Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NOT CRAZY HORSE, JUST CRAZY (Ann Coulter)
Yahoo News ^ | 2-17-2005 | Ann Coulter

Posted on 02/16/2005 7:37:24 PM PST by Dustin Hawkins

University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill has written that "unquestionably, America has earned" the attack of 9/11. He calls the attack itself a result of "gallant sacrifices of the combat teams." That the "combat teams" killed only 3,000 Americans, he says, shows they were not "unreasonable or vindictive." He says that in order to even the score with America, Muslim terrorists "would, at a minimum, have to blow up about 300,000 more buildings and kill something on the order of 7.5 million people."

Ann Coulter

To grasp the current state of higher education in America, consider that if Churchill is at any risk at all of being fired, it is only because he smokes.

Churchill poses as a radical living on the edge, supremely confident that he is protected by tenure from being fired. College professors are the only people in America who assume they can't be fired for what they say.

Tenure was supposed to create an atmosphere of open debate and inquiry, but instead has created havens for talentless cowards who want to be insulated from life. Rather than fostering a climate of open inquiry, college campuses have become fascist colonies of anti-American hate speech, hypersensitivity, speech codes, banned words and prohibited scientific inquiry.

Even liberals don't try to defend Churchill on grounds that he is Galileo pursuing an abstract search for the truth. They simply invoke "free speech," like a deus ex machina to end all discussion. Like the words "diverse" and "tolerance," "free speech" means nothing but: "Shut up, we win." It's free speech (for liberals), diversity (of liberals) and tolerance (toward liberals).

Ironically, it is precisely because Churchill is paid by the taxpayers that "free speech" is implicated at all. The Constitution has nothing to say about the private sector firing employees for their speech. That's why you don't see Bill Maher on ABC anymore. Other well-known people who have been punished by their employers for their "free speech" include Al Campanis, Jimmy Breslin, Rush Limbaugh, Jimmy the Greek and Andy Rooney.

In fact, the Constitution says nothing about state governments firing employees for their speech: The First Amendment clearly says, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." Firing Ward Churchill is a pseudo-problem caused by modern constitutional law, which willy-nilly applies the Bill of Rights to the states -- including the one amendment that clearly refers only to "Congress." (Liberals love to go around blustering "'no law' means 'no law'!" But apparently "Congress" doesn't mean "Congress.")

Even accepting the modern notion that the First Amendment applies to state governments, the Supreme Court has distinguished between the government as sovereign and the government as employer. The government is extremely limited in its ability to regulate the speech of private citizens, but not so limited in regulating the speech of its own employees.

So the First Amendment and "free speech" are really red herrings when it comes to whether Ward Churchill can be fired. Even state universities will not run afoul of the Constitution for firing a professor who is incapable of doing his job because he is a lunatic, an incompetent or an idiot -- and those determinations would obviously turn on the professor's "speech."

If a math professor's "speech" consisted of insisting that 2 plus 2 equals 5, or an astrophysicist's "speech" was to claim that the moon is made of Swiss cheese, or a history professor's "speech" consisted of rants about the racial inferiority of the n-----s, each one of them could be fired by a state university without running afoul of the constitution.

Just because we don't have bright lines for determining what speech can constitute a firing offense, doesn't mean there are no lines at all. If Churchill hasn't crossed them, we are admitting that almost nothing will debase and disgrace the office of professor (except, you know, suggesting that there might be innate differences in the mathematical abilities of men and women).

In addition to calling Americans murdered on 9/11 "little Eichmanns," Churchill has said:

The U.S. Army gave blankets infected with smallpox to the Indians specifically intending to spread the disease.

Not only are the diseased-blanket stories cited by Churchill denied by his alleged sources, but the very idea is contradicted by the facts of scientific discovery. The settlers didn't understand the mechanism of how disease was transmitted. Until Louis Pasteur's experiments in the second half of the 19th century, the idea that disease could be caused by living organisms was as scientifically accepted as crystal reading is today. Even after Pasteur, many scientists continued to believe disease was spontaneously generated from within. Churchill is imbuing the settlers with knowledge that in most cases wouldn't be accepted for another hundred years.

Indian reservations are the equivalent of Nazi concentration camps.

I forgot Auschwitz had a casino.

If Ward Churchill can be a college professor, what's David Duke waiting for?

The whole idea behind free speech is that in a marketplace of ideas, the truth will prevail. But liberals believe there is no such thing as truth and no idea can ever be false (unless it makes feminists cry, such as the idea that there are innate differences between men and women). Liberals are so enamored with the process of free speech that they have forgotten about the goal.

