Reply With Quote
so when you take public money you cant speak your mind?
Students Disrupt Meeting While Regents Try to Discuss Professor
A Colorado academic, under fire over writings on the 9/11 attacks and for saying he's Indian, will be investigated.
Students Disrupt Meeting While Regents Try to Discuss Professor
By David Kelly, Times Staff Writer
AURORA, Colo. — A student protest turned into a brawl here Thursday, shutting down a meeting of the University of Colorado board of regents after it agreed to investigate a professor who compared the victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to Nazis.
Several dozen supporters of professor Ward L. Churchill repeatedly shouted down regents as they discussed whether the instructor had crossed the line of academic freedom.
Interim Chancellor Phil DiStefano said he and two other professors would spend the next 30 days reviewing Churchill's writing and listening to tapes of his lectures to determine whether there were grounds for his dismissal. Other regents issued an apology to the nation for his comments, which they called disgraceful.
Churchill, an activist recently acquitted for blocking last year's Columbus Day parade in Denver, teaches on the university's Boulder campus. Thursday's regents meeting was held at an auditorium in Aurora.
School officials struggled to be heard as students in the room screamed "Fascist regents!" and "Let the public speak!" One protester got into a shoving match, then a full-blown fight with police. Chaos erupted as students dove over chairs to taunt officers while regents were shuffled out a side door for their own safety.
"What country am I living in?" shrieked one demonstrator.
Gov. Bill Owens, a Republican, later decried the scene as "mob rule" and repeated his calls for Churchill's dismissal. Meanwhile, the state Senate passed a resolution Thursday denouncing the professor's remarks as "evil and inflammatory."
The furor over remarks by Churchill, 57, began last week. He was asked to speak at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y., about Native American prison issues. But professors there discovered a paper he wrote after the Sept. 11 attacks led "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens."
Churchill called those working in the World Trade Center "technocrats of empire" and "little Eichmanns," comparing them to Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi mastermind of the Holocaust. He said the workers were "civilians of a sort."
"But innocent? Gimme a break," he wrote.
Churchill said the "combat teams" that killed nearly 3,000 people "manifested the courage of their convictions." In a taped speech, he said that if the Pentagon wasn't a legitimate target, "I don't know what is."
Outrage ensued, and Monday Churchill stepped down as chairman of the department of ethnic studies, though he retains his $94,200-a-year teaching job. Hamilton College canceled his speech, saying it had received so many threats that it couldn't ensure his or the students' safety.
Churchill, who specializes in Native American issues, has said his writings were taken out of context, and that he meant that if America behaved unjustly it could not expect to be spared from attack.
Colorado University President Betsy Hoffman, unable to speak at the meeting because of the noise, later said she was offended by Churchill's words but worried about squelching his freedom of speech.
"Let's not do something that we will be judged ill for later," she said. "Firing a tenured faculty member requires serious and careful thought."
Some Native American groups have also called for Churchill's ouster, not because of what he said, but for claiming to be an Indian. Churchill describes himself as a member of the Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians based in Tahlequah, Okla.
"The band has no association with Churchill in any capacity whatsoever," said George Wickliffe, tribal chief. "It consider his comments offensive and does not in any way reflect the true compassion for the victims of the World Trade Center and their families that is felt by the United Keetowah band."
The group said it had no record of Churchill in its files.
Churchill did not return calls seeking comment, though he told reporters that he was three-sixteenths Cherokee.
Emma Perez, associate chairwoman of the the ethnic studies department, sent an e-mail this week calling Churchill "one of a handful of Native Americans who are full professors throughout the nation."
Leaders of the American Indian Movement based in Minnesota said they had told Colorado University officials that Churchill was not an Indian, but were ignored.
"He has been building his career for years by masquerading as an Indian behind his dark glasses and beaded hat," said Vernon Bellecourt of AIM. "He would not have been published and promoted if CU didn't think he was an Indian."
DiStefano said that if Churchill misrepresented himself, it could be grounds for sanction.
