From CBS/AP:
In an interview Ward Churchill gave withSatya magazine, he was asked about the effectiveness of protests of U.S. policies and the Iraq war, and responded: “One of the things I’ve suggested is that it may be that more 9/11s are necessary.”
The interview prompted Gov. Bill Owens to renew his call for Churchill’s firing.
“It’s amazing that the more we look at Ward Churchill, the more outrageous, treasonous statements we hear from Churchill,” Owens said.
But as I’ve tried to note in my previous commentary on the subject, outrage over unpopular academic speech—even justified outrage over the the kind of formulaic Marxist boilerplate Churchill applies to the 911 victims and their Islamist murderers—should not, in and of itself, result in termination; Churchill’s argument, though old and filtered through a largely discredited ideology, nevertheless remains an academic exercise—a “scholarly” interpretation of an historical event, it’s aim being to argue a particular chain of causality.
Much of the criticism leveled at my “defense” of Churchill’s academic speech rights has focused on pragmatic considerations—specifically, that the academy, being a bastion of leftist orthodoxy (in the humanities, at least), would not grant the same kind of free speech protection to conservatives (in the rare instances conservatives are even accepted in the academy), and so, as Ace asks, “why on earth should we defend a ‘right’ of Ward Churchill’s which is only extended to similarly-minded fools and no one else?”
On its face, there is much to appreciate about this argument. First, it purports to address a perceived inequity by way of leveling the playing field. And second, it is aggressively proactive, and would serve, both symbolically and practically, as a wakeup call to the higher education establishment. But as one of Ace’s commenters counters, “the solution is not to remove rights where they do exist but to insist upon rights where they do not.” And he is correct. Because once we allow proactive populism to determine scholarship, we risk devolving into the very kind of PC nightmare the academic left has for years been trying so desperately to institutionalize.
A case in point (h/t Robin Burk):
[removed; this paper doesn’t want its stories excerpted; they sue bloggers.]
Protecting Ward Churchill’s right to academic speech is, I submit, no different than protecting Dr. Hoppe’s right to academic speech—though it is clear to me that the PC police that populate the administrative level at most universities are far more hostile to Hoppe’s speech than they are to Churchill’s. Nevertheless, the protection of one is the protection of the other.
Churchill’s argument can and should be defeated on its merits and mocked for the antiquated revolutionary materialist boilerplate it espouses. And such, in my opinion, is precisely the way to protect other academic speech, particularly while conservatives—a clear minority in academe—are under constant threat of being silenced for “intolerant” ideas, like questioning race-based affirmative action, or speculating on the social fallout from a move toward legally redefining marriage.
****
(h/t Ace)
****
update: In the comments sections of previous posts, I’ve addressed many of the issues that are springing up in the comments to this post. Rather than repeat myself, I’ll point you to those responses, here and here
****
update 2: Glenn Reynold’s weighs in:
It sounds as if what the folks doing the hiring wanted was someone who could give a stamp of Native American “authenticity” to what were really left-wing European views. That his scholarship was poor, and his background questionable, was less important than the nature of the views he was espousing.
This sort of practice bespeaks a hothouse atmosphere in which there isn’t much room for debate or dissenting views within the part of the University doing the hiring. In other words, the problem is not too much intellectual diversity, but not enough. And although Churchill’s case may be an extreme one in terms of the attention it has gotten, the issues underlying it are not limited to the Ethnic Studies program at the University of Colorado. (Just look at the problems with anti-Semitism at Columbia University, for example.)
It seems clear that trustees and alumni are going to have to take a closer look at hiring practices in many academic programs, or we’re likely to see more Churchill-style embarrassments. That would a bad thing for academia, and for academic freedom.
The University of Colorado made its bed when it hired Churchill and subsequently promoted him, and now it finds itself in the uncomfortable position of being legally limited in the ways it can deal with him.
It is my hope that “scholarship” such as Churchill’s will continue to be exposed for its intellectual laziness, and that the public scrutiny that comes with such exposure will prompt universities to be more circumspect in their hiring and promotion practices. Already, Brown University has begun navel-gazing over the extent of its intellectual homogeneity, and movements like David Horowitz’ Students for Academic Freedom are gaining traction.
