Posted on 02/13/2005 7:38:34 AM PST by dirtboy
Gee Wally!
Churchill is a great future candidate for Chairman of the DNC and possibly a runningmate for Hitlery.
booked
"Any of us that hire college grads should let the University of Colorado know that we won't be hiring any of their graduates that took courses and received good grades in classes taught by this POS. In fact- that we will avoid hiring any Colorado graduates at all until they police their faculty of this puke."
Can't one be sued for discrimination for not hiring graduates of a certain college? I appreciate your idea, but have you talked to a lawyer about this?
Churchill makes Howard Dean seem like a reasonable guy!
It really bugs me that his last name is Churchill too.
What an insult to the great man.
should not be fired,just tranfered to teach in Guantanimo,cuba
"Churchill is a great future candidate for Chairman of the DNC".
When Dean gets fired after the 2006 elections, Churchill and Jordan Eason can co chair the party that hates America.
That is a good point. This is not the "free Speech" issue the left would want us to believe. He is an incompetent jerk who would never have gotten tenure, or even any position at a good State University if it were not for his radical politics.
the university would have to care that he lied on his application. end of story.
I'm sure hillary can book a few fund raisers with him!
Great, now I can't think of Ward Cleaver the same way now.
(And because of my sis doing the "Weird Al" thng on songs, I can't listen to most music now without hearing alternate lyrics!)
*chuckle*
Thanks!
The university will have to sit up and take notice, and will have to care, because of the bad publicity, not to mention funding cuts by alums and parents who are offended that this fraud is passing on his venom.
This jerk lied on his application, and took the job over 11 other candidates, all of whom were actually Native American.
Doesn't look good.
But here's the erroneous part of the argument:
The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that there is no "absolute" right to free speech. You can’t run into a movie theater and scream "fire!" at the top of your lungs to create a panic because you feel you’re exercising free speech.... So what does Professor Churchill believe? He says the victims of 9/11 had it coming because 400 years ago, the Dutch cheated the Native Americans out of Manhattan island. Yes, he actually said that. ... He also says the United States is an outlaw nation because it used "weapons of mass destruction" (the atomic ) on Japan to end World War II.
Yes, it's true that the 1st Amendment does not protect against some forms of speech, but it most assuredly and most vigorously protects against state restraint on POLITICAL speech, and that's a value that conservatives cherish.
And all the comments offered in the litany above are pure, classic political speech.
Churchill's ill-advised political opinion/speech may be abhorrent, it may be wrong on the facts, but a free society doesn't seek to censor it, but rather to rebut it.
So much for the pure "political speech" part of the argument. I think it's a disaster for UC to have him on the faculty, because he's an academic fraud. My point is that the attack on Churchill would be more effective if it focused on the fraud, i.e., did he fraudulently misrepresent his academic credentials, did he lie about his personal biography, does he has the minimum qualifications (i.e., a terminal degree, i.e., a Ph.D., rather than a phony-major half-baked one-year "masters" from an experimental college?)
Are his 'publications' materially deficient from an academic standards perspective, i.e., subject to peer review? Has he been involved in falsifying and fraudulent academic research and publication? (and, by the way, the answer here is YES).
These are the grounds where Churchill is vulnerable. Silencing his political speech, and attacking his right to speak it, will only make him a winner in the courts and then a martyr in the eyes of public opinion.
You've summed up what the real debate about this POS should be.
even so, I am not optimistic. he will stay put, liberals and those they educated rule the universities and will for many more years.
eason jordan and dan rather are big fish, and danny still rides, it remains to be seen about jordan - he could yet land on his feet.
"Can't one be sued for discrimination for not hiring graduates of a certain college? I appreciate your idea, but have you talked to a lawyer about this?
The simple answer to your question is no. Education is an allowable form of discrimination.
For instance, you have two applicants who have identical degrees. One received his degree from Princeton University, and the other from Parsons. You hire the candidate from Princeton based upon the reputation of the institution granting the degree. Can you be sued? NO.
Or- both applicants have identical degrees but one has a transcript reflecting additional study in areas that would be an asset to the company you are hiring for. Can you be sued for selecting the applicant that had taken the additional courses that benefit your company? NO.
If you find that the course of study pursued by the applicant is not an asset your company needs, then you certainly have the right not to hire that applicant.
Over here! Excellent article.
This isn't entirely accurate, either. It's more that he believes the holocaust is not such a big deal; what happened to the indians was just as bad.
A quibble, but if we want to bring the Churchills of the world down, our scholarship has to be better, too.
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.