Posted on 02/01/2005 3:35:45 PM PST by rwfromkansas
According to the daily independent newspaper of the University of Colorado, the Regents are wanting public input to determine whether to fire or keep Ward Churchill, the professor who said 9/11 was America's fault and compared the victims to Nazis.
The Regents clearly want to gauge the level of public anger. Drop them an e-mail...let's fill their inboxes. Contact info for the Regents is directly below contact info for Churchill himself.
Ward.Churchill@Colorado.EDU
Office: 303-492-8852
REGENTS CONTACT INFO:
Jerryrutledge@adelphia.net (the chair)
Tommyjclay@aol.com
Peter.Steinhauer@colorado.edu
Regent.Carlisle@colorado.edu
Regent.Hayes@colorado.edu
Carrigan@colorado.edu
Regent.Bosley@colorado.edu
Regent.Schauer@colorado.edu
Gail.Schwartz@colorado.edu
University of Colorado Dept. of Ethnic Studies:
Fax: 303-492-7799
Churchill said this in a statement released earlier today trying to cover his hide: "I have never said that people 'should' engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, 'Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable.'"
Look Churchill: When you say we are to blame for the attack, you may not be saying you support the terrorists. But, you can't talk about us as if we are guilty and actually expect people to support you. There is only a minor distinction, not a major difference between you supporting the terrorists and just saying we are partially to blame. After all, by saying we are partially to blame due to our policies, you are expressing sympathy for the terrorists and partially validating their actions.
I e-mailed him this.....I was much more tactful in my e-mail:
"Sir,
I am appalled by what you have said regarding 9/11.
I also read your statement on your site. I believe that every story has two sides.
However, when I read your response, it was less than convincing. Your word choice was very poor in your piece. And frankly, based on your previous writings, on marxism and the like, I wonder just how much sympathy you actually do give to the terrorists, contrary to your protestations.
There is no major difference, only a difference in slight distinction, between actually supporting the terrorists and giving their actions legitimacy by attacking the victims of their attacks and saying the policy of the United States brought the attacks on itself.
You do not seem to understand this. I have called your college and demanded you be fired immediately."
If you want, you can read Churchill's entire article here: The offending article
There is much to be sick about in this article, not just the most controversial stuff.
bump
If you want to really scare them into action, attack a funding source, like, say, the handouts they get from the federal gov't. Ask them if treasonous statements should be funded on the taypayers' dime.
What really worries me is that it is not crystal clear to those guys that their dear professor is a stark raving lunatic.
marked
"Bush, at least in symbolic terms, is the world's leading terrorist," Churchill told FOX News in an interview. "He absolutely thumbs his nose at the rule of law. He's the head of a rogue state by definition, and it's a rogue state which dispenses carnage on people presumed to be inferior in some set of terms."
done, wrote all of them and said to fire him and give him 40 hours a week to practice his free speech. Don't use taxpayer money to support this freak.
They should fire him for the simple fact he is an intellectual dwarf. Don't they want "smart" people as professors?
As a citizen of the USA and a citizen in Durango CO I urge you to remove Churchill. As you may have noticed over the last few years, many Americans are getting fed up with the anti-American rhetoric by many of the protected class of "tenured" college professors.
You may want to heed the growing voice of the "not-so-silent majority", and start cleaning house, before your government and private funds go the way of a tsunami-struck island washed away by the enormous wave of indignation.
Respectfully,
xxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxx
Durango, CO
FMCDH(BITS)
I have taken the time to read Professor Churchill's words and find them scurrilous and defaming of the people who died in the 9/11 attacks. It is by far the most hate-filled and hurtful of writings short of Mein Kampf that I have ever read. None of his assertions are based on any verifiable facts. If this is representative of the quality of his work in academia then he has severely short changed those eager young minds that came to learn and explore in the hallowed halls of higher learning.
Sadly, to associate this sort of supposed academic work his familiar name with the honored name of Churchill denigrates those revered historical names of eminence just by mere name association.
May I suggest that the best course of action may be not only censure but also termination with prejudice?
Excellent information. This professor is an intellectual menace, and a morally bankrupt seditionist. I proudly "Freeped" the whole board of regents via e mail.
That aside, there's the basic issue I just can't get past:
Mr. Churchill thinks 9/11 was "pushing back" for US violence against Iraq. Yet, none of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis. Moreover we are always told that there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq.
How does that work, exactly? What was Mohammed Atta, an Egyptian, "pushing back" at the United States for? "Back"? For what, exactly? Same goes for the other 18, by all accounts mostly middle-class or above Saudis? How does that make sense?
Dare I ask: Does Mr. Churchill know the difference between Iraqis and other Arab-Muslims in other countries?
What I read of Churchill's article is littered with statements that betray this confusion between Iraqis and other Arabs:
"The most that can honestly be said of those involved on September 11 is that they finally responded in kind to some of what this country has dispensed to their people as a matter of course."
Notice that by this slick turn of phrase, Mr. Churchill has just converted a nation of 25 million into "Mohammed Atta's people". They belong to Mohammed Atta, they are "his people", for some reason. We bomb Iraq ("his people"), and thus Atta was just "responding in kind".
Explain it please. (Again: Mohammed Atta was not an Iraqi.)
"That they waited so long to do so is, notwithstanding the 1993 action at the WTC, more than anything a testament to their patience and restraint."
Yes, US (country #1) bombs Iraq (country #2) and Churchill finds it amazing that people from a third country (Saudi Arabia for example) "waited so long" to "respond in kind". Again: huh?
"Feelings of desperation, however, are a perfectly reasonable – one is tempted to say "normal" – emotional response among persons confronted by the mass murder of their children"
Perhaps, but he is speaking about the 9/11 hijackers. Even pretending Churchill is correct about "mass murder" for the sake of argument, how exactly were those Iraqis "their children"? If Churchill were right you'd think that the 9/11 hijackers would've all been Iraqis. Instead, they were from some other countries. Does Churchill understand this?
were motivated far more by the grisly realities of the U.S. war against them
What "war against them"? Say it with me: Saudis and Egyptians. Did the US wage war against either of those nations and I just didn't hear about it?
I could go on, but you get the idea. Churchill seems to tacitly treat Arab-Muslims as one big nation, all united. Ironically, if we take him at his word then the invasion of Iraq can be justified solely by pointing at the 9/11 attacks. All you have to do is say: "They attacked us on 9/11, now we're striking back against them." If people like Churchill would complain, and say "what do you mean 'they'? Can't you tell Iraqis apart from other Arabs, you bigot??", just say:
"I mean the same thing by 'they' that you mean." And,
"Can you tell them apart?"
This guy is a joke.
good points.
I try to have an open mind, but there are some things I just won't accept.
I have no problem with having a liberal professor. In fact, some of my best teachers have been liberals. But, what makes them good is they at least have one foot on the ground and they encourage debate in class.
This guy is so far off the ground you could go to space before finding him.
Isn't it the CU regents' jobs to make this decision about an employee of CU? Why this public-opinion-poll method for basing the decision? Typical pass-the-buck mentality of leftists/academics/'rats: afraid to either 1) take a stand, or 2) follow the letter of the law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.