****
update 3: To paraphrase an old academic adage: “You’ll know the argument has come to end the minute somebody introduces masturbating simians.”
I don’t argue that he should be fired, but surely it is reasonable to demand that random citizens be permitted to sneak up on him and kick him in the balls.
If I saw him in a bar, I’d goad him into a fight just so I can pull my Billy Jack routine on him.
But kicking him in the balls works, too.
I’ll allow others to engage your larger point here, Mr. Goldstein, but I wish to put my full support for the ball-kicking on the record.
Many thanks.
I’m still on the borderline on this one, Jeff. And that’s because I don’t think that what Ward Churchill is engaging in is an academoc exercise even if discredited.
But that’s rooted in my disdain for the entire fraudulent field of “ethnic studies”.
Jeff, my question is where does one draw the line? Or is there no line to be drawn? If a professor taught the “bell curve” or used studies or generalities that are un PC, like saying blacks are less intelligent. What if a professor talks about the fact the some people actually believe that jews are controlling the banking industry? I just don’t understand how we can allow just anything because it is used as some sort of “academic exercise.” You said yourself that Churchill’s theories had been largely discredited. So even those discredited are allowed?
“He said there is a belief among some economists that one of the 20th century’s most influential economists, John Maynard Keynes, was influenced in his beliefs by his homosexuality.. Keynes espoused a “spend it now†philosophy to keep an economy strong, much as President Bush did after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.”
I did not know John Maynard Keynes was gay but I had my suspicions about President Bush ever since that huge tax cut. Huge tax cuts are so gay (not that that’s a bad thing).
I’m still unclear how firing the asswad “stifles his speech”?
If I were to write, using my company’s resources, a raunchy love note to you describing sexual activities with a pitchfork, a set of stainless steel salad tongs, and a sack of Burbank potatoes and it got out, I see no reason why my employer shouldn’t fire me. I could still write you steamy, homoerotic poetry – that right was not taken away from me.
If the college loses alumni support and sufferes lowered enrollment because of him, then he is hindering the college and deserves to be let go.
Now, as I understand it, the oxygen waster is tenured, which means the college voluntarily entered into a contract that protected Dr. Dufus, well, then that’s a point where I’ll agree he cannot be fired. But to say that removing him from his position prevents him from speaking is, IMHO, incorrect.
What you’d be doing is removing his dias that he preaches from, not the ability to speak.
But, isn’t the University allowed to consider how Churchill’s speech might affect the bottom line? It has gotten a lot of attention, which might affect not only graduate donations, but enrollment as well.
But, maybe not.
If CU is obliged to soak taxpayers to employ Ward Churchill, then the Colorado DMV has no basis to screen neonazis.
Fire him? No. But the only reasons are utilitarian – avoidance of lawsuits, depriving the Left of a faux “martyr”, providing a showcase for the stupidity and hypocrisy of radical campus politics.
Speaking of Billy Jack….
TV Classics: CHUTCH
/linkpimp
All —
See my update.
If all else fails, I have my size 14, steel toed, jungle boots from the Marine Corps that I’d gladly relocate his testicles with.
Yeah, dudes! Make like Pele with his ‘nads!
GOOOOOOOOOOOOAL!!!
Or just tell AIM where to find his weasely ass…
He couldn’t object to informal justice from the downtrodden natives, could he?
Howzabout they fire his ass for being a phony Indian? I mean, an Ethnic Studies prof lying aabout their ethnicity seems problematic to me.
On the other hand, I guess I could get behind the whole kick in the balls idea.
I saw a couple students of Churchill’s being interviewed on Fox News. It was quite possibly the most painful interview I’ve ever listened to. All they could do well was dodge questions and obfuscate.
I’d argue that Churchill is very close to qualifying for termination on the grounds of incompetence. If a math professor teaches that 2 + 2 = 22, he should be fired for inability to do his job. At some point–for instance, asserting that we “need more 9/11s”–you reach the point where one’s argument ceases to make any sense at all, crossing into the land of the incompetent.
Though I’ll grant it’s far harder to say something is factually wrong in such a subjective field (i.e. sociology).
