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

[MarchHare]

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

There's an important distinction between that case and Churchill's. Dr. Al-Arian taught computer engineering, and therefore any comments he made about the victims of the September 11th terrorist attacks aren't protected by his academic freedom (as noted in the footnote earlier). Churchill's paper, on the other hand, was relevent to his area of study.

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?

It's my understanding that Churchill's unpopular comments occurred in a paper he wrote over three years ago, not in his routine classroom lectures. If he is fostering an atmosphere in his classes where dissenting opinions are stifled, then that's a whole other issue and I would support his termination in that case. However, until I see a report that he's engaging in such behaviour, I will continue to defend his right to publish his vitriol under the protection of academic freedom.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Feb 9 2005, 10:57 PM

There's an important distinction between that case and Churchill's. Dr. Al-Arian taught computer engineering, and therefore any comments he made about the victims of the September 11th terrorist attacks aren't protected by his academic freedom (as noted in the footnote earlier). Churchill's paper, on the other hand, was relevent to his area of study.

It's my understanding that Churchill's unpopular comments occurred in a paper he wrote over three years ago, not in his routine classroom lectures. If he is fostering an atmosphere in his classes where dissenting opinions are stifled, then that's a whole other issue and I would support his termination in that case. However, until I see a report that he's engaging in such behaviour, I will continue to defend his right to publish his vitriol under the protection of academic freedom.

In the Florida case, one of the stated reasons he was fired was he failed to distance himself from the university and brought disrepute to the institution to the point where it was difficult to raise monies.

A practical matter that Mr. Churchill is risking.

Cowperson

[moon]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz+Feb 9 2005, 03:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bring_Back_Shantz @ Feb 9 2005, 03:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

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.

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? [/b][/quote]
In what I would classify as academic freedom he has over stepped his boundaries but that does not mean that he has in regards to the University of Colorado.

I don't think that academic freedom is a static thing and that different people would have different ideas of what should be included and what should not.

[MarchHare]

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.

Ok, so you acknowledge that under the current rules he hasn't done anything wrong and doesn't deserve to be fired, but you want to change the rules because you want him fired.

Is that what you were trying to say?

[moon]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Feb 9 2005, 04:04 PM

Ok, so you acknowledge that under the current rules he hasn't done anything wrong and doesn't deserve to be fired, but you want to change the rules because you want him fired.

Is that what you were trying to say?

OKay I guess the easiest thing to say is that I don;t believe that every university has to have academic freedom. I have no problem if professors get fired for writing about stuff the university doesn't like. If they feel that is not right don;t work there.

I would say that was wht I was getting at when I said that my view of academic freedom is much different then what I would expect at the University of Colorado.

[MarchHare]

In the Florida case, one of the stated reasons he was fired was he failed to distance himself from the university and brought disrepute to the institution to the point where it was difficult to raise monies.

A practical matter that Mr. Churchill is risking.

That's a slippery slope indeed then! Under that precedent, prefessors now have to censor themselves, lest they risk damaging their institution's reputation.

What's wrong with the standard disclaimer, "Those views belong only to Dr. X and do not represent those of this university, its faculty, students, alumni, senate, or board of regents."?

[MarchHare]

OKay I guess the easiest thing to say is that I don;t believe that every university has to have academic freedom. I have no problem if professors get fired for writing about stuff the university doesn't like. If they feel that is not right don;t work there.

I would say that was wht I was getting at when I said that my view of academic freedom is much different then what I would expect at the University of Colorado.

You would have a very hard time attracting high-quality instructors if their academic freedom wasn't guaranteed. If there's one thing academics hate, it's censorship.

[moon]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Feb 9 2005, 04:06 PM

That's a slippery slope indeed then! Under that precedent, prefessors now have to censor themselves, lest they risk damaging their institution's reputation.

What's wrong with the standard disclaimer, "Those views belong only to Dr. X and do not represent those of this university, its faculty, students, alumni, senate, or board of regents."?

Yes but it also stops professor from stopping taking their classes seriously and starting to use them as a way to spread their own views rather than try and teach the students about the facts from both sides.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Feb 9 2005, 10:49 PM
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?

