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

[RougeUnderoos]

Strangely, Fox didn't print what he said about his comments when he was trying to clarify. I guess I understand though. Maybe they forgot, since it was yesterday that they printed it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146711,00.html

"If someone were to ask me, 'Do you feel sorrow for the victims of 9-11,' of course I do," he said. "Let's begin with the children. Yes, they were innocent. And I mourn them. But they were not more innocent than those half-million Iraqi children."


and...

In the interview with AP, Churchill said he did not mean to say the World Trade Center (search) "technocrats" were Nazis but were, like Eichmann, bureaucrats who participated in an immoral system.


Agree, disagree (which I do before anyone flies off the handle) but it can certainly be discussed. Just that it is being discussed within this thread means it's valid fodder, IMO. Not something to be fired about, I know that.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by moon@Feb 9 2005, 03:22 PM
I don't want him fired just don't think that academic freedom should be used as justification for a professor to spout off views on which he has no proof.

I find it very difficult to say that a janitor who cleans buildings deserves to die because the people that works in that building may or may not be supporting an economic system that he feels is wrong/damaging whatever. And that therefore those involve in the economic deserve to die.

There are issues that are not 100% true or false and there needs to be leeway on what professors can teach and what they can't.

I don't feel that this situation warrants that leeway. I think his view is too far out there to fit within the parameters of what is within reason.

Fine, I think any book that addresses philosophical or moral issues other than the bible are too far out there for profs to be exteded leeway. I think anyone who doesn't teach the Christian ideal of right/wrong should be fired. So long Greek Philosophy courses.

I know that is crossing the line, so if you would be so kind as to tell me where the line between what I've said and what you've said is I will never mention this topic ever again.

[moon]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz+Feb 9 2005, 02:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bring_Back_Shantz @ Feb 9 2005, 02:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-moon@Feb 9 2005, 03:22 PM
I don't want him fired just don't think that academic freedom should be used as justification for a professor to spout off views on which he has no proof.

I find it very difficult to say that a janitor who cleans buildings deserves to die because the people that works in that building may or may not be supporting an economic system that he feels is wrong/damaging whatever. And that therefore those involve in the economic deserve to die.

There are issues that are not 100% true or false and there needs to be leeway on what professors can teach and what they can't.

I don't feel that this situation warrants that leeway. I think his view is too far out there to fit within the parameters of what is within reason.

Fine, I think any book that addresses philosophical or moral issues other than the bible are too far out there for profs to be exteded leeway. I think anyone who doesn't teach the Christian ideal of right/wrong should be fired. So long Greek Philosophy courses.

I know that is crossing the line, so if you would be so kind as to tell me where the line between what I've said and what you've said is I will never mention this topic ever again. [/b][/quote]
I have no problem if you think that. That is your right. Think what you like.

There is no definitive definition of what is the right amount of leeway to be given. I just am giving my view of what should academic freedom not what should be the view of the university or the AAC.

[moon]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Feb 9 2005, 02:33 PM

How is he supposed to prove his theory, since it's a highly subjective social issue? For that matter, how does one prove any theory? Scientists still haven't proven Einstein's theory of relativity -- is that then not an acceptable topic in a physics classroom? What about evolution, which many on the right insist is a "controversal theory". Is anything that we cannot say is absolutely-without-a-doubt-100%correct not grounds for publication? Is not the whole point of the academic community to challenge existing "truths" and have new ideas critiqued in peer-reviewed journals?

The authorities at the time said the same thing about Socrates and Galileo. I'm just saying...

I just don't see any proof to his argument and in others I can at least understand why someone would argue it even if I don't agree with it.

If he turns out to be Socrates or Galileo then more power to him and I may admit I was wrong.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by moon+Feb 9 2005, 03:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moon @ Feb 9 2005, 03:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Fine, I think any book that addresses philosophical or moral issues other than the bible are too far out there for profs to be exteded leeway. I think anyone who doesn't teach the Christian ideal of right/wrong should be fired. So long Greek Philosophy courses.

I know that is crossing the line, so if you would be so kind as to tell me where the line between what I've said and what you've said is I will never mention this topic ever again.

I have no problem if you think that. That is your right. Think what you like.