What the University REALLY needs to examine is how the guy was ever tenured in the first place. A prof. who taught fascism, obviously, wouldn’t get tenure at any credible university (well, unless it was an Islamic studies class… and there goes my point).
OK, I’m done now.
Leave Churchill right where he is. He’s doing exactly what Rove needs him to do.
But fire everyone who had anything to do with his hiring, those who chose him and those who failed to object in writing to his selection.
Of course, if he obtained his position based fraudulent claims of membership in a Native American nation, he should be sued for the fraud, and that nation should probably be allowed either to scalp him or ceremonially string him up from hooks like in the “Man Called Horse” movie.
Beck, its the nature of programs in “ethnic studies” that the arguments are incoherent and irrational. Churchill was not teaching these kids anything less coherent than Rudolfo Acuna’ crap from CSUN in the ‘70’s.
What outrages me is that this asswipe, with his extremely thin CV and beyond-specious claim to Native american heritage, is sought out by the ever-so-precious humanities departments of universities like CU.
He shouldn’t fired because he writes and says shit like this. He should be fired because he’s a fraud.
Keep insisting. See what you get. The only way conservatives will achieve anything resembling parity within the academy is if they start founding their own universities. Remember Time magazine’s story a few months ago on “blue media” and “red media”? Well, think “blue schools” versus “red schools.” Sad that it has to come to that, but that’s what happens when one ideology monopolizes an institution.
I repeat two points I made in Jeff’s previous thread on this subject. First, the Churchill defenders claim to be protecting his rights. It would be more accurate to say they’re prioritizing his rights over the rights of aspiring scholars who want jobs in academia but can’t get them because of the glut of Churchills squatting on professorships throughout America. That’s the reality of the situation. Prune some of the deadwood and open up a few vacancies; that’s the first step toward “creating rights.” Second, if we’re all about creating rights, someone really needs to explain to me why every speech-related industry in the United States shouldn’t also institute a tenure system. Imagine it: a substantial segment of America’s job market calcified in one fell swoop. Absolute job security with zero accountability, all in the name of the “marketplace of ideas.” Europeans couldn’t do it any better.
The more I read about this case, the more I think it boils down to one’s opinion of university humanities departments. (I have degrees from two of them and I think they’re mostly bullshit.) It would be a fine thing to say that “Churchill’s argument can and should be defeated on its merits” if he were a scientist and his theories could be tested and disproved, but the idea of “defeating” an argument made by a humanities scholar is almost a contradiction in terms. How do you “defeat” a subjective interpretation? Has the “blowback” theory been “defeated” yet? If not, will we know when it has been? Does the fact that untold millions of Americans subscribe to the theory matter? If Churchill tells you 9/11 was punishment in part for American’s actions in Chile in 1973, and you say that’s ridiculous, have you “defeated” his argument? Or can he rescue victory from the jaws of “defeat” by saying that our actions in Chile helped create a worldwide climate of anti-Americanism which the 9/11 hijackers felt emboldened by and hoped to capitalize on? It all depends on how we look at it, doesn’t it?
But fired or not, I’m all for his scrotum getting busted.
I mean, is this not the Ethnic Studies version of saying 2 + 2 = Purple?
Ignore his point for a moment and focus on the simple, garbled, syntax-deficient mess that statement is. I especially like how he tosses in “rubric” just in case you weren’t convinced yet that he was an intellectual ya know?
Over at Ace’s site, I said:
Schools should try to appeal to a specific type of student. Not everyone wants the same thing in a school. A free market in schools gives students a choice. UC could easily be either the kind of school that keeps him or the kind that tosses him. I guess what I’m saying is that this is, at its base, an economic decision.
Don’t get me wrong—I’m not in the habit of quoting myself, but I had to mention this: one of the more important figures in my economic education, who helped demonstrate the power of rigorous economic reasoning, was none other than Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
I recommend his book, Democracy, the God that Failed.