I'm not sure if you've taken any Pol/Sci classes, but I've taken about 30. There was one instance where I recall a professor actually trying to be as objective as possible.

ALL of the rest, without fail, had an axe to grind, be it Left or Right, and made _no_ bones about where they were coming from. If you argued with them (which was encouraged) you got smoked, because they're all (fairly) brilliant.

Having an ideology in Poli/Sci isn't an issue. While Churchill is not a Poli-Sci teacher, he is certainly studied in those circles, much like Noam Chomsky is a linguist, but is heavily used in Political Science circles (as much of both Churchill and Chomsky's works could be considered political).

Just thought I'd throw that in there.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by moon+Feb 9 2005, 05:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moon @ Feb 9 2005, 05:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='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?

In what I would classify as academic freedom he has over stepped his boundaries but that does not mean that he has in regards to the University of Colorado.

I don't think that academic freedom is a static thing and that different people would have different ideas of what should be included and what should not. [/b][/quote]
Can you please answer the question. I understand that you think what he has done has overstepped the bounds of acedemic freedom. What I want from you is an explination as to why exactly you think that? I'm beginning to think that it is merely the case that you disagree with him.

Please explain to me why you think a man with a PHD in Ethnic studies (and was the chair of the ethnic studies department) should not be allowed to express his view of the 9/11 attacks (a view that is shared by a great deal of people outside the US by the way, though I'd like to make it very clear that I'm not one of them), a subject which his credentials tend to indicate he is a much greater authority on than most people.

[MarchHare]

Yes but it also stops professor from stopping taking their classes seriously and starting to use them as a way to spread their own views rather than try and teach the students about the facts from both sides.

Have you ever been in a university-level political science class? That happens all the time already. University courses aren't like high school where there's a government-mandated curriculum that teachers have to follow. No professor is ever told they have to be objective when lecturing about a controversial topic.

[Edit]
Beaten by Agamemnon!

[moon]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Feb 9 2005, 04:14 PM

Have you ever been in a university-level political science class? That happens all the time already. University courses aren't like high school where there's a government-mandated curriculum that teachers have to follow. No professor is ever told they have to be objective when lecturing about a controversial topic.

I have been in a ton as I have a political science degree

[transplant99]

This is beyond hilarious.

Good stuff from both sides...kudos.

Oh and FDW...its disappointing i called someone who is a left-wing radical...a left wing radical?

OK then.

Seems most have gotten off the actual argument though...should a "tenured" professor of a state funded university be fired for espousing views/beliefs beyond that of what the people who pay his salary want?

Abfreakinsolutely.

It isnt HIS university to use as he sees fit fer chrissakes.

He offended and hurt people with an opinion that simply has no basis other than his beliefs.... nothing recuses him from that fact.

He says he doesn't "work for the state"....well yes he does, no matter what he says.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Feb 9 2005, 11:08 PM

You would have a very hard time attracting high-quality instructors if their academic freedom wasn't guaranteed. If there's one thing academics hate, it's censorship.

Yep, most of them certainly aren't in it for the money.

[moon]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz+Feb 9 2005, 04:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bring_Back_Shantz @ Feb 9 2005, 04:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

In what I would classify as academic freedom he has over stepped his boundaries but that does not mean that he has in regards to the University of Colorado.

I don't think that academic freedom is a static thing and that different people would have different ideas of what should be included and what should not.

Can you please answer the question. I understand that you think what he has done has overstepped the bounds of acedemic freedom. What I want from you is an explination as to why exactly you think that? I'm beginning to think that it is merely the case that you disagree with him.

Please explain to me why you think a man with a PHD in Ethnic studies (and was the chair of the ethnic studies department) should not be allowed to express his view of the 9/11 attacks (a view that is shared by a great deal of people outside the US by the way, though I'd like to make it very clear that I'm not one of them), a subject which his credentials tend to indicate he is a much greater authority on than most people. [/b][/quote]
Yes it has a lot to do with the fact that I don't agree with him and don;t see enough fact in his argument to justify keeping him on. I have already said that though.

I have no problem with firing someone because you don't agree with them if it is your own company/institution. I don't care if it is a university or not.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Feb 9 2005, 11:06 PM

That's a slippery slope indeed then! Under that precedent, prefessors now have to censor themselves, lest they risk damaging their institution's reputation.

