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

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Feb 9 2005, 09:09 AM
Is he saying anything different than the eminently employable Noam Chomsky?

Yes.

[transplant99]

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????

Huh?

Its illegal to fire someone based on sexual preferance. Absolutely no idea how that would relate to this situation.

Economic sanction in response to the exercise of freedom of speech is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

It is when its public dollars that are paying him. He can go and get a tenured job at a private institution and preach whatever he wants. I couldn't care less in that instance.

How very typically conservative.

Thanks, to me this always means im using common sense when it comes from leftwing radicals.

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.

Who said that? Nice stretch though.

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!

Wow. Yeah, that's what I said.

[transplant99]

Originally posted by MarchHare+Feb 9 2005, 02:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MarchHare @ Feb 9 2005, 02:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-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. [/b][/quote]
My position? I thought I was giving my opinion...and thats the same thing he was doing?

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

Exactly.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Feb 9 2005, 06:46 PM
And here's another take on academic freedom, which transplant99 clearly fails to comprehend:

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

Again, empahasis mine.

Funny how you forgot to include the footnote attached to that paragraph:

10. While faculty are entitled to freedom of discussion and inquiry in their classroom, it is a generally recognized limitation that they should not introduce controversial matter which has no relation to their subject. What constitutes "controversial" and "no relation," however, often remains an open question.

Cowpereson

[MarchHare]

My position? I thought I was giving my opinion...and thats the same thing he was doing?

And your opinion is demonstrably wrong. The University of Colorado is a member of the Association of American Colleges. The AAC has clearly defined policies that ensure academic freedom, including protecting faculty from censorship or termination by university administrators. Why do you still not understand this? How come this debate is going around in circles?

Exactly.

Not exactly. For the love of god read what I've posted. Getting fired would clearly be a violation of his freedom.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by transplant99+Feb 9 2005, 12:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (transplant99 @ Feb 9 2005, 12:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

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

My position? I thought I was giving my opinion...and thats the same thing he was doing?

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

Exactly. [/b][/quote]
Okay fine,
By that logic I can fire gay people, because that doesn't violte their right to be gay, they can go be gay somewhere else. Oh, and I'm gonna fire all the blacks and Jews, because they can be Black and Jewish somewhere else. Women, you're next, because you can all go be women somewhere else. I'm generally a conservative, so all you Liberals, you're fired too, go be Liberals somewhere else. Okay, now that I've gotten rid of all of those people, time to go ahead and fire all those people who have excercised their right to free speach by voicing a dissenting opinion, they can go have that opinion somewhere else.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Feb 9 2005, 12:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Feb 9 2005, 12:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MarchHare@Feb 9 2005, 06:46 PM
And here's another take on academic freedom, which transplant99 clearly fails to comprehend:

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

Again, empahasis mine.

Funny how you forgot to include the footnote attached to that paragraph:

10. While faculty are entitled to freedom of discussion and inquiry in their classroom, it is a generally recognized limitation that they should not introduce controversial matter which has no relation to their subject. What constitutes "controversial" and "no relation," however, often remains an open question.

Cowpereson [/b][/quote]
In this case, clearly what he has said is controversial. But being an ethics professor, I'd have to say that what he has brough up is incredibly relevant. It goes directly to the heart of the reason for the attacks, and many other things (war on terror). If there were ever topics on which to debate ethics, this is cleary the one.

[MarchHare]

Funny how you forgot to include the footnote attached to that paragraph:

10. While faculty are entitled to freedom of discussion and inquiry in their classroom, it is a generally recognized limitation that they should not introduce controversial matter which has no relation to their subject. What constitutes "controversial" and "no relation," however, often remains an open question.

I didn't think the footnote was all that important. First of all, he wasn't introducing these ideas in his classroom. Secondly, from my understanding, his writings were within his realm of research, so the "no relation" bit doesn't apply. And while his view is certainly controversial, if academic freedom doesn't exist to protect controversial thought, for what purpose does it exist then?

[octothorp]

Reading through the article, I'd say that he's prone to hyperbole and convenient reasoning, rather that saying anything particularly offensive. He wouldn't be the first person to suggest that the US (and the western world in general) has behaved reprehensively in first propping up Hussein and then killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians during the first gulf war. Personally, I look at the first gulf war as a necessary evil--something had to be done, and the civilian casualties, though tragic, were in many ways unavoidable. But if you grant him that argument, I don't see anything wrong with suggesting that the people of a nation (especially in a democracy) are equally culpable for the actions carried out by the government they support.