Faced with a professor who is a screaming lunatic, they retreat to, "Yes, but academic freedom, tenure, free speech, blah, blah," and their little liberal minds go into autopilot with all the slogans.

Why is it, again, that we are so committed to never, ever firing professors for their speech? Because we can't trust state officials to draw any lines at all here? Because ... because ... because they might start with crackpots like Ward Churchill -- but soon liberals would be endangered? Liberals don't think there is any conceivable line between them and Churchill? Ipse dixit.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2001; 911; coulter; september11; wardchurchill
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 last
To: Dustin Hawkins
I forgot Auschwitz had a casino.

Freggin` Ann. I was drinking a glass of orange juice and choked and soaked my shirt when I read this. Oh man she is a pip.

81 posted on 02/17/2005 1:35:07 AM PST by Imaverygooddriver (I`m a very good driver and I approve this message.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BerniesFriend

Wow, is she tall! She could be a supermodel if she wanted.


82 posted on 02/17/2005 3:02:16 AM PST by ViLaLuz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dustin Hawkins

Several years back, I was a Federal employee with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and had direct contact with a number of REAL tribal Indians, in context and on the reservations. There were very definite rules about blood quantum, and descent, that no exceptions were made for those who did not meet the minimum. The United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians is a semi-autonomous hereditary class within the larger Cherokee tribe, located in Oklahoma. All the shamans, medicine men and teachers of the Cherokees had come from that band. Their standards for full membership historically were even higher and more strictly enforced than among the general tribal population.

Ward Churchill was never accepted as more than an 'associate' even by the very liberal standards that prevailed a few years ago among the leadership of the Keetoowah Band, and those standards have now been discarded, though the 'associate' status of Ward Churchill has never been revoked. It is not at all certain what blood quantum Churchill possesses, but it is far below the minimum necessary to be considered as a tribal member, which is 25%. And it is still less certain that Churchill is even descended from any member of the Cherokee tribe, as there were some 400 distinct identifiable tribal entities known from pre-Columbian times. The Cherokee, as one of the 'five civilized tribes', is simply one of the best known.


83 posted on 02/17/2005 3:28:46 AM PST by alloysteel ("Master of the painfully obvious.....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
"I am not calling for violence, seriously, I am not, but can someone explain to me why no one has taken this guy out of the game yet?"

I have often wondered the same thing myself. If he got a nickel for every death threat he probably receives, he would not have to teach or write subversive books.
84 posted on 02/17/2005 3:32:44 AM PST by stm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: silent_jonny
Does this qualify as being a stalker?8-)


85 posted on 02/17/2005 4:06:06 AM PST by 7thson (I think it takes a big dog to weigh a hundred pounds!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: calex59

Thanks for the correction. Guess I was thinking of "Gidget Goes Hawaiian."


86 posted on 02/17/2005 4:21:01 AM PST by speedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Dustin Hawkins
The line about the casino is shocking in the best sense of the term. No one should bring up the Nazi death camps lightly, and Coulter very ably and succinctly points that out. I'm sure there are problems on Indian reservations - nothing is perfect - but this Churchill guy's hatred is so rabid it knows no bounds. What a sick individual.
87 posted on 02/17/2005 6:53:35 AM PST by cvq3842
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
You really don't what the hell you're talking about. Smallpox innoculations were devised centuries before Pasteur. Jenner's breakthrough using coxpox to innoculate against smallpox happened in 1796. That is one hundred years before Coulter claimed such knowledge was known. The Arabs, Turks and Chinese were innoculating against smallpox long, long before Europeans.

Coulter was talking out her ass. Something she does far too frequently to be taken seriously.

88 posted on 02/17/2005 8:09:10 AM PST by Publius Scipio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Publius Scipio

LoL... Ann Coulter is leanest meanest RINO exposer of all time.. She literally drives them nutz... Got ya eh!...


89 posted on 02/17/2005 9:36:27 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been ok'ed me to included some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: 7thson

WoW!

That's what I call "pictures".


90 posted on 02/17/2005 3:00:56 PM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: cvq3842

Since Indian reservations are considered sovereign territory, do these casino's pay tax on their earnings????


91 posted on 02/17/2005 7:14:04 PM PST by stm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: 7thson
Since you had such a nice collection, I thought I'd add this one, one I have never seen before today:
92 posted on 02/17/2005 7:54:51 PM PST by Forgiven_Sinner (God is offering you eternal life right now. Freep mail me if you want to know how to receive it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson