quote:

---

Originally posted by: Mitch
"A Mr. Carrigan, an attorney and member of the Colorado Board of Regents just appeared on CNN. He said the the board would not fire Mr. Churchill at UC (though he strongly disagreed with Churchill's statements) despite Governor Owen's order to do so, and that both the state and board members would be liable if the professor's freedom to political speech and due process were abridged. He also said that the governor was using this as a diversion to draw attentiona away from the deep cuts made to higher ed in Coloradao. Mr. Carrigan also implied that even if it were legal to fire Churchill for his speech, he would not (though he seemed to imply that board had the option to investigate and fire a faculty member on other grounds, and I think that he meant such things as lying about one's credentials). He also so much as said that if the governor wanted to fire Churchill, he would have to can the board and do it himself. Now keep in mind that Carrigan is a Democrat and Owen a Republican, but imagine having an articulate and savvy IHL in Mississippi that stood up to state's power brokers in the best interest of higher education. Can't? Me either. That's why Mr. Carrigan's interview was so powerful and moving.  "

---

Please note that however you stand on Mr. Churchill's views (and I have had professors who have asserted everything from a belief that Kennedy was assassinated by Johnson to sorrow that the South lost the War) the current furor is over an article written three years ago -- and for the most part one sentence of that article. The sentiments were not uttered in a class ( although I personally believe Churchill has the right to make his comparison in an academic setting as long as he allows his students to aver). To fire a professor for things said outside the context of the university really does constitute a limitation and chilling of academic freedom as well as freedom of speech. I'd deplore a Nazi who avowed his beliefs in an article -- but I don't agree I'd have the right to fire him from his job. If that Nazi was an academic and ran his classroom in an appropriate way, I'd say the same. My own suspicion is that crackpot ideas tend to grow when they are suppressed. If they are allowed free expression they usually tend to fade under exposure to contravening arguement and discussion.

This argument is political -- designed to both prove to the public that the university is inhabited by leftist weirdos and build public sentiment for tightening free speech controls on the university, its faculty and its students. I'm not about to say these rights aren't abridged occasionally by professors (both left and right) -- but I will reiterate that almost every university has various mechanisms for handling the most egregious professors who abuse their classroom authority. However, once we cede free speech and academic freedom rights to administrators or politicians -- we will have a hard time getting them back.

Currently intellectual conservatism  at the university is on the rise -- that is a good thing as it poses a critique to the "perceived" dominant ideology of liberalism. Critique and argument are how ideological shifts occur within the university. When critique takes the form of debate, that is exactly how a university works. To suppress those on the right or the left through regulation rather than debate is to play into the hands of those who are currently in political control.

And the key is currently. One day conservatives may find themselves the dominant ideology in the university only to discover themselves in a similar position vis a vis a left leaning political system . . .

 

Personally, my own stand is that no ideology is without its problems. Therefore, it is in the intellectual interest of those who choose to live in the world of ideas to encourage dissenting ideologies that will challenge dominant ones. I think that is the intellectual tradition.

That tradition is completely antithetical to the political tradition of destroying your political opponant and his/her ideas. In many ways, the spirit of debate in the university is the spirit of a game -- you need your opponant to keep playing in order to keep debate alive. In fact, the best intellectuals relish opponants who are equally committted and equally good at debate. But political debate is more like war -- and the object is not only to beat your enemy, but if possible to remove him from the board altogether.  

That is why the world of politics as played out in the field and the world of political discourse as it occurs within the university are not and should not be mistaken for having the same objectives. The problem is politicians tend to see everything (and use everything) as instruments of political domination. The university has now thus become (as it was in the 60's) an object of interest on the part of the political establishment not because it wants to engage in a dialogue with the perceived oppositional ideology, but because it wants to destroy that ideology everywhere.

Be careful what you wish for.

LVN,

I find Ward Churchill's purported remarks about 9/11 maximally obnoxious.  If the reports about his claim to American Indian ancestry are true, he's also a flaming phony.  I'd love to know how he got hired, reappointed, tenured, and promoted--and why anyone would entrust a whole academic department to him.