Probably the only really offensive part of this essay is his tone. He sounds just a little too smug and satisfied about the attacks. Obviously the author has a lot of resentment about American militarism and imperialism, going back to the persecution of his own people in the 1800s.

[transplant99]

Looks like the school has LIMITS to what "academic freedom" is exactly...as common sense would implore.

Interim Chancellor Phil DiStefano ordered a 30-day review of Ward Churchill's (search) speeches and writings that will determine if the professor overstepped his boundaries of academic freedom and whether that should be grounds for dismissal.

[MarchHare]

Originally posted by transplant99@Feb 9 2005, 01:04 PM
Looks like the school has LIMITS to what "academic freedom" is exactly...as common sense would implore.

Of course the Chancellor is going to say something like that in an attempt to diffuse the public outcry and negative PR.

Get back to me when the results from that review come in. I'm willing to bet they conclude he didn't overstep the bounderies of academic freedom. And if they do go and fire him, you can be damn sure any self-respecting faculty member will immediately strike in order to protect their academic freedom.

[octothorp]

[quote]Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz@Feb 9 2005, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by Cowperson,Feb 9 2005, 12:58 PM

In this case, clearly what he has said is controversial. But being an ethics professor, I'd have to say that what he has brough up is incredibly relevant. It goes directly to the heart of the reason for the attacks, and many other things (war on terror). If there were ever topics on which to debate ethics, this is cleary the one.

Just a note there, he is a ethnics professor, rather than ethics. Seems from his bio that he teaches a lot about genocide issues, so it's still relevant.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Feb 9 2005, 07:03 PM

I didn't think the footnote was all that important. First of all, he wasn't introducing these ideas in his classroom. Secondly, from my understanding, his writings were within his realm of research, so the "no relation" bit doesn't apply. And while his view is certainly controversial, if academic freedom doesn't exist to protect controversial thought, for what purpose does it exist then?

if academic freedom doesn't exist to protect controversial thought, for what purpose does it exist then?

Academic freedom exists solely to protect controversial thought?

I doubt it.

It might be better said that it exists to protect against the imposition of generic thought but controversial thought, if wacko enough, can still get your ass fired.

To say a professor can go into a classroom and project anything he wants as long as its "on topic" is a little myopic and unrealistic and I'm sure a court would recognize that fact.

I'm not saying Ward Churchill should be fired for writing the essay he did. Like most people, however, I'd be interested in what it is he's telling his students and whether or not its appropriate in the context of his position.

Just another case to find out where the line is. As the footnote states, its hard to tell. He's entitled to due process though.

Cowperson

[transplant99]

I didn't think the footnote was all that important.

Of course you didn't. it goes completely against your ideological belief that all professors are immune from castigation for saying something.

You are wrong...and its been clearly demonstrated.

First of all, he wasn't introducing these ideas in his classroom.

Now we are on to semantics? It was in an essay he wrote, ergo, his beliefs/findings.

He is a teacher, but he isnt necessarily teaching what he believes/finds? But if he does, he is protected by academic freedom? So is it OK to teach something he knows is incorrect?

Seriously, Im just asking.

Secondly, from my understanding, his writings were within his realm of research, so the "no relation" bit doesn't apply

His research found that there was a tower full of guys that wanted to exterminate the jewish race? Please do lead me to that source.

if academic freedom doesn't exist to protect controversial thought, for what purpose does it exist then?

Fair question.

[transplant99]

By that logic I can fire gay people, because that doesn't violte their right to be gay, they can go be gay somewhere else. Oh, and I'm gonna fire all the blacks and Jews, because they can be Black and Jewish somewhere else. Women, you're next, because you can all go be women somewhere else. I'm generally a conservative, so all you Liberals, you're fired too, go be Liberals somewhere else.

That is all discrimination and against the law.

No idea how it relates to this situation.

[transplant99]

Originally posted by octothorp@Feb 9 2005, 03:04 PM
Reading through the article, I'd say that he's prone to hyperbole and convenient reasoning, rather that saying anything particularly offensive. He wouldn't be the first person to suggest that the US (and the western world in general) has behaved reprehensively in first propping up Hussein and then killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians during the first gulf war. Personally, I look at the first gulf war as a necessary evil--something had to be done, and the civilian casualties, though tragic, were in many ways unavoidable. But if you grant him that argument, I don't see anything wrong with suggesting that the people of a nation (especially in a democracy) are equally culpable for the actions carried out by the government they support.