There is no definitive definition of what is the right amount of leeway to be given. I just am giving my view of what should academic freedom not what should be the view of the university or the AAC. [/b][/quote]
But that's the point I'm trying to make. How can you make an arbitrary decision about what is or isn't protected under acedemic freedom. This is a topic that is clearly in the profs field of study, so why should he be punnished for publishing it? I'm sure he has persuasive arguements (which unlike science where emperical evidence is needed, are good enough in this case), and thus isn't just making crap up. Why should he not be granted the same freedom as someone who is taking a less controversial stance?

[moon]

I don't think he should be punished for publishing it.

I hvae never said that. I don't believe he should be fired.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by moon@Feb 9 2005, 09:49 PM
I have no problem if you think that. That is your right. Think what you like.

There is no definitive definition of what is the right amount of leeway to be given. I just am giving my view of what should academic freedom not what should be the view of the university or the AAC.

Sure there is. The lines gets drawn all the time. If he 'gets away' with what he said, then he's within the line. If he doesn't, he went past it.

Of course there are lines. They just move a lot, depending on what you're saying and who's in charge... and who's watching.

[moon]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Feb 9 2005, 02:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Feb 9 2005, 02:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-moon@Feb 9 2005, 09:49 PM
I have no problem if you think that. That is your right. Think what you like.

There is no definitive definition of what is the right amount of leeway to be given. I just am giving my view of what should academic freedom not what should be the view of the university or the AAC.

Sure there is. The lines gets drawn all the time. If he 'gets away' with what he said, then he's within the line. If he doesn't, he went past it.

Of course there are lines. They just move a lot, depending on what you're saying and who's in charge... and who's watching. [/b][/quote]
Thats what I said. I didn;t mean there are no lines at all I meant that the lines are not set in stone for every single university at every single time for every topic.

Thats why people can have a difference of opinion of what is protected and what is not.

[MarchHare]

I just don't see any proof to his argument and in others I can at least understand why someone would argue it even if I don't agree with it.

If he turns out to be Socrates or Galileo then more power to him and I may admit I was wrong.

You're missing my point completely. I'm not suggesting that he might be right; rather, I'm saying that expressing opinions that are contrary to conventional wisdom is the very basis upon which all academic thought is built. If Churchill is punished for publishing an unpopular idea, the repercussions throughout the academic community will be huge. Academic freedom exists precisely to prevent this from happening.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Feb 9 2005, 10:09 PM

You're missing my point completely. I'm not suggesting that he might be right; rather, I'm saying that expressing opinions that are contrary to conventional wisdom is the very basis upon which all academic thought is built. If Churchill is punished for publishing an unpopular idea, the repercussions throughout the academic community will be huge. Academic freedom exists precisely to prevent this from happening.

Exactly.

It used to be preposterous to suppose that Blacks were equal to Whites... treasonous even. Just goes to show that society can be wrong, and time can evolve opinions quite a bit.

This guy may be a 'wacko' to the general public today, and revered tomorrow. I wouldn't condemn Churchill or O'Reilly, just pick the one I like and support him, and apologize if I turn out to be wrong.

Luckily right/wrong doesn't really exist in these situations, its usually opinion.

[moon]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Feb 9 2005, 03:09 PM

You're missing my point completely. I'm not suggesting that he might be right; rather, I'm saying that expressing opinions that are contrary to conventional wisdom is the very basis upon which all academic thought is built. If Churchill is punished for publishing an unpopular idea, the repercussions throughout the academic community will be huge. Academic freedom exists precisely to prevent this from happening.

Point out where I am saying he should be punished.

I said that he should not be fired from his university.

All I am saying that I don't agree with his views and that if it were my university that he would be fired but in his case he should not be fired.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by moon@Feb 9 2005, 10:25 PM
Point out where I am saying he should be punished.

I said that he should not be fired from his university.

All I am saying that I don't agree with his views and that if it were my university that he would be fired but in his case he should not be fired.

Sorry if you mentioned this, which University do you go to?

[MarchHare]

Point out where I am saying he should be punished.

Ok.

if it were my university that he would be fired

[moon]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Feb 9 2005, 03:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Feb 9 2005, 03:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-moon@Feb 9 2005, 10:25 PM
Point out where I am saying he should be punished.

