by some nutball. In the long run, this guy isn't going to do any harm other than p*ssing off the famalies of those who died, and forcing the rest of us to hear Fox News pundits bitch about him.

[transplant99]

If he loses his job over this, then yes, he did lose his freedom of speech.

Huh? He can stand on top of the highest building in Denver and shout his beliefs at the top of his lungs....his freedom of speech is not affected one bit if he loses his job.

Does the same standard apply to people who denounce evolution and spout off rhetoric about creationism, for example? Do they have to prove their rhetoric or get another job too?

Of course it applies equally. If someone SAYS this what it is in a PUBLICALLY funded university, then they too should be removed. Do it on your own dollar, not mine.

Yes. Freedom of speech doesn't just protect popular speech. In fact, it's unpopular speech that needs to be protected most of all.

Again, he isnt being prevented from saying what he wants...the intent is to prevent him from being paid to teach it to young minds by taxpayers money. Much much different.

I guess you would be OK if he made such remarks as "all muslims are terrorists", or, "All blacks have inferior intellect"...all just as goofy as what he said IMO as well as sentimenst that are existing in society right now. Just because some nutbars actually believe this crap, doesnt mean they have the right to teach it.

Go ahead and protect this kind of nonsense if you like...i refuse.

Where I would draw the line, though, is if he said something that directly incited violence. Praising the holocaust is much different than saying "Go forth and kill all the Jews!" and then people actually did.

So the result has to happen before you disagree with it? What if his essay was taken literally by some of his students, and they are planning to blow up some brokerage houses right now? (I realize this is a stretch) All because they now believe that "little eichmans" are continuing on the same path as those who were targeted in the TWC?

[Cowperson]

Little Eichmann's pay most of the taxes in the USA.

The offending essay by Ward Churchill

http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html

"As for those in the World Trade Center," the essay said, "well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break."

Is there anything in there he shouldn't have the right to say?

Do we wonder what he is saying in his classroom in an academic environment? Is that the issue?

Cowperson

[MarchHare]

I guess you would be OK if he made such remarks as "all muslims are terrorists", or, "All blacks have inferior intellect"...all just as goofy as what he said IMO as well as sentimenst that are existing in society right now. Just because some nutbars actually believe this crap, doesnt mean they have the right to teach it.

Yes, they do have the right to teach that. Of course, they will be subject to ridicule by their peers and any student with half a brain, but it's still their right.

I highly suggest you educate yourself with the concept of academic freedom and what it entails. If a professor loses his job over something he said or wrote, then he most definetely has had his freedoms violated.

[transplant99]

I highly suggest you educate yourself with the concept of academic freedom and what it entails

Uhh yeah...thanks.

I have actually attended college, but hey, since i don't agree with you, i am now "un-educated". Great.

If a professor loses his job over something he said or wrote, then he most definetely has had his freedoms violated.

Beautiful....and oh so wrong.

If I work for a company/institution, I cant simply spout off and say what I want if its contrary to what they want said/done. If I do, they get rid of me. Have my rights been violated? Hardly.

Just because this clown was a professor, it does not preclude him from getting the same treatment, nor does it allow some kind of job security that NO ONE has a right too anywhere else.

[MarchHare]

Uhh yeah...thanks.

I have actually attended college, but hey, since i don't agree with you, i am now "un-educated". Great.

You certainly are uneducated when it comes to understanding academic freedom.

Beautiful....and oh so wrong.

If I work for a company/institution, I cant simply spout off and say what I want if its contrary to what they want said/done. If I do, they get rid of me. Have my rights been violated? Hardly.

Just because this clown was a professor, it does not preclude him from getting the same treatment, nor does it allow some kind of job security that NO ONE has a right too anywhere else.

You're also not a tenured university professor, which is a very important distinction to make here. Academics enjoy special protections from their institutions that are not afforded to employees of private sector companies.

[transplant99]

Academic Freedom does NOT equate to being able to say whatever you want...no matter how many times you want to say it.

Special protections/tenures are up to the presiding university...firing clowns like this are also up to the university. One does not outweigh the other.

And again....not one "right" of his is being taken away from him. He can still spout off at the mouth on whatever he wants...just not on taxpayers dollars. Go to a privately funded institution...no problem. Im sure he can find someone, somewhere, that finances an institution, who would love to have him. Or not.

[Lurch]

Huh? He can stand on top of the highest building in Denver and shout his beliefs at the top of his lungs....his freedom of speech is not affected one bit if he loses his job.

This is ridiculous. If we fire a homosexual teacher for being homosexual, that does not infringe on his/her rights because they still have the right to be homosexual???? Economic sanction in response to the exercise of freedom of speech is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Again, he isnt being prevented from saying what he wants...the intent is to prevent him from being paid to teach it to young minds by taxpayers money. Much much different.

How very typically conservative. We should only teach one view in order to indoctrinate our society with the entrenched viewpoint. God forbid we expose 20 somethings to ideas that fly in the face of our own, and in fact are offensive to a great many people. I think we should extend Bush's job description to include absolute say over what is and what is not acceptable discourse in a university so we don't poison our young with dangerous leftist propaganda and blackball anyone who dares go outside the norms from ever working in America again. Why, what a great idea Senator McCarthy!

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by transplant99@Feb 9 2005, 12:15 PM

Uhh yeah...thanks.

I have actually attended college, but hey, since i don't agree with you, i am now "un-educated". Great.

Beautiful....and oh so wrong.

If I work for a company/institution, I cant simply spout off and say what I want if its contrary to what they want said/done. If I do, they get rid of me. Have my rights been violated? Hardly.

Just because this clown was a professor, it does not preclude him from getting the same treatment, nor does it allow some kind of job security that NO ONE has a right too anywhere else.

The whole point of institutions of higher learning is not to teach what has been accepted, but to propose and prove or disprove theories and opinions.

If an physics professor was teaching that Avagadro's # was 7 then yes, or that the gravitational constant was -3 then yes, he should be fired, because he is teaching something that is indesputably wrong. This guy is an ethics studies professor, something which clearly does not have defined boundaries of right and wrong. If you can prove to me that this guy was 100% wrong then I'll grant you that he should be fired for what he wrote (I didn't see anywhere that he was teaching this in a class, only that it was in an essay and a speack he was gave). Otherwise, he is merely looking at the whole of the issue of Sept 11 (those who were attacked, and those that did the attack), and he is inclined to disagree with the commonly accepted ethics that are applied to the situation. Should he not be able to think that the opposing side of an ethical arguement is false? Not unless you intend to disallow any sort of scientific research at that university that is not inteded to prove current scientific beliefs.

[MarchHare]

If anyone is interested, here's the University of Colorado's policy on academic freedom:

http://www.cudenver.edu/Resources/Policies...emicFreedom.htm

Academic freedom and diverse viewpoints are highly valued at the University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center. The Laws of the Board of Regents of the University of Colorado specify that:

(1) “The University of Colorado was created and is maintained to afford men and women a liberal education in the several branches of literature, arts, sciences, and the professions. These aims can be achieved only in that atmosphere of free inquiry and discussion, which has become a tradition of universities and is called “academic freedom. . . . Within the bounds of this definition, academic freedom requires that members of the faculty must have complete freedom to study, to learn, to do research, and to communicate the results of these pursuits to others. The students likewise must have freedom of study and discussion. The fullest exposure to conflicting opinions is the best insurance against error. . . . All members of the academic community have a responsibility to protect the university as a forum for the free expression of ideas.”

Emphasis mine.

[MarchHare]

And here's another take on academic freedom, which transplant99 clearly fails to comprehend:

http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v5n6.html

Academic freedom and tenure are two sides of the same coin. Following an initial statement of principles in 1915, the current view of tenure was established in 1940 when the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the Association of American Colleges (AAC) officially sanctioned it for purposes of preserving faculty's right to academic freedom. Legally, it assures faculty the right to pursue any line of inquiry in the course of their teaching or research without being censored, penalized or fired by university administrators.

Again, empahasis mine.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Care to comment on that one Tranny?

Wait lemme guess...

"Getting fired doesn't prevent constitute losing your freedom of speach, he can say what he wants somewhere else".

[MarchHare]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz@Feb 9 2005, 12:48 PM
Care to comment on that one Tranny?

Wait lemme guess...

"Getting fired doesn't prevent constitute losing your freedom of speach, he can say what he wants somewhere else".

Heh...I'm willing to bet he doesn't post again in this thread, as his position has been completely and thoroughly debunked.