It was phyrric, but he won.

POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Monday, April 6, 2009 23:01
VIEWED: 2367
PAGE 1 of 1

RUE

Friday, April 3, 2009 12:31 AM

Jury Says Professor Was Wrongly Fired

Published: April 2, 2009
DENVER — A jury ruled Thursday that Ward L. Churchill, a former University of Colorado professor who drew national attention for an essay in which he called some victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks “little Eichmanns,” was wrongfully terminated.

The jury found that his political views were a “substantial or motivating” factor in his dismissal, and that the university had not shown that he would have been dismissed anyway.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, April 3, 2009 1:55 AM

"Look, you can't take away peoples right to be assholes!"
-Simon Phoenix.

Guy's an asshole, it happens, plenty more where he came from.

Me, I'd have never bothered to give his opinion enough credence to be upset about it in the first place, and if other people had that kinda sense this woulda been a non-issue to begin with.

-F

SERGEANTX

Friday, April 3, 2009 2:13 AM

Is this another one of those penis threads?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

AURAPTOR

Friday, April 3, 2009 9:58 AM

"... it doesn't change the fact that 20 of his peers found he engaged in plagiarism and academic dishonesty."

The guy was and is a fraud. His plagiarism is a solid reason for his dismissal. If that's not reason enough to be canned by a university, then teaching at that level is a sweeter gig than we know.

'Ward' should be forced to work as a garbage man for the rest of his life, for the trash he's produced in his classrooms over the years.

Bernie Madoff goes to jail from profiting because of a lie. Why this clown is allowed to suck off the public teat at $100k a year based on the bogus foundation he's passed off as the entire reason he was hired in the first place, certainly should not be forgotten.

RUE

Friday, April 3, 2009 3:18 PM

Ward Churchill came to public attention due to an attempted e-lynching by the right-wing. All because he wrote something they disagreed with. And when they couldn't make that excuse stick because it's supposed to be a free country, they dug and fabricated and hounded until they hung him in public opinion.

That's you too, Rap. No matter how you try to excuse yourself, YOU are that vile.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, April 3, 2009 3:27 PM

Um, Ward L. Churchill is a douchebag any way you cut it.

Hes exactly why the right can call you guys the "Looney Left".

Everybody has the right to their opinions, mind you.

But you don't get to propogandize students. Thats what libs don't get.

RUE

Friday, April 3, 2009 3:28 PM

He wasn't propagandizing his students. That's just right-wing crap, which you seem to eat up regularly.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KWICKO

Friday, April 3, 2009 4:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Um, Ward L. Churchill is a douchebag any way you cut it.

Hes exactly why the right can call you guys the "Looney Left".

Everybody has the right to their opinions, mind you.

But you don't get to propogandize students. Thats what libs don't get.

Um, Rush Limbaugh is a douchebag any way you cut it.

He's exactly why the left can call you guys Right-Wing-Whackos".

Everybody has the right to their opinions, mind you.

But you don't get to propagandize listeners. That's what conservatives don't get.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, April 3, 2009 4:24 PM

Very true, it works both ways.

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, April 3, 2009 5:46 PM

Like I said, man's an asshole.

He's got as much right to be, as he has to state an unpopular and to some, offensive, opinion.

And we got just as much right to call him an asshole for it, ignore or mock him.

That's freedom, innit ?

In order for someones opinion to be *that* offensive though, you have to be giving it credence and taking it seriously in the first place - and in all honesty, by doing so you are then empowering the holder of that opinion rather than dismissing them, yes ?

There's something to be said for visibly scoffing, rolling your eyes and walking away, instead of tryin to deck someone over it.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, April 3, 2009 6:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Very true, it works both ways.