I am sure that many on the academic Left regard him as an embarrassment.

But no, he shouldn't be fired for saying what he said.

And despite the efforts of the wowsers, up to and including the Governor of Colorado, I doubt that he will.

Robert Campbell

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Mitch
"Stephen, LVN, and Robert: I think my point may be have been missed (or maybe I wasn't clear, which wouldn't be the first time). It wasn't about right versus left or conservative versus liberal or bright professor versus stupid professor or political move versus doing the right thing for its own sake (although these are certainly relevant in the instant case). It was that it was extraordinarily refreshing to watch a college board member go on national television and tell a governor to shove it where the sun don't shine to support the academic freedom of a faculty member. I can't imagine that happening here, with our crew in Jackson."

---

so right mitch  . . . sorry not to acknowledge where you were going with that because it really is a very important point. I have a hard time imagining anyone on our board doing that . . . interesting that our board seems to confine its responsibilities to preserve and protect the universities in terms of finances . . . .  it does not seem interested or willing to step up to the plate on the larger issues. In fact, I'd say it tends to come down far more often on the side of those powerbrokers who would just as soon turn the universities into farm clubs for business than into educational powerhouses (which of course, can still provide the brainpower that businesses need -- perhaps just brainpower that might be a little bit more critical of the way some business is practiced).

 

mitch--take a look at the local newspapers in denver. i think the provost is looking at churchhill's scholarship. check the denverpost online edition. the board member can be strident on CNN but there is some sort of "investigation" going on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: stephen judd
..........in my younger years when exaggeration seemed like a good way to attract attention or might make a good pick up routine

---

"I could have quit working after the Publishers Clearinghouse came to my door that day, but I decided to go to graduate school just to have something to do."

Now, Stephen...don't go changin'...

quote:

---

Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"not to detract from this thead, but to put it in a context. the U of Colorado has been through a bad year or so. begin with the scandal about the football team using (essentially) prostitutes to recruit football players. the university has then had a series of alcohol-related student deaths (as have two other colorado universities). then this incident. draw your own conclusions about how people react to the buffaloes. "

---

Many of you may have watched Churchill's address to the student body as replayed on C-SPAN late last night. As I understand it, questions are being raised regarding his scholarship; allegations of plagiarism, etc.

The topic under discussion in this thread provides a welcome relief from our current situation at USM, and allows for a discussion of issues important to universities and society in general. I am a firm subscriber to the tenants of freedom of speech and the other listed freedoms enumerated in our constitution. I feel strongly about the support it gives for property rights, the right to bear arms and the right to legal due process.

Over the two hundred and twenty some years since the establishment of the constitution, there have been immeasurable debates regarding the limits of many of these amendments including the limits on the right to free speech, limits on the right to bear arms, and the limits of property ownership. These discussions are important, even vital, in our search to accommodate the changes in society to the tenants of the constitution. However, just as in the story where some animals are more equal than others, individuals and groups have their most favorite rights. While I would not disagree with the idea that some tenants of the constitution have a greater impact on society than others, at the margin all have in common the freedom of actions of the citizens. Thus, we have processes and laws to address situations where conflicts become apparent and some rights are constrained.

In discussions of how to settle these conflicts when rights collide, the participants often have a lexicographical ordering of the various rights such that one right trumps all other rights. While the person may have no problem trading off some property rights in favor other rights, they are adamant that there be no tradeoff when considering certain rights. The right to free speech has come to be one that is considered by many to trump all other rights.

