Posted on 02/13/2005 9:57:17 AM PST by RtWngr
Ward Churchill has had a hard couple of weeks. After an essay Churchill wrote in 2001 was brought to the public's attention, this University of Colorado professor was been rebuked by his governor, chided by students and condemned by conservatives. While most folks are satisfied with name-calling, a vociferous few want Churchill fired. I'll be honest: Churchill's views are hard to swallow. His essay compares the 9-11 victims (yes, the victims) to those Nazis who perpetrated the Holocaust. Pretty tough stuff.
(Excerpt) Read more at sltrib.com ...
This assumes there is value in placing them in one's mental "mouth" and chewing them to begin with.
Some assertions and rants are so repugnant they don't merit even provisional acceptance for the sake of argument alone. Fraud is inherently self-refuting.
As despicable as Churchill's comments are, Voltaire once said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I am opposed to sensorship in any way, however I do encourage the University of Colorado to strongly look at what is being conveyed through their faculty and assess if this is the proper approach to teaching and affecting society.
The freedom to make false claims of ethnicity to swindle racial preference programs?
Academic Freedom? What a pant load.
Freedom of the press applies to the Publisher. The editor and the writers are employees of the publisher, unless of course they are all the same person.
The University is the Publisher and the Professor is the employee.
The University is Wal-Mart and the professor is the greeter.
The Greeter at Wal-Mart would get canned if his greeting to customers was "They are having a better sale at K-Mart"
There is no such thing as Academic freedom. It is a make believe right like the right to mass transit or an abortion.
This is nothing but an Employer / Employee relationship here. If a professor wants Academic Freedom, he is free to start his own school.
Freedom of speech also includes the "Wino" on the corner who will have his/her say about anything. It's up to us to evaluate what's said based on our criteria.
I'll defend his right to say what he likes. What I won't defend is him doing it on MY dime (how much in public funds goes to subsidize him?).
Treason is also part of The Constitution.
No, academic freedom does not protect offensive speech.
Just try to speak badly about Martin Luther King and see how much tolerance there is. Come out for the theory of racial IQ differences as in The Bell Curve and see what happens. And recently, even the president of Harvard is under savage attack for stating the obvious that men have more appitude than women in math & science.
It is only politically correct speech & thought that is protected by academic freedom.
Lesson: Take back the universities from the Left.
It is recently coming to light, concerning his academic publishings, that Churchill is also a fabricator (false footnotes) and plagiarist.
This isn't about the crap he wrote. THis is about wo he pretends to be, and using that to launch his career - the Faux-Indian, Faux-War Hero needs to be fired for lying about himself in order to get tenure. Period.
Academic freedom should encourage critical thinking, and rigorous, but civil, debate. Academic freedom advocates should dismiss out of hand speech that is absurd and offensive, as it does little to advance thoughtful discourse.
Really? That is where in the Constitution?
Yes. A New Mexico College Professor in New Mexico has been screaming about Churchill's plagiarism of his work for years...
Academic freedom does not include making crap to try to get others to believe what you want them to believe to further your anti-American agenda. When you make people belive lies, you are taking away their freedom, because freedon cannot exist without truth.
And truth is absolute and cannot merely be whatever one wants it to be.
Teaching is not expressing opinions or interests.
If they want to introduce controversial issues for discussion fine.Let them find someone proclaiming them and go from there with all views shared.If they want to express their own opinions also fine,resign and become a pundit.
The author of this article shows the problem of academia.While trying to sound intellectual he brings together arguments that have no relationship to each other or the issue at hand.The result is a psycho babble pile of poop that reads like an seventh grade book report.
Welcome to Free Republic!
Uh huh. And which one of those was Mr. Churchill doing when he made those inflammatory and untrue statements?
Well, that's true. You DO have a point there.
Does that include giving aid and comfort to the enemy like Kerry did during Vietnam?
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.