It's NOT very true, and it does not work both ways, not at all. Ward Churchill was a state employee, his salary & benefits paid by the good citizens of Colorado. His job was to educate young men and women, not indoctrinate and expose them to his own political beliefs, although sometimes there's a fine line between the two. Limbaugh is just a radio show entertainer, and he's paid by a private business enterprise. You have a choice to listen to him or not. I can't assume the same for all the students in his class. Parents of the students in his class also had a choice to let their kids sit in his class or not. Responsible ones, that is. Compared to all the vile and horrible influences out there in the world, I don't think Churchill amounts to very much. If O'Reilly & Hannity had not made such a big brouhaha about it, and brought renewed pressure on the University to do something about it, no one would even know who this guy is. As for all the plagerism charges, I guess they didn't have the evidence they needed to support the dismissal. Sounds like a typical college inept sloppy job of building a case. Maybe they botched it on purpose so he'd be back in the future. Now he has some notoriety and soon some power. After reinstation, I'm sure a seat in his class will be highly sought after, and that's a real shame.

WHOZIT

Friday, April 3, 2009 8:33 PM

I'm not going to comment because I have no idea what "phyrric" means

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, April 3, 2009 8:38 PM

That never stopped you before. Better to stick with your bagel sodomizing. You'll be able to legally marry that bagel in Iowa now, so have a schmearingly good time.

RUE

Friday, April 3, 2009 8:39 PM

Prove to us all he 'indoctrinated' anyone.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Friday, April 3, 2009 11:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Um, Rush Limbaugh is a douchebag any way you cut it.

He's exactly why the left can call you guys Right-Wing-Whackos".

Everybody has the right to their opinions, mind you.

But you don't get to propagandize listeners. That's what conservatives don't get.

And what exactly does Rush have to do with the topic of discussion?

WHOZIT

Friday, April 3, 2009 11:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Prove to us all he 'indoctrinated' anyone.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

What does "indoctrinated" mean? Stop useing big words!

AURAPTOR

Friday, April 3, 2009 11:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Ward Churchill came to public attention due to an attempted e-lynching by the right-wing. All because he wrote something they disagreed with. And when they couldn't make that excuse stick because it's supposed to be a free country, they dug and fabricated and hounded until they hung him in public opinion.

That's you too, Rap. No matter how you try to excuse yourself, YOU are that vile.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

It was HUMANITY, not ' the right wing' that was offended by that lying sack of shit's words.

Nothing that was 'dug up' was fabricated in the least, unless you mean made up BY Ward himself. "That vile" ? WTF are you even talking about ? Not one person in the WTC that day deserved to die. Not ONE. You're the vile motherfucker, Rue.

And yes, he was clearly propagandizing his students. That's his sole purpose of BEING a professor in the 1st place. Well, fleecing the people Colorado out of nearly a hundred grand for being a lying sack of shit and propagandizing his students.

RIPWASH

Saturday, April 4, 2009 5:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Very true, it works both ways.

It's NOT very true, and it does not work both ways, not at all. Ward Churchill was a state employee, his salary & benefits paid by the good citizens of Colorado. His job was to educate young men and women, not indoctrinate and expose them to his own political beliefs, although sometimes there's a fine line between the two. Limbaugh is just a radio show entertainer, and he's paid by a private business enterprise. You have a choice to listen to him or not. I can't assume the same for all the students in his class. Parents of the students in his class also had a choice to let their kids sit in his class or not. Responsible ones, that is.

I agree with JS here. The main difference is that students take certain classes because they need them to move on toward the other required classes for their selected degrees. If a teacher like Churchill is tenured and knows he can get away with pretty much anything he wants, he'll use that to spout his own views upon his students. In some cases, the students have no choice to sit in the class and listen. If they don't that teacher could very well fail them and they can't move on. He's got them in a position to listen to what he says and in some cases force them to agree with him if they want to pass his class. Can I prove it? No. But stories swirl around about this kind of thing all the time. Like it or not, Rue, kids that age are still trying to find themselves and some will latch on to anything, they'll believe anything if they're not presented with both sides of the argument and make an informed decision on their own. Do you honestly think Churchill presented both sides of the story? I don't. Not for one second. So THAT, in essence is indoctrination. And those that don't know any better, the ones whose parents only care about grades, will sit there and take it all in and not mention it to anyone.