In the case at hand in Colorado, all other rights are trumped by a professor’s right to advocate positions that are spurious, that defame others, and that could affect the institution severely in a negative way. This position assumes that the professor has a right to a job at the institution that overrides all other rights of faculty, students, administrators, supporters and the taxpayers of Colorado. Contrast the existing situation with a hypothetical situation that COULD occur at USM. Imagine a professor that blatantly professed to students, other faculty, and the public a theory of racial superiority and slandered minorities with the types of statements used in the Colorado case. Moreover, assume that this was not the first time these outbursts had occurred. Most faculty would, certainly I would, express outrage and would recommend strongly that this faculty member be either severely reprimanded or fired. I would push for firing this hypothetical individual. The harm to the university, the damaging insults to a segment of the university community, and the citizens of the state would far out weight such a professor’s right to free expression while employed at the university.

Extending the limits of free speech such that it trumps all other considerations is not healthy for a university or a society. Being selective about which sub group we can safely denigrate with free speech and which one is shielded does harm to this basic right of all Americans. Free speech is not free, it has costs that come in many forms. Under tyranny, the cost of free speech can be death. Sometimes it can lead to a loss of job. Sometimes it reveals stupidity that had heretofore not appeared. In the Colorado case, it may well lead to lost revenue for the university. It could lead to legislative interference and or the introduction of rules or laws that actually does limit free speech.

Free speech is a right in this country along with property rights and various other rights. These rights have value and it is prudent to preserve their value. It is best not squander that value by insisting that one constitution right supersedes other rights in situations involving some groups, but not others.

Imagine a professor that blatantly professed to students, other faculty, and the public a theory of racial superiority and slandered minorities with the types of statements used in the Colorado case. Moreover, assume that this was not the first time these outbursts had occurred. Most faculty would, certainly I would, express outrage and would recommend strongly that this faculty member be either severely reprimanded or fired. I would push for firing this hypothetical individual.

You wonder IF this could happen at USM?  It has and it does, and I don't see anyone doing anything about it.

Well, if you are on campus and have been here more than a year you should know of this already.  Ask around.

Angeline, if you are referring to Shelby Thames on this one, then it’s a stretch. While Thames may be the worst administrator ever and has definitely committed transgressions against faculty, I have never heard accusations of overt racism before. His sexism has been pointed out with the whole male/Dr./female/Ms. thing, but again, I have never heard that Shelby publicly spreads racially charged ideology.

To second Cossack’s request, information, please!

quote:

---

Originally posted by: stephen judd
" This argument is political -- designed to both prove to the public that the university is inhabited by leftist weirdos and build public sentiment for tightening free speech controls on the university, its faculty and its students.  "

---

You are eloquent but I believe only partially correct in your commentary.  If I may expand on certain of your comments, speaking as a former CU grad student with many old friends who remain tenured faculty there, I do have some additional insights.  The public furor to which you refer may well be political in nature, but Churchill's hiring and "meteoric" rise have been a source of irritation and controvery for years, not unlike the sudden appearance and elevation of Ken Malone.  Churchill has no terminal degree in any discipline, holds no academic degree at any level in the "ethnic studies" field,  has been accused on many occasions by respected colleagues of plagiarism (the university would never investigate these charges in times past, but they're considering it now),  has made patently false claims concerning his Native American heritage (which were exposed years ago, first in the CU newspaper by a journalism grad student).  He has built his career on bombastic utterances and scant, questionable scholarly output. So while the public debate is now centered on his most recent declarations,  the revitalized private debate within the faculty populated coffee houses of Boulder,  is how in the hell did this guy ever weasel his way into their midst to begin with.  The closest analogy that I can offer at USM, now that I think on it,  is the Angie Dvorak story,  although her public statements were never quite as idiotic as Churchill's.   I do agree that he should not be terminated for his most recent inflamatory statements.  He should never have been hired to begin with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Celebrity Deathmatch
"Angeline, if you are referring to Shelby Thames on this one, then it’s a stretch. While Thames may be the worst administrator ever and has definitely committed transgressions against faculty, I have never heard accusations of overt racism before. His sexism has been pointed out with the whole male/Dr./female/Ms. thing, but again, I have never heard that Shelby publicly spreads racially charged ideology.
"

---

I have heard that he is a racist. Heresay evidence only.