Probably the only really offensive part of this essay is his tone. He sounds just a little too smug and satisfied about the attacks. Obviously the author has a lot of resentment about American militarism and imperialism, going back to the persecution of his own people in the 1800s.

Good post, and I actually agree.

This is one part of the whole thing that just eats at me though...

"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."

So he is condemning the actions of the US in their actions overseas. OK, great, no problem with that.

he then turns around and suggests that fkyling plane loads of innocent civilians into building full of innocent civilians is an adequate response.

Reprehensible and bordering on treasonous if you ask me.

[MarchHare]

Of course you didn't. it goes completely against your ideological belief that all professors are immune from castigation for saying something.

You are wrong...and its been clearly demonstrated.

The footnote doesn't go against my belief at all. It describes situations where academic freedom can be limited, but this is not one such case. What the footnote is referring to, for instance, would be a situation where a chemistry or engineering professor went off on an anti-Bush rant during one of his classes. I believe there was such a situation a few months ago before the election. If I have some free time this afternoon, I'll google for it.

Now we are on to semantics? It was in an essay he wrote, ergo, his beliefs/findings.

It's not a semantic argument. The footnote clearly discusses introducing ideas to the classroom. It says nothing about writing academic papers.

His research found that there was a tower full of guys that wanted to exterminate the jewish race? Please do lead me to that source.

Hyperbole.

That's not what his paper was stating. While his choice of words to call the victims "Little Eichmanns" was poor, the point of his paper is that in a democratic nation like the United States, the citizens assume responsability for actions committed by their government. Therefore, he concludes, the victims of the terrorist attacks were not innocent. While I don't agree with that statement, he's certainly not the first person to have said it. Sir Arthur Harris, for instance, famously argued that German civilians were fair targets for Allied bombing since the Nazi regime would never have come to power were it not for the support of the people.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

[quote]Originally posted by octothorp@Feb 9 2005, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz,Feb 9 2005, 12:02 PM

Just a note there, he is a ethnics professor, rather than ethics. Seems from his bio that he teaches a lot about genocide issues, so it's still relevant.

Oops, my bad, guess I missed a letter while reading it. Though I'd still say that this is a relevant topic for him. American vs moslem values is something that can be debated by either an ethics or etNics prof. But thanks for pointing that out.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by transplant99@Feb 9 2005, 01:15 PM

That is all discrimination and against the law.

No idea how it relates to this situation.

How is descriminating based on race any different than descriminating based on an oposing viewpoint? Free speech is guaranteed in the american constitution, so is the equality of every pesron be they white, black, jewish, gay, or a woman. Descrimination on any basis is an infringment of those rights.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by transplant99+Feb 9 2005, 01:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (transplant99 @ Feb 9 2005, 01:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-octothorp@Feb 9 2005, 03:04 PM
Reading through the article, I'd say that he's prone to hyperbole and convenient reasoning, rather that saying anything particularly offensive. He wouldn't be the first person to suggest that the US (and the western world in general) has behaved reprehensively in first propping up Hussein and then killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians during the first gulf war. Personally, I look at the first gulf war as a necessary evil--something had to be done, and the civilian casualties, though tragic, were in many ways unavoidable. But if you grant him that argument, I don't see anything wrong with suggesting that the people of a nation (especially in a democracy) are equally culpable for the actions carried out by the government they support.

Probably the only really offensive part of this essay is his tone. He sounds just a little too smug and satisfied about the attacks. Obviously the author has a lot of resentment about American militarism and imperialism, going back to the persecution of his own people in the 1800s.

Good post, and I actually agree.

This is one part of the whole thing that just eats at me though...

"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."

So he is condemning the actions of the US in their actions overseas. OK, great, no problem with that.

he then turns around and suggests that fkyling plane loads of innocent civilians into building full of innocent civilians is an adequate response.

Reprehensible and bordering on treasonous if you ask me. [/b][/quote]
Ahh, but he does not believe that those people in the towers were innocent civilians. I don't know about you, but I don't refer to people I think are innocent as "Little Eichmanns". He is saying that the US's actions are reprehensible, and that those people in the tower are responsible for it, hence his arguement that the attacks were a justifyable response, and not in fact "Planes full on innocent civillians being flown into towers filled with innocent civillians". BIG difference.