Colo. prof. won't be fired over comments

BOULDER, Colo. -- University of Colorado President Betsy Hoffman said a professor who compared Sept. 11 victims to Nazis will not be fired if a review turns up only inflammatory comments, not misconduct.

"If we find it is just about speech, there will be no action," Hoffman told the school's faculty assembly Thursday, adding that she feared a "new McCarthyism" was responsible for the uproar over Ward Churchill's essay.

The university is reviewing Churchill's speeches and lectures to see whether he should be dismissed for exceeding the boundaries of academic freedom. A decision is expected next week.
...
Churchill says he wrote the essay after television networks characterized the attacks as senseless. He contends they were the logical result of repressive U.S. policies.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/03/05/colo_prof_wont_be_fired_over_comments/

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And what was the fraud?

& that wasn't true...don't know if true or not.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:hi:

then he should be fired....

The standards over academic integrity are there for a reason....


Notice though IF they are true... I still give the accused the benefit of the doubt

Plagerized two papers? Says who? Nobody Thomas Brown and LaVelle, national AIM stooge. The census proves nothing. Indians were not documented like whites. Less than full bloods may not have identified as Indian. Assimilated Indians may have identified as white. Silverman has had disciplinary actions for his ethical problems as a lawyer.

even though he didn't. They say that he is slightly less than 1/8 Native American. Whether he's 1/8 that he claims or the 1/12 that the media claims, who cares?

Just because his name doesn't show up on a "roster" doesn't mean jack shit.

I should know for god's sake! I'm in the same boat and yeah, I'm Indian!

As for the art fraud thing - 25 years ago? Huh? Who cares!? I've seen a lot of Ward's artwork and a lot of it is really nice stuff and original too!

Nothing like kicking a good man when he's down!

RED POWER!

:kick:

Churchill did address the issue of his ethnicity, admitting that he is not Native American.

"Is he an Indian? Do we really care?" he said, quoting those he called his "white Republican" critics.

"Let's cut to the chase; I am not," he said.

http://starbulletin.com/2005/02/23/news/index2.html

that the newspaper issued. The tape of his statement was mistranscribed.

"Ward Churchill has been masquerading as an Indian for years behind his dark glasses and beaded headband. He waves around an honorary membership card that at one time was issued to anyone by the Keetoowah Tribe of Oklahoma. Former President Bill Clinton and many others received these cards, but these cards do not qualify the holder a member of any tribe. He has deceitfully and treacherously fooled innocent and naïve Indian community members in Denver, Colorado, as well as many other people worldwide. Churchill does not represent, nor does he speak on behalf of the American Indian Movement."

http://www.aimovement.org/moipr/churchill05.html

I'll take their word for it.

but other people know better.

or some other "carrot". If it's good enough for Tom DeLay... :shrug:

AIM's Russell Means was on Democracy Now after Churchill was interviewed...Means has lots of respect within the Native American movement...? Not from what I saw...Very supportive.I would hope they would stick with their brothers when whipped into shape by a bunch of rabid freepers. If not , I have a thing or two to say to them for their back slidding..

= 1/8th. I am proud to have any of that noble blood running through my veins. I'm also proud to claim the German, Dutch, Prussian, English and Scottish.

It appears he has commited the crime of being part of the immense melting pot we call AMERICA! How dare he.

As for considering himself Native American, if the Native's claim him, then he IS.

snip>
One can be Indian by birth, if one has Indian parents, of course, but tribes often adopted people into their tribes and considered them "Indian" regardless of their biological heritage. Some black slaves of Cherokee owners were adopted and considered fully Indian by the tribe, despite biology, and were raised as Cherokee, spoke Cherokee, and so on. Yet someone with a Cherokee mother raised by a white father in white society might never have considered himself Cherokee and neither would his or her descendants. So it is complicated even on a biological basis.

snip>
In short, there is no simple way to determine who is an Indian. As sovereign nations, tribes do not like relying on federal laws to determine their membership. Personally, I don't think they should have to. If someone considers themselves an Indian, holds traditional Indian beliefs, and is accepted by other Indians as one of them, that is good enough as far as I am concerned.

http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20050207/003231.html

Raven

on edit: I don't have an opinion on the fraud and plagerism allegations yet, but I read Chickens come home to roost 3-4 times before I was able to 'put-away' my emotional first reactions (all tied to 9-11, of course) and clearly understand the point he was making. Silence is Acceptance.