I am in WHOLEHEARTED agreement that Rush, O'Reiley, Beck and Hannity, though reviled by some, spout their own opinions. They are paid by people to do so in order to make themselves more money. The difference is that people can get up and leave, turn them off and ignore them completely. Isn't that what people are told if certain entertainment shows offend them? When cuss words are thrown about on TV, the violence is particularly bloody, or whatever? "If you don't like it, turn the channel or turn it off." But what I hear, and it's been said a-plenty on this forum, is that the CONSERVATIVE hosts need to be silenced. They they indoctrinate. They're ruining America. But say that about someone like Churchill or even Bill Maher or Al Franken and "he's just stating his opinion" and "he's not doing any harm."

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, April 4, 2009 6:10 PM

The question is whether or not he actually brought that opinion into the classroom with him - from what I understand, he wrote an editorial, which seems to be what pissed everyone off.

So how does one have to do with the other ?
Admission: I don't know as much about the situation as I likely should, but that's cause I never gave the guys opinion enough credence to be offended by it.

-F

YINYANG

Saturday, April 4, 2009 6:55 PM

For reference

The article quoted in the OP:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/us/03churchill.html?_r=3&hp

The essay that caused the issue (with links concerning the controversy at the bottom):

http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html

Ward Churchill Redux (posted below):

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/ward-churchill-redux/?ref=opi
nion

WHOZIT

Saturday, April 4, 2009 8:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Very true, it works both ways.

It's NOT very true, and it does not work both ways, not at all. Ward Churchill was a state employee, his salary & benefits paid by the good citizens of Colorado. His job was to educate young men and women, not indoctrinate and expose them to his own political beliefs, although sometimes there's a fine line between the two. Limbaugh is just a radio show entertainer, and he's paid by a private business enterprise. You have a choice to listen to him or not. I can't assume the same for all the students in his class. Parents of the students in his class also had a choice to let their kids sit in his class or not. Responsible ones, that is.

I agree with JS here. The main difference is that students take certain classes because they need them to move on toward the other required classes for their selected degrees. If a teacher like Churchill is tenured and knows he can get away with pretty much anything he wants, he'll use that to spout his own views upon his students. In some cases, the students have no choice to sit in the class and listen. If they don't that teacher could very well fail them and they can't move on. He's got them in a position to listen to what he says and in some cases force them to agree with him if they want to pass his class. Can I prove it? No. But stories swirl around about this kind of thing all the time. Like it or not, Rue, kids that age are still trying to find themselves and some will latch on to anything, they'll believe anything if they're not presented with both sides of the argument and make an informed decision on their own. Do you honestly think Churchill presented both sides of the story? I don't. Not for one second. So THAT, in essence is indoctrination. And those that don't know any better, the ones whose parents only care about grades, will sit there and take it all in and not mention it to anyone.

I am in WHOLEHEARTED agreement that Rush, O'Reiley, Beck and Hannity, though reviled by some, spout their own opinions. They are paid by people to do so in order to make themselves more money. The difference is that people can get up and leave, turn them off and ignore them completely. Isn't that what people are told if certain entertainment shows offend them? When cuss words are thrown about on TV, the violence is particularly bloody, or whatever? "If you don't like it, turn the channel or turn it off." But what I hear, and it's been said a-plenty on this forum, is that the CONSERVATIVE hosts need to be silenced. They they indoctrinate. They're ruining America. But say that about someone like Churchill or even Bill Maher or Al Franken and "he's just stating his opinion" and "he's not doing any harm."

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

People like Maher, Franken and Churchill shove there feet into their mouths all the time, and EXPECT fools like you to bail them out of trouble........WHY DO YOU DO THAT!!!!