“red schools” –
Thomas Aquinas College
Hillsdale College
Grove City College
Allah,
There are many “tenured faculty” in free-speech related industries. Journalism has had some firings here and there, but mostly in sports–Jimmy the Greek, Rush Limbaugh, Marv Levy, et cetera. (The saying about how the strength of the arguments are inversely proportional to the importance of the issue comes to mind). Do I have to mention Dan Rather? And most P.R., advocacy, and political organizations are filled with the almost-dead on their boards of directors.
“Red” universities already exist, but they are run by killjoys and others who don’t appeal to most college freshmen-to-be. Most are religious, some are run like military academies, some are military academies, and they are solidly “red”. There are more things than ideology in the decision-making parts of high-school brains.
Justice for Washingtonienne! TENURE NOW!
Allah said: “It would be more accurate to say they’re prioritizing his rights over the rights of aspiring scholars who want jobs in academia but can’t get them because of the glut of Churchills squatting on professorships throughout America. That’s the reality of the situation. Prune some of the deadwood and open up a few vacancies; that’s the first step toward “creating rights.â€Â
No. I don’t think that’s it. (BTW it’s interesting to change the players in this scenario from asshats and conservatives to blacks and whites. It might also make it clearer.) It’s not about WCs his rights vs the rights of aspiring conservative profs. (And if it were between free speech and affirmative action for conservatives I’d vote for free speech any day.) His rights are protected whether he’s fired or not. No one is going to come and lock him up or fine him. Rights aren’t the issue. Tenure is the issue. You can’t fire the asshole because he’s protected by tenure. He was given it and those who hired him and gave him tenure should be fired. They were negligent. But the academic system in this time and place is controled by liberals so what are the chances?
If UC fires him, it won’t be because they want to oust a liberal moron (don’t kid yourself), they’d be firing him because he is a pr nightmare and they have to do some damage control. (And then they are going to scream “we never would have fired him because we believe in freedom of thought but we were pressured by the big bad neocons” yadda yadda.)
Firing him given the present conditions (tenure and academia being a largely liberal institution) is going to be a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. We go around firing a bunch of tenured Churchills (pruning deadwood) and what will result is lawsuits. That and a bunch of “neocon thought police” claptrap from the left and the media to scare the great unwashed.
In this place and time, academia is a liberal institution and it’s unlikely that it will suddenly wake up and say “gosh, we’re so unbalanced. Let’s cut some deadwood and hire some conservatives.” Firing a bunch of tenured Churchills assumes that academia wants to rectify the imbalance in the first place. Which it doesn’t. Pressure has to come from without. We do need Blue Universities. They need to give the Red ones (and most of them are) a wake up call. Hit them in the pocketbook.
There’s this tenure system which is ridiculous given the state of academia but that’s the lay of the land. Get rid of tenure and the system has a chance of balancing and employing those scholars who are currently waiting for the tenured Churchills to leave. But not much of one.
What we really need is a whole bunch of asshats to speak from the hallowed halls all at once in conjunction with a whole bunch of parents saying “hell no I’m not sending you and my money to that liberal shithole.” That might make a difference.
Oh, and by the way, WC means shitter. I love that.
My bad. It clarified it for me when I changed the players from asshats and conservatives to whites and blacks. Not the other way around. I was thinking segregation.
Since when is expressing bowelish perspectives loudly a crime? It’s not criminal. Not even at the University of the California Bear People at Boulder. As for being “Indian”; were he, and were he concerned, he’d be teaching at Fort Lewis College.
Churchill (Ward that is) and his ilk are like Herpes. Just one more nasty, permanent scar from our nationwide political orgy that we like to call the 60’s and early 70’s.
We’re gonna have to carry around this shit like luggage for the rest of our lives.
Consider it our penance.
The only downside I can see to the balls-kicking strategy is, it assumes he has ‘em.
Good point, McG.
Damn, Jeff, let it go
“First, it purports to address a perceived iniquity by way of leveling the playing field.”
You get the Cool Typo of the Week Award for this one, Jeff.
Stupid vowels.
I agree with Allah when he says (praise be to Him and his Dean-o photoshops) that
We can discuss ‘rights’ until we’re blue in the face, but we still miss the crux of the argument: what is the intention of a university education and is the environment university administrators are creating through their hiring practices supporting that? If the answer to the first part of that is “to teach students ‘how’ (not what) to think, to teach them to question why they believe the way they do so they can discuss it rationally even with those who hold very different veiwpoints, then the answer to the second question is a resounding “NO!”
