[Zeroisanumber]

I support Ward Churchill's right to free speech and I do not support any action that would revoke his tenure on the grounds of what he has published or said publicly.

[Restorer]

I do not support any action that would revoke his tenure on the grounds of what he has published or said publicly.

How about revoking it for plagarism and fraud? That OK with you?

Or should those who are obnoxiously anti-American get a pass on crimes the rest of us would be held to account for?

[cajungirl]

What if what he has published is stolen? What if his speech is a manifest lie? What if he has lied about who he is on his job application and about other things.

[JFK_Lib]

Oh, shut up.

[Mad Dawg]

I support Ward Churchill's right to free speech and I do not support any action that would revoke his tenure on the grounds of what he has published or said publicly.

Are you suggesting that once a fellow has tenure he should never suffer any consequences for what he says, even if his scholarship is bogus, his teaching incompetent, or his tenure acquired fraudulently?

Sure, these things might never have been examined if Churchill had been a quiet and run-of-the-mill campus commie.

But he grandstanded (grandstood? ;) ) and was needlessly offensive.

And this suggests he's too stupid to be a competent teacher! If you get a cushy job with little or no responsibility and a decent income, why imperil it? Thinking for five minutes would have led him to see that if he attracted attention, sooner or later his bona fides would be examined.

But he craved the limelight, and now his record and career are being examined.

A guy like Chomsky probably shouldn't be fired. But Churchill, like DiLorenzo, invents his data and uses footnotes not to support but to obfuscate. SUch people are not scholars and consequently ought not to enjoy the protections afforded to scholars.

[Marysecretary]

You need to have YOUR head examined. He's a liar, he copied a painting and gave himself credit for it and not Thomas Mails, much of his writing belongs to others as well. He's not just 'on trial' here for what he said. He has a lot more against him. He's not even an Indian, for heaven's sake.

[stop_fascism]

The right to free speach protects us from punishment by the government for something we have said. There are limits. Some of Churchill's statements advocating violence push those limits. But he is not being arrested, so the first amendment doesn't apply.

Getting fired is a wholely different thing. Acedemic freedom would apply, if he were speaking as an academic about his field of expertise. He was not. Tenure is not imunity from moral turpitude. Let a tenured professor advocate the rape and dismemberment of coeds, and see how long he is employed.

[FrankR]

"I support Ward Churchill's right to free speech and I do not support any action that would revoke his tenure on the grounds of what he has published or said publicly."

The First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

Congress is not involved in Mr. Churchill's plight, and no abridgement of his free speech has been made by that governmental body.

This "Freedom of Speech" thing has gone the way of "separation of church and state"...out of context entirely.

The public, private institutions, businesses, etc., can say anything they want in response to Mr. Churchill's rhetoric. People are not licensed to say anything they want to another person, or to the public, by the First Amendment...it just says that Congress cannot pass a law against it.

But, in addition to his asinine comments condeming all the 9-11 victims as communists, he has also committed Fraud (It's against Federal Law to claim minority status to get a job), and now forgery/plagerism, and assault on a reporter.

So if you think he should continue to teach young people with a character such as his, based on your mis-interpretation of the first amendment, then you must be childless.

[Nate1984]

Even all the application stuff aside...what about how he trained domestic terrorists in bomb-making?

[Spiff]

I support Ward Churchill's right to free speech and I do not support any action that would revoke his tenure on the grounds of what he has published or said publicly.

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.