I said that he should not be fired from his university.

All I am saying that I don't agree with his views and that if it were my university that he would be fired but in his case he should not be fired.

Sorry if you mentioned this, which University do you go to? [/b][/quote]
I meant if I ran the university. Not if he went to the actual university I went to.

[moon]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Feb 9 2005, 03:33 PM

Ok.

Thanks slick.

How about you deal with all the issues you have dealt and show me where I have suggest that he be fired from his position.

Yes if I ran a university and he worked for it then I believe he should be punished but in this context he should not.

[MarchHare]

That's some great logic there.

You're saying that if you were in charge, you'd punish him, but since you're not in charge he shouldn't be punished?

WTF?

Can you please clarify your position, because as it's stated now, I can't make any sense of it at all.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Feb 9 2005, 10:09 PM

You're missing my point completely. I'm not suggesting that he might be right; rather, I'm saying that expressing opinions that are contrary to conventional wisdom is the very basis upon which all academic thought is built. If Churchill is punished for publishing an unpopular idea, the repercussions throughout the academic community will be huge. Academic freedom exists precisely to prevent this from happening.

Another example of a fired professor in this three year old article. In this case after being targeted by the US Justice Department but also for other issues.

http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i22/22a01001.htm

A comment from the University:

http://usfnews.usf.edu/page.cfm?link=article&aid=113

Also, just to add to the debate, is there another factor in play, the reverse of what you're thinking?

Is Churchill using his position to impair the academic freedom of his students by insulting or otherwise harrassing them simply because they might believe a contrary view on the matter?

What would happen in Mr. Churchill's class if he went off on this harangue about America as the all-encompassing bad guy responsible for every bad deed in the world and some kid stood up and said, "Now, wait a second . . . ." and really got into it with him, as would be easy to do, then found himself failing the course because he didn't tow the line?

How respectful is Mr. Churchill of the differing opinions of others in an academic environment? Considering his extreme views, is that worthy of an investigation?

There's a lot of hatred in Mr. Churchill's heart. You only need to read the essay to see that. How is that expressed in the classroom and does it suppress dissent?

Just stirring the pot.

Cowperson

[moon]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Feb 9 2005, 03:44 PM
That's some great logic there.

You're saying that if you were in charge, you'd punish him, but since you're not in charge he shouldn't be punished?

WTF?

Can you please clarify your position, because as it's stated now, I can't make any sense of it at all.

Under the rules that he teaches it appears to me that he should be able to keep his job and not be fired.

However, because I disagree with the views of the AAC and University of Colorado that if it were up to me I would fire him.

Doesn't seem too complex.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by moon+Feb 9 2005, 04:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moon @ Feb 9 2005, 04:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MarchHare@Feb 9 2005, 03:33 PM

Ok.

Thanks slick.

How about you deal with all the issues you have dealt and show me where I have suggest that he be fired from his position.

Yes if I ran a university and he worked for it then I believe he should be punished but in this context he should not. [/b][/quote]
Dude, that makes aboslutely no sense.

From what I understand you have just said.

I don't think and never have said that he should be fired, but if he worked for me I'd fire him.

Makes perfect sense to me. :yes:

EDIT: Alright I'll give you this one. Now see my post below.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by moon+Feb 9 2005, 04:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moon @ Feb 9 2005, 04:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MarchHare@Feb 9 2005, 03:44 PM
That's some great logic there.

You're saying that if you were in charge, you'd punish him, but since you're not in charge he shouldn't be punished?

WTF?

Can you please clarify your position, because as it's stated now, I can't make any sense of it at all.

Under the rules that he teaches it appears to me that he should be able to keep his job and not be fired.

However, because I disagree with the views of the AAC and University of Colorado that if it were up to me I would fire him.

Doesn't seem too complex. [/b][/quote]
Okay, so now we're back to the original arguement. Why would you fire him? What has he done that is so far beyond the realm of Acedemic Freedom that he should loose his job? This is a straigh question. You have alread stated that in this context he shouldn't be fired, Fine. But you said if you were his boss you'd fire him, Also fine. Now without telling me that you never said he should be fired, tell me why it is exactly that you would fire him if you were in charge?