I refuse to be silent. I refuse to sit in the corner and watch them tear down this country brick by brick. I refuse to be distracted by the Fluff clogging the air waves. I refuse to enable them to destroy my people AGAIN!

FR, Malkin, Charlie Sykes, blogsforbush...
It's another "I've heard it said..." campaign.

so it's not even actual fraud. makes a lot more sense.

and i think the school is right for deciding not to fire him.

But, the scary part is that firing him was ever even considered due to his speech...he has not said anything that the rest of the world said right after 911 occured...perhaps not so publically..but it was a given outside of the USA. Now, if they had decided that he had to be fired because he is an asshole....well...no that still isn't right..ha.

He is protected by our US Constitution.

There is a whole RW movement to force academes to tone down their "liberal rhetoric." If the guy is an asshole or not, we must look at the larger picture....remember how Germany silenced their professors and educated elite. Freedom of speech by college professors should be a hallmark of the college experience, (whether they are assholes or not, or whether we agree with their opinions or not.)

...then do read about what the University of Minnesota did to several of its profs during WWI.

Or consider the harassment and careers ruined during the Cold War.

Or read the recent piece at Counterpunch.com (searchable) regarding current national security infiltration of US universities.

I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of your post, Ann. But we are not very innocent in the suppression of unpopular speech.

http://colorado.indymedia.org/feature/display/10539/index.php

Link is here for Churchill's talk. Answers the above charges. Well worth listening too if you're interested in more than gossip.

and he did not make much sense to me. He didn't come over as too intellegent.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I've read his "Chickens come home to roost" essay twice, I saw him on Bill Maher's "Real Time" last night, and he's just a jerk. An educated, tenured jerk, to be sure, but still a jerk.

Do I think he should be fired? No. Will I care much if he is? No, except that the reasons must not be because of his speech; he has every right to be a jerk verbally.

I used to work in the World Trade Center, and I was not a "little Eichmann" — nor were my friends and co-workers who toiled with me on the 45th, 46th and 78th floors until the explosions in 1993. Most of us were low to mid-level clerical and bottom-rung supervisory workers; not 'technocrats' who "were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions…" We were simply trying to earn a living, period. We didn't have any cell phones, we didn't do power lunches, and none of us owned any stock. We rode the subway to work every day and ate on the cheap, keeping our heads low and hoping to keep our jobs, period.

Ward Churchill conveniently forgets that its not just janitors, food service workers and such who make up the ordinary people whose choices are not always limitless. I had my own non-global ethical dilemma with the business I was in, and had plans to make a dramatic career shift until major life changes made such plans impossible.

My business had the good sense to vacate the WTC after the explosions in 1993, and I never worked in the building again. I did, however, have to pass through its basement and concourse every day going to and coming home from work.

If I'd hadn't been about 20 minutes behind schedule coming in to work in NYC on 9/11, I might have been caught in the collapse of the towers myself, even though I no longer worked there. Would I have been a legitimate target still?

He's an asshole, he can go fuck himself, and while I uphold the right of free speech and wish he continues to exercise it despite the witchhunt, he gets no sympathy from me.

... by small comments in his overall message that are a bit over the top. If this were grounds for dismissal, half of the wingers in this country would be looking for work.

I'm 1/8 Cherokee, but I don't consider myself "an Indian".

But as far as I can tell, the Indians were the most civilised society ever living on this continent.

adopted or accepted. What he is isn't at issue, as far as I'm concerned. And if half the wingers in this country were looking for work (not a bad idea, actually) I think things would be turning around damned quickly.

I don't believe it's the "small comments" as you say (although I take exception to being called a "little Eichmann" a "small comment") that may bring him down, it's his overall message, which happens to be in large part correct. 9/11 is the result of our arrogance, negligence and greed as a nation. Wingers and many others are unwilling to believe or accept that.

/sarcasm on
So why do I hate America? :shrug:
/sarcasm off

I don't even hate Ward Churchill. Hell, until this year I'd never even heard of the man. Likewise, I don't believe he ever walked through the upper levels of the WTC to see how many truly ordinary, everday people worked there. I did. "Technocrats" and "Masters of the Universe" were in short supply in those halls.

