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

[moon]

yes I believe you should be able to fire them just like you could fire me because you don't liek the fact I am white.

I have had this argument on this board before and don't want to get off topic (although it seems in many ways we already have) but that is my view.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Feb 9 2005, 11:19 PM
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.

Did he get fired for saying it? Was there outrage? Was he treasonous to say it? Probably not.

Definitely an unpopular thing to say, why nail Churchill and not your old Prof (rhetorical)?

[transplant99]

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.

So no matter what he says/teaches/believes/does...he has a right to keep his job??

Yeah...that's reality.

Again you simply dismiss THIS part of things, and with good reason...it flies in the face of your argument.



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.

While you keep yelling that one has nothing to do with what this subject is...i disagree, as does the chancelor of the university.

I can clearly relate this footnote to the very charter you continue to wrongfully refer too as "defined rules".

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Feb 9 2005, 11:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Feb 9 2005, 11:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Feb 9 2005, 11:19 PM
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.

Did he get fired for saying it? Was there outrage? Was he treasonous to say it? Probably not.

Definitely an unpopular thing to say, why nail Churchill and not your old Prof (rhetorical)? [/b][/quote]
If he had written an essay about it expanding on the hate in his heart for the stupid, chronically uniformed and disinterested common men surrounding him, he probably would have picked up a bit more turbulence.

No?

Then again, maybe the majority, thinking he was talking about someone else, would have agreed with him!!

Cowperson

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by moon@Feb 9 2005, 05:25 PM
yes I believe you should be able to fire them just like you could fire me because you don't liek the fact I am white.

I have had this argument on this board before and don't want to get off topic (although it seems in many ways we already have) but that is my view.

Great, I'm glad you admit that you think civil rights are a bad idea. Boy I wish you were running the country. That way we could fire anyone who didn't believe in the same things we did, or had different coloured skin. In fact, while we're taking away their right to equal treatment, why don't we take away the vote, and not let them own property. In fact, why don't we round up the blacks, jews, asians, moslems, and gay people and put them in nice little camps where they can all live together and we won't have to hire any of them.

Wow, regardless of whether or not you would actually fire someone simply because they are black, jewish, white, gay, or whatever (this is the preface where I say I'm not even implying you are racist), believeing that people should have the right to do so is just as bad. You are condoning racism without actually doing it, and ironically that is the essence of this guy's paper, not that the people in the tower were doing the things that p*ssed off the terrorists, but that they were passively allowing it to happen. Tolerating racism or anythin akin to it is the first step in becomming it. The people of Germany may not all have hated Jews, but look what they allowed to happen.

[Lurch]

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

Please indicate what in my position is left wing or radical as noted earlier in this thread. I think your position is typically conservative b/c it suppresses the freedom (economically and intellectually) of those who disagree with the majority and choose to speak their mind. Conservatism is grounded on not stirring the pot, resisting change/dissent and supressing those that do not agree - and this is a case in point. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your position amounts to "He should be fired because he wrote a paper that is offensive to the majority of Americans".

My position is grounded on the idea that someone paid to put forth information on relations between ethnic groups has every right to write a controversial paper on that very subject and not fear for his job. I don't need to approve of his paper to have this view - in fact, I have not read it nor am I likely to. Unless it goes so far as to amount to hate crime, it is irrelevant to me.

If you can't either illustrate what it is that is radical or left wing about my position, please don't bother trying to marginalize it by tagging it with your "proud to be a conservative" good old boy speak.

[Faid1]

I think the most disgusting event I saw after 9/11 was the victim's own families petitioning for even more money (each family received a whopping $2 million from the government) based on future earning potential. That's Capitalism for you.

[MarchHare]

So no matter what he says/teaches/believes/does...he has a right to keep his job??

Yeah...that's reality. bigyellowgrin.gif

It is. It's called tenure, whether you like it or not (minus the "teaches" portion of your above statement, which we'll discuss below).

Again you simply dismiss THIS part of things, and with good reason...it flies in the face of your argument.



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.

And you clearly dismiss the part about that limitation being over what he's allowed to introduce into the classroom, but in this case, Churchill is drawing fire not over what he lectured to his students but rather a paper he had published.

Is that getting through to you now that I've said it for the third or fouth time?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by transplant99@Feb 9 2005, 11:15 PM
Oh and FDW...its disappointing i called someone who is a left-wing radical...a left wing radical?

OK then.

I can say the sky is "yellow" and that doesn't make it yellow.

People throw around labels at other people far too much in these discussions. I don't think it's a stretch to call your viewpoint on this particular issue "conservative" (which is what happened). But then you go and call that poster a "radical"? Do you see the difference? On the one hand someone is classifying your opinion. On the other hand you are making a massive generalization about someone. I don't think that's a good way to discuss things.

What's next? Leftwing nutbar? Extreme crazy? Why don't you just label us all since you seem to know everything about us...

[transplant99]

Churchill is drawing fire not over what he lectured to his students but rather a paper he had published.

Is that getting through to you now that I've said it for the third or fouth time?

You can say things a thousand times...it doesnt change what im saying.

If you are suggesting that this guy wrote a paper espousing what it does, but he doesnt include this in his teachings, I would agree with you.

That, however, flies in the face of common sense, especially when its YOU that is screaming that he be allowed to say/do/feel what he wants, all under the umbrella of "academic freedom".

If he doesnt believe what he wrote, ergo, wouldnt then teach it to his students, then why write it?

Honestly, where is the common sense in that entire stance you are taking?

[transplant99]

If you can't either illustrate what it is that is radical or left wing about my position, please don't bother trying to marginalize it by tagging it with your "proud to be a conservative" good old boy speak.

Im a "good old boy" am I? If you say so.

You are a left wing/liberal.....in as much as what you have written on this very board numerous times. Is that not true? Are you not proud to be such? Do you find it offensive to be construed as one? Are you denying you are left of center in the political spectrum? If your not one...would you not just join me as a "proud to be a conservative" good old boy speak kind of way?

Be who you are man...dont hide.

[transplant99]

People throw around labels at other people far too much in these discussions. I don't think it's a stretch to call your viewpoint on this particular issue "conservative" (which is what happened).

Thanks for pointing out the obvious...i kinda embraced that already.

But then you go and call that poster a "radical"?

Nope... a left-wing radical. There is a differance. Whats wrong with being a radical anyhow?

On the one hand someone is classifying your opinion. On the other hand you are making a massive generalization about someone.

Generalization? I would call it making a SPECIFIC call on some one.He is liberal...i am conservative...whats the problem?

I would be willing to bet I could blow the mind of his "good old boy conservative speak" of which i have been accused....in 3 basic positions.

What's next? Leftwing nutbar? Extreme crazy? Why don't you just label us all since you seem to know everything about us...

Who is "us"?

Yes i am more than willing to say there are nutbars and crazies on both sides of the spectrum. Am I wrong? And, just to clarify, I know nothing about YOU...errr..."us"

[Agamemnon]

This debate makes me want to whip out the book and read it again, and now that I'm home, I will!

It's called "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens; Reflections on the Consequences of US Imperial Arrogance and Criminality".

This is what it says on the back;

The record speaks for itself: The "Most Peace-Loving of Nations" has been engaged in brutal military campaigns in every corner of the globe, unceasingly, since its inception. In attempting to forevor alter Americans' false self-concept, Ward Churchill has meticulously chronicled both US military campaigns - domestic and foreign - 1776 to present, and US attempts to violate, obstruct and/or subvert International Law from 1945 to present. The two chronolgies, exhaustively researched and annotated, illustrate a heartwrenching history of senseless butchery and democracy detered. In this context, the only fitting question for a nation still reeling from the wake-up call of September 11th is "How can they not hate us?". In his newest offering, Churchill demands that the American public shake off its collective unconscious and take responsibility for the criminality carried out in its name.

I thought the book was pretty good, though a lot of my education has predisposed me to realize that its not 'out of the question' that the United States is _not_ a powerful cause of good in this world. They've done tons of good, and tons of bad, and both deserve to be pointed out.

If its treasonous to point out flaws in foreign policy and (potentially) public perception, call me a traitor.

[MarchHare]

If you are suggesting that this guy wrote a paper espousing what it does, but he doesnt include this in his teachings, I would agree with you.

That, however, flies in the face of common sense, especially when its YOU that is screaming that he be allowed to say/do/feel what he wants, all under the umbrella of "academic freedom".

If he doesnt believe what he wrote, ergo, wouldnt then teach it to his students, then why write it?

Honestly, where is the common sense in that entire stance you are taking?

As I said in an earlier post, find me a citation where it's shown that students have complained about the content of his lectures, that he discourages dissenting opinions in his classroom, etc., and I'll gladly change my tune. I'm only basing my opinions on what has been reported in the media.

As such, I believe he's well within his rights of academic freedom by publishing that paper, as the restriction as stated by that footnote only impacts on what he's permitted to say in his classroom.

And even then, it specifically states that academic freedom only doesn't extend to off-topic discussions of a controversial nature. It's likely that even if he did present his opinions as written in his paper to his students, it would likely be relevent to his course. That restriction, as I mentioned earlier, exists to prevent situations where a physics or engineering prof would rant against Bush during class, for instance. If that same prof was teaching a political science class, it would probably be considered perfectly acceptable.

[transplant99]

If its treasonous to point out flaws in foreign policy and (potentially) public perception, call me a traitor.

nicer try, but that's not what he said, and it's not why I said it borders on treason.

Good spin though.

Plus, you need to be an American to be a traitor in the US....so no, I wont call you that at all.

[transplant99]

Been fun....gotta run though.

Im gonna go get Lost in a giant media corps show, while eating farm raised animals, and drinking a multinationals beer product.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by transplant99@Feb 10 2005, 12:46 AM

nicer try, but that's not what he said, and it's not why I said it borders on treason.

Good spin though.

What who said? You're going to have to give me a little more, I thought my post was stand-alone.

[Agamemnon]

Link to Churchill's articles at ZNet

http://www.zmag.org/bios/homepage.cfm?authorID=62

[Cowperson]

The Governor of Colorado, Bill Owens, was on CNN tonight saying Churchill will be investigated for plagerism alleged by other scholars - I think it was Arizona and New Mexico - and for allegations he has lied about his Indian heritage, both grounds for dismissal according to the university code regarding professional conduct.

Owens predicted that in firing Churchill, the wayward professor will become a hero anyway . . . but he'll be off the Colorado campus.

At a rally last night on university property, Churchill said this to the governor of Colorado and others:

"Bill Owens, do you get it now?"

"I do not work for the taxpayers of the state of Colorado. I do not work for Bill Owens. I work for you," he told the CU audience.

"To the Board of Regents: The Board of Regents should do its job and let me do mine."

An editorial column in the Denver Post which says the best way to eliminate Churchill is simply to air his thoughts for public ridicule . . . . but adding a dose of censorship refocuses the debate off the ideas and onto the effort to clam him up.

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,3...2691269,00.html

Also, the Denver Post with an extensive look at the latest plus other links for the curious on the right hand side.

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,3...2700550,00.html

Prediction: He's toast.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

I've noticed a fair amount of "he can teach what he wants at a private institution" and "let the taxpayers speak" in this thread and in the linked articles above. I'd like to know which taxpayers voices should be heard. Certainly some Colorado taxpayers agree with this Churchill fella, so do they count?

The University of Colorado is a big place. They teach and discuss all sorts of things inside those walls. A quick scan of the course list finds a whole whack of things that some Coloradan or other would object to. Why just in the anthropology department alone they have classes called "Human Origins", "Elements of Religion", and "Primate Evolutionary Biology", all funded by taxpayer dollars. Hell, they even have a whole department dedicated to Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. In the English Dep't, taxpayer dollars have funded the discussion of William S. Burroughs' "The Junky". They have a Women's Studies dep't in which "curricula reflect the latest scholarship on women in U.S., global and third world feminist studies." and I'm sure a lot of that wouldn't wash with some of the locals.

I went to university in Lethbridge and I know for a fact that many of the locals could make a long list of things discussed in that school that they don't approve of and they don't want their tax dollars going to. At number one with a bullet on that list was "does god exist"? That came up all the time. In one class we even saw naked boobies. In another we talked extensively about pornography. In another we frankly discussed sexuality in children's literature and what exactly had gone on between that wolf and grandma before Little Red Riding Hood showed up.