Posted on 02/28/2005 11:31:52 AM PST by Pendragon_6
"Who is defending Ward Churchill, may I ask?" That was the question posed by John Holbo, a philosophy professor and contributor to the leftwing academic blog Crooked Timber, when news broke that the University of Colorado was harboring a leftist extremist in its midst. The gist of Holbo’s question was that no respectable person on the Left could come to the defense of someone so demonstrably in leave of his senses as the former Weatherman accomplice, academic fraud, and faux-Indian.
One can only hope that the professor’s academic acumen is better than his news judgment. In fact, no sooner had the media picked up on Churchill’s now-notorious essay than his leftwing enablers rushed to rescue his reputation.
Carrying the flag of the pro-Churchill campaign was the academic community. Colorado University President Elizabeth Hoffman, before revising her views in the face of broad public condemnation, initially condoned Churchill’s likening of the victims of September 11 to Nazi apparatchiks, insisting that “Prof. Churchill's comments have precipitated a discussion we ought to have.”
Continued
Zero...you are out of line....Cajungirl has more degrees and a helluva lot higher IQ than you can ever imagine....take your troll CRAP someplace else ...enabler ! Come call me names and I'll give you an address...
BULL...instructions in bomb-making and inciting to commit terrorist acts is a FKKKING FELONY..where is your head mister????
The man copies other artists' work for profit, calling it his own!
Settle down, tiger, I didn't insult anyone. Also, please check into what the elipse "..." is and how it is used. I understand that you're upset, but this is barely readable.
The Constitution does not grant the authority to the federal goverment to infringe upon Ward Churchill's freedom of speech. The Bill of Rights further clarifies the matter. However, the Constitution does not prohibit the University of Colorado from canning this guy.
you get the drift
No, but if got canned for that specifically he would have good grounds to sue the university for violation of his civil rights. And he would probably win.
How? Because humans are humans why come equipped individually and in ensemble with various emotional and intellectual drives all of which can be used for good or bad. By providing a protected place, a protected job -- you create a magnet, a attractor for those who seek to exploit it, to abuse the protections for the sake of indulging other drives that would otherwise be repressed, those that should be repressed and called to account.
We see the result in every sinecure -- tenured professors, closed-shop unions, civil servants. We see it in politicians -- although we have the vote to rebuke them with, the super protections we blanket our 537 US elected officals are so strong they overly immunize that group.
Tenure and protections like tenure are -- by clear and widespread evidence of examples -- a sure way to suppress novel ideas, to bring about a monolithic orthodoxy of ideas and ideals that fierecely act to erradicate ideas and ideals that weaken, compete with, or attack the prevalent orthodoxies.
zerisanumber- blah, blah, blah (American subversive BS delted)
JFK_Lib - Tell it to the hand.
\oloo
Weakling.
From bvw...great post and worth posting again...wisdom herein
Things like this point to the folly of tenure. Look what tenure has brought about -- or at least substantially contributed to -- the raising and protection of frauds like Ward C., and worse -- the ruining of very thing they meant to protect -- a robust free discussion and refining exchange of ideas.
How? Because humans are humans why come equipped individually and in ensemble with various emotional and intellectual drives all of which can be used for good or bad. By providing a protected place, a protected job -- you create a magnet, a attractor for those who seek to exploit it, to abuse the protections for the sake of indulging other drives that would otherwise be repressed, those that should be repressed and called to account.
We see the result in every sinecure -- tenured professors, closed-shop unions, civil servants. We see it in politicians -- although we have the vote to rebuke them with, the super protections we blanket our 537 US elected officals are so strong they overly immunize that group.
Tenure and protections like tenure are -- by clear and widespread evidence of examples -- a sure way to suppress novel ideas, to bring about a monolithic orthodoxy of ideas and ideals that fierecely act to erradicate ideas and ideals that weaken, compete with, or attack the prevalent orthodoxies.
Chomsky..total crap..you must be kidding
He is a fraud ..Look at his stolen art piece..If you lie about minority ststus to get a job that too is fraud.He's about as Native American Indian as my ass and you know it moron.
except if his unpopular opinion was a conservative one.Then you'd want to hang him in public.You too are a fraud .Go ask a pro Buch teacher at Columbia U in NYC about that situation.
His boss does have that right .Freedon of speech mean you can't get arrested for what you say .You can certainly get FIRED for it .
Bet if he said the same crap but it refered to anti Arab sentiments he'd be fired so fast his head would come off. How do you explain that ?
No I'm not. Chomsky has read a book. I think he's a jerk, but I'm not as doubtful of his scholarship, just of his virtue and good sense. Churchill shares with Chomsky the lack of those AND he hasn't read a book, not to judge by his footnotes (from what I hear....)
Noam Chomsky does write beautifully...he's just wrong ...his agenda is pure discredited Marxist
Babbling idiot i think . Half of what he write is babble.
Sheister.
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.