“Rights” has nothing to do with this argument and besides, Churchill’s contractual rights provided by UC Boulder are clearly outlined in the Laws of the Regents (google it): He has the right to express himself as a citizen, but with that, he has the responsibility to be accurate and fair AND to make the disclaimer that his veiws are not representative of his employers. We may argue whether he fulfills his first responsibility, but the second, without a doubt, he has failed to oblige. When we discuss ‘rights’ we should be discussing ‘responsibility’ right along with it. Otherwise there’s no check and no balance, without which the meaning of freedoms and rights is utterly moot.
I’ll go back to a story (I think) I told here before: I had a political science class back in the day, part of which included class debate over a variety of topics. The class fought, argued, all the while, the professor roamed sphynx-like around the front of the room, firing off provocative questions at all sides of the debate, playing devil’s advocate to all, making every person mad and uncomfortable at one point or another. At the end of the semester, we STILL didn’t have any clue what our professor’s personal viewpoints were, but we all had a much better idea about our own, especially since we were all forced to consider mostly well-made arguments against them.
When we inquired what he thought about this or that, his reply was the same: “This class isn’t about what I think, it’s about learning why you think the way you do.” That professor was doing his job. He certainly had the RIGHT to spout off about what he thought, but it would have been an inappropriate means to the end – which was to educate us. Plain, simple. End of story.
The Ward Churchills of this world, by, what was it you called it Jeff – intellectually streaking in front of their classes? – are not fulfilling their contractual obligations to educate their students. As soon as we start putting student’s right to get an education over professor’s right to hold ‘coffeehouse court’ over their classrooms, we’ll be closer to being on track.
I say just give WC to Diana for a couple of days. He’ll resign.
<makes washing hands motion>
You mean to tell me that diversity doesn’t include giving tenure to liars, frauds, and charlatans?
Well, I gave up when Jeff brought out the idea that firing this clown would endanger the vital research being done in Ethnic Studies Departments throughout the country.
We’ve got to protect this asshole because of the incredible advancements in the human condition that are just around the corner thanks to these cesspools of Academia.
Don’t forget to wake me up when they happen, please.
I never said any such thing.
Oh, come on. If you are going to make up stuff, Peter, try to make it funny.
I’m not making things up. I stated a clear possibility, that voters, through their state legislatures will start padlocking doors on various campi. They’ll do it through their hold on the purse strings.
Jeff came back with all the Important Research that would be endangered by a taxpayer backlash.
I know when I’m not welcome, I won’t bother you Important People again.
Just remember, colleges and universities all over the country are dropping programs. Like it or not, either the academics will clean up their act or the state legislatures will do it for them.
Where is this statement, Peter? In this thread? I can’t find it.
I don’t remember saying you aren’t welcome, either, or that I was somebody important. Where are you getting this stuff from.
As to your initial point—that I suggested “that firing this clown would endanger the vital research being done in Ethnic Studies Departments throughout the country”—well it’s just not true: I never said any such thing. In fact, I believe one of the ways to rid the university of people like Churchill is to make disciplines like “ethnic studies” obsolete. But what I DID say is that firing this guy for his SPEECH (as opposed to any number of other reasons that fall within contractual parameters) would endanger academic freedom as a whole. And because most scholars in the humanities are hard left—and because their peers are hard left—just WHO do you think this insular community will use this new weakening of the tradition of academic freedom to go after—those who espouse leftist views like themselves, or those who challenge the orthodoxies pushed by the progressivist social engineers running the universities.
The cameras won’t always be there, you know. And it is my worry—as someone who has taught in the academy and has seen firsthand how conservatives are often treated—that any dimunition of academic freedoms will be used by the left as a justification to purge speech that makes any studend feel uncomfortable (if that speech comes from someone with conservative leanings).
Now, if you’d like to answer these points, fine. Just don’t misrepresent what I’m saying, and stop pouting when you’re called on it. You’’ve contributed much to the discussions here over the months; stop acting like a wounded child and debate, for Chrissakes.