Among those at odds with Churchill is David Bradley, an Indian sculptor and painter in Santa Fe, N.M. Bradley was the leading supporter of legislation in the early 1990s requiring anyone selling artwork as an Indian to be Native American.
"I spearheaded a movement to support this law which stops pseudo-Indians from selling their artwork," he said. "Then Churchill wrote this article attacking me for my stance, calling me greedy. I had never met him."
Churchill is also a painter, and Bradley believes he opposed the law because it would affect his ability to market his art. "I have been trying to figure out his rage for years," Bradley said.
At least one person at the regents' meeting wanted Churchill ousted.
"I think he should be fired and the department of ethnic studies terminated," said Steven Crow, 64, a engineer turned architecture student. "My kids don't want to go to CU now because of its reputation. Churchill can call anyone whatever he wants, but not on my dollar."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...ck=1&cset=true
this guy needs to be fired...
so when you take public money you cant speak your mind?
he can say whatever he wants...but he should be fired too...
yeah thatll teach the commie a lesson
Agreed.
"his writings were taken out of context"... how exactly do you take those sort of comments?
So, apparantly, he can't say anything he wants.he can say whatever he wants...but he should be fired too...
Ok, explain the grounds he should be fired on?
Perhaps you missed this:
My kids don't want to go to CU now because of its reputation. Churchill can call anyone whatever he wants, but not on my dollar.
I think if publicly funded ins utions for higher learning become a place where you have to speak your mind on a very PC level, we are treading on very dangerous ground.
No, he can...but, his first amendment rights don't insure he'll not be held responsible for what he says...only that he won't be deprived of life, liberty, or property for saying it.
And, I would like to change my agreement with the early statement by saying, that he "could," not "should" be fired. Although, I'd fire him, given the chance.
CU has WAY bigger fish to fry than a fake indian whacko. Their football program is a disgrace, with rapes and drunken recruiting bashes. Clean that up, then get back to me on this doofus.
Last edited by exstatic; 02-05-2005 at 12:55 AM.
why give a terrorist supporter a pulpit to preach from?
not agreeing with someone is not grounds to fire them.
when they are preaching terrorism is good it should be... would you want to fund some al-qaeda operative to teach your children if you had any?
I depends on if he's teaching a historicly correct class or not. Express opinions that I do not agree with are not grounds for dismissal as far as I'm concerned, the university would need to display that he's not teaching accureatly.
regardless...i don't think there is a place for al-qaeda sympathizers in our teaching system... teachers have too much power over young moldable minds...
Incompetence.
Comparing victims of 9-11 to Adolph Eichmann reveals an astonishing lack of historical perspective.
And, lying about his heritage in this day and age of "inclusion" and racial "quotas" or, as the left calls it, "diversity" -- you would think they'd of already burned him in effigy and hung his nut sack on a picket fence somewhere.
I do agree if he is found guilty of lying, off with his head. But that takes a bit of an investigation, and I don't want him fired simply because he has differing opinions.And, lying about his heritage in this day and age of "inclusion" and racial "quotas" or, as the left calls it, "diversity" -- you would think they'd of already burned him in effigy and hung his nut sack on a picket fence somewhere.
Anyhow, it's colorado's problem, not mine.
Me, too. Lying to obtain your position is a traditional firing offense. Having a ed up opinion isn't.I do agree if he is found guilty of lying, off with his head.
The University has every right in the world to fire this professor. Particularly if keeping him on the faculty could prove detremental to enrollment or alumni fund raising efforts.
Yeah, sad...even when you're ing up college heads with your ed up opinion.
You do know what "tenure" is, don't you?
Tenure does not grant absolute freedom of speech. Every University has guidelines for tenured faculty, and it's not without precedent (though rare) to fire a tenured professor for undermining the educational quality of the ins ution.
I think that was my point. It's VERY difficult to do, and it's probably not going to happen over some 3 year old free speech issue. If he lied about his heritage, he's probably a goner, though.(though rare)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