And I'll agree with you about the civilization of the Native American peoples; if the Acadians had prevailed as the model of cooperative living with the native peoples, the North American 'experiment' might have turned out far differently.

No. To Americans you'd have been an innocent victim. To much of the world you'd have been collateral damage.
Exactly like innocent Iraqi children living next door to suspected insurgent safehouses who get blown to smithereens along with their presumed guilty neighbors.
It's war, as Rumsfeld said. Sometimes innocent people die. Whether they're counted as collateral damage or innocent victims depends only upon which side of the border you reside.
On the other side of the border you would have been collateral damage.

Fuck him.

he's merely pointing out that someone somewhere would likewise say "tsk tsk" about you. You're offended for being taken lightly, no doubt. That's understandable. You must realize that we take civilian life too lightly ourselves.
Whether you live next door to a "legitimate target" or work next door to a "legtimate target", collateral damage is what it is, my friend.
My use of quotes around both instances of "legitimate target" is to be taken that I don't agree with the legitimacy of the targets on either side.

as a NY State civil service worker, but for a few twists of fate.

I'd just like to add something that I picked up from Alcoholics Anonymous literature: Identify, don't compare. That pretty much sums up what's wrong with Churchill's remarks and attitude. There's lots of comparing going on in his writing but too little identifying. Consequently he comes off as harsh and judgmental--yes, a jerk. But the First Amendment was written for those who would risk being jerks on the outside hope that even jerks have something worth noting and responding to, in advancing knowledge and debate and improving the US.

The US was settled and established by people who were considered jerks and misfits, so Churchill belongs somewhere in their company, like it or not. We all do, once we identify with them rather than compare ourselves to them.

The essay was lost on you, obviously. Not on others, happily.

You might give some thought to the US practice of piling up "collateral damage." Churchill has properly condemned such mass murder of civilians, whether conducted by sects or states. To light into him because you think he's an "asshole" is fine, but doesn't go very far.

And buddy, a hint: nobody believes you "uphold the right of free speech" when you lick your lips over an anti-intellectual witchhunt.

:wow:

:toast:

though some americans don't anymore since 911...


http://images.globalfreepress.com

peace

"Cheney is still an oil company whore."

Gotta love it. :)

Let free speech live.

as a professor and a citizen of the United States, he has every right to say what he thinks without fear of termination. I would say the same thing for an over the top neocon professor.

They're going to try to get him fired over "misconduct" or some trumped up crap like that.

I also saw Churchill on Democracy Now this week..He made a spirited argument for what his writing really mean...Made a supporter out of us...His teachings would extraticate US from the hatreds it is subjected to about the world..If only Churchill could have the chance..Then terrorism would be fastly lessened throughout the world..
But on Mahr..Mahr started by interrupting him and stopping his train of thought..Churchill seemed very subdued...I can't figure it out..He was so eloquent before Amy Goodman..
Maybe he felt annoyed by having to speak in sound bites? Maybe his attorney's are wanting him to say little...
But anyway, wish you had seem him on Democracy Now..He was great and a real problem solver...If only Americans are willing to listen to someone who refuses to speak in sound bites.
We need help Churchill against freepers like Governor Bill Owen who want to distort reality in order to stoke the fires of freeperdom..and likely make way for a senate career.

I've seen tapes of him speaking on other venues, where he was spirited and full of fire. On Maher, he seemed to be utterly defeated and exhausted. Maher finally had to jump in and express Churchill's thoughts for him.

When you listen to Churchill's entire reasoning on it, he actually has some thought-provoking things to say.

I think he was either annoyed with sound byte politics or silenced by his lawyers...Because. lack of words/explanation is not his trait... Replayed his presentation...Churchill's expression when Maher cut him off at the explanation the Nurenburg trials over Eichman looked pained/annoyed.I think he then felt what the hell??

And given Maher's antagonism the week before, Churchill probably had good reason to be subdued.

I agree: Churchill is worth listening to. I'm sorry to see the kneejerk squad around here quick to distance themselves from him; their loss, as usual.

for anything he ever wrote or said. Absolute freedom of speech everywhere and, especially, academia. However, isn't it true he misrepresented himself as a Native American, in order to get the Ethnic Studies Chairmanship? If thats true, he SHOULD be fired for lying about his backround.