RIPWASH

Sunday, April 5, 2009 5:08 AM

I never said that! Read the post a little more carefully , Whozit! Why do my posts always get taken as a defense of the things I'm writing AGAINST!?!?! I thought I was pretty clear.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

RUE

Monday, April 6, 2009 7:46 PM

Ward Churchill Redux

Last Thursday, a jury in Denver ruled that the termination of activist-teacher Ward Churchill by the University of Colorado had been wrongful (a term of art) even though a committee of his faculty peers had found him guilty of a variety of sins.

The verdict did not surprise me because I had read the committee’s report and found it less an indictment of Churchill than an example of a perfectly ordinary squabble about research methods and the handling of evidence. The accusations that fill its pages are the kind scholars regularly hurl at their polemical opponents. It’s part of the game. But in most cases, after you’ve trashed the guy’s work in a book or a review, you don’t get to fire him. Which is good, because if the standards for dismissal adopted by the Churchill committee were generally in force, hardly any of us professors would have jobs.

At least two reviewers of my 2001 book “How Milton Works” declared that my reading of “Paradise Lost” rests on an unproven assumption that Milton repeatedly and designedly punned on the homonyms “raised” (elevated), “razed” (destroyed) and “rased” (erased). I was accused of having fabricated these puns out of thin air and of building on the fabrication an interpretive house of cards that fell apart at the slightest touch of rationality and evidence.

I use the criticism of my own work as an example because to talk about the many others who have been accused of incompetence, ignorance, falsification, plagiarism and worse would be bad form. And it wouldn’t prove anything much except that when academics assess one another they routinely say things like, “Professor A obviously has not read the primary sources”; “Professor B draws conclusions the evidence does not support”; “Professor C engages in fanciful speculations and then pretends to build a solid case; he’s just making it up”; “Professor D does not acknowledge that he stole his argument from Professor E who was his teacher (or his student).”

The scholars who are the objects of these strictures do not seem to suffer much on account of them, in part because they can almost always point to positive reviews on the other side, in part because harsh and even scabrous judgments are understood to be more or less par for the course. And I won’t even go into the roster of big-time historians who in recent years have been charged with (and in some instances confessed to) plagiarism, distortion and downright lying. With the exception of one, these academic malfeasants are still plying their trades, receiving awards and even pontificating on television.

Why, given these examples of crimes or errors apparently forgiven, did Ward Churchill lose his job (he may now regain it) when all he was accused of was playing fast and loose with the facts, fudging his sources and going from A to D in his arguments without bothering to stop at B and C? In short, standard stuff.

The answer Churchill’s partisans would give (and in the end it may be the right answer) is “politics.” After all, they say, there wouldn’t have been any special investigative committee poring over Churchill’s 12 single-author books, many edited collections and 100-plus articles had he not published an Internet essay on Sept. 12, 2001, saying that the attacks on the World Trade towers and the Pentagon were instances of “the chickens coming home to roost” and that those who worked and died in the towers were willing agents of the United States’ “global empire” and its malign policies and could therefore be thought of as “little Eichmanns.”

These incendiary remarks were not widely broadcast until four years later, when Bill O’Reilly and other conservative commentators brought them to the public’s attention. The reaction was immediate. Bill Owens, governor of Colorado, called university president Elizabeth Hoffman and ordered her to fire Churchill. She replied, “You know I can’t do that.” (Not long after, she was forced to resign.)

The reason she couldn’t do it is simple. A public employee cannot b

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, April 6, 2009 9:44 PM

So this was all over an editorial his bored students probably didn't even READ ?

Jeez, what a waste of time.

-F

RUE

Monday, April 6, 2009 9:48 PM

Yep.

Yep.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KWICKO

Monday, April 6, 2009 10:56 PM

Fixed. n/m

RUE

Monday, April 6, 2009 11:01 PM

Pyrrhic - just my bad typing ...

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.