What's wrong with the standard disclaimer, "Those views belong only to Dr. X and do not represent those of this university, its faculty, students, alumni, senate, or board of regents."?

In the case of the Florida professor, it appears he didn't use it enough.

And Mr. Churchill is certainly being identified with a particular university right now.

What's reasonable for a university to consider a practical danger to its existence as a result of something like this?

Yes Agamemnon, I've taken poli-sci classes, albeit centuries ago, including one where a prof uttered something I've never forgotten and used here before - "Seventy-five percent of the people are chronic know-nothings and shouldn't be allowed to vote." Obviously a provocative comment.

Cowperson

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by moon+Feb 9 2005, 05:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moon @ Feb 9 2005, 05:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MarchHare@Feb 9 2005, 04:04 PM

Ok, so you acknowledge that under the current rules he hasn't done anything wrong and doesn't deserve to be fired, but you want to change the rules because you want him fired.

Is that what you were trying to say?

OKay I guess the easiest thing to say is that I don;t believe that every university has to have academic freedom. I have no problem if professors get fired for writing about stuff the university doesn't like. If they feel that is not right don;t work there.

I would say that was wht I was getting at when I said that my view of academic freedom is much different then what I would expect at the University of Colorado. [/b][/quote]
Great, nothing like universities where professors get fired if thier research leads them to the wrong conclusion. I think I'd like to go to your university, no need to do any research, just ask Dean Moon what he thinks is appropriate and go ahead and publish that. And if you must do any research, make sure you don't go ahead and prove anything too controversial, cause that'll probably get you fired.

Topics to avoid research on:
Evolution
Anything related to religion or Philosophy (we don't know what Dean Moon thinks on these subjects, so best not to test those waters)
Political Science

This is not a complete list, so be careful.

[moon]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz+Feb 9 2005, 04:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bring_Back_Shantz @ Feb 9 2005, 04:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

OKay I guess the easiest thing to say is that I don;t believe that every university has to have academic freedom. I have no problem if professors get fired for writing about stuff the university doesn't like. If they feel that is not right don;t work there.

I would say that was wht I was getting at when I said that my view of academic freedom is much different then what I would expect at the University of Colorado.

Great, nothing like universities where professors get fired if thier research leads them to the wrong conclusion. I think I'd like to go to your university, no need to do any research, just ask Dean Moon what he thinks is appropriate and go ahead and publish that. And if you must do any research, make sure you don't go ahead and prove anything too controversial, cause that'll probably get you fired.

Topics to avoid research on:
Evolution
Anything related to religion or Philosophy (we don't know what Dean Moon thinks on these subjects, so best not to test those waters)
Political Science

This is not a complete list, so be careful. [/b][/quote]
cool.

Registration will start in April, classes should start in September.

I look forward to seeing you there.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by moon+Feb 9 2005, 05:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moon @ Feb 9 2005, 05:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Can you please answer the question. I understand that you think what he has done has overstepped the bounds of acedemic freedom. What I want from you is an explination as to why exactly you think that? I'm beginning to think that it is merely the case that you disagree with him.

Please explain to me why you think a man with a PHD in Ethnic studies (and was the chair of the ethnic studies department) should not be allowed to express his view of the 9/11 attacks (a view that is shared by a great deal of people outside the US by the way, though I'd like to make it very clear that I'm not one of them), a subject which his credentials tend to indicate he is a much greater authority on than most people.

Yes it has a lot to do with the fact that I don't agree with him and don;t see enough fact in his argument to justify keeping him on. I have already said that though.

I have no problem with firing someone because you don't agree with them if it is your own company/institution. I don't care if it is a university or not. [/b][/quote]
Fine, what if I don't agree with Jewish employess that Jesus wasn't the son of God. Hmmm, I guess if you were running the joint I could just go ahead and fire them.

[MarchHare]

should a "tenured" professor of a state funded university be fired for espousing views/beliefs beyond that of what the people who pay his salary want?

Abfreakinsolutely.

Absolutely not. The university has clearly defined rules protecting his academic freedom which specifically state that he cannot be fired for expressing views contrary to those of the university administration.