02-09-2005, 08:05 PM #1
1st amendment or not, this moron should be fired
This is the same moron that prostested the Columbus day parade, and blocked the parade route. He only hides behind the 1st amendment when it suits his political agenda... hipocrite. He was arrested for civid disobediance.
CU prof's essay sparks dispute
Ward Churchill says 9/11 victims were not innocent people
By John C. Ensslin, Rocky Mountain News
January 27, 2005
A University of Colorado professor has sparked controversy in New York over an essay he wrote that maintains that people killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were not innocent victims.
Students and faculty members at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y., have been protesting a speaking appearance on Feb. 3 by Ward L. Churchill, chairman of the CU Ethnic Studies Department.
They are upset over an essay Churchill wrote titled, "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens."
The essay takes its title from a remark that black activist Malcolm X made in the wake of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Malcolm X created controversy when he said Kennedy's murder was a case of "chickens coming home to roost."
Churchill's essay argues that the Sept. 11 attacks were in retaliation for the Iraqi children killed in a 1991 U.S. bombing raid and by economic sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United Nations following the Persian Gulf War.
The essay contends the hijackers who crashed airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11 were "combat teams," not terrorists.
It states: "The most that can honestly be said of those involved on Sept. 11 is that they finally responded in kind to some of what this country has dispensed to their people as a matter of course."
The essay maintains that the people killed inside the Pentagon were "military targets."
"As for those in the World Trade Center," the essay said, "well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break."
The essay goes on to describe the victims as "little Eichmanns," referring to Adolph Eichmann, who executed Adolph Hitler's plan to exterminate Jews during World War II.
Churchill said he was not especially surprised at the controversy at Hamilton, but he also defended the opinions contained in his essay.
"When you kill 500,000 children in order to impose your will on other countries, then you shouldn't be surprised when somebody responds in kind," Churchill said.
"If it's not comfortable, that's the point. It's not comfortable for the people on the other side, either."
The attacks on Sept. 11, he said, were "a natural and inevitable consequence of what happens as a result of business as usual in the United States. Wake up."
A longtime activist with the American Indian Movement, Churchill was one of eight defendants acquitted last week in Denver County Court on charges of disrupting Denver's Columbus Day parade.
His pending speech at Hamilton has drawn criticism from professors and students, including Matt Coppo, a sophomore whose father died in the World Trade Center attacks.
"His views are completely hurtful to the families of 3,000 people," Coppo said.
A spokesman for Hamilton College released a statement noting that Hamilton is committed to "the free exchange of ideas. We expect that many of those who strongly disagree with Mr. Churchill's comments will attend his talk and make their views known."
In his essay Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, CU professor Ward Churchill argues that:
• The Sept. 11 attacks were in retaliation for the Iraqi children who were killed in a 1991 bombing raid and for economic sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United Nations following the Persian Gulf War.
• Hijackers who crashed jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11 were "combat teams," not terrorists.
• The people killed inside the Pentagon were "military targets."
02-09-2005, 08:08 PM #2
Agreed he needs his ass kicked and then to get fired or the other way around. As long as both are done i will be satisfied.
02-09-2005, 08:25 PM #3
I say we put him in a building and fly an airplane full of terrorists into it.
02-09-2005, 08:26 PM #4
i saw him on o'reily factor
hes a loon
02-10-2005, 07:28 AM #5
The world is full of jackasses like this, indeed we have a couple in this forum.
02-10-2005, 08:33 AM #6
Fired - HA! We should revoke his citizenship and send him on a one way trip over to France or Iran. He is not invoking his 1st amendment rights - he is actually an enemy of the United States and should be treated as such.
02-10-2005, 08:38 AM #7
He is the chair of the ethnic studies and claims to have American Indian ancestry......BUT they proved he lied.
02-10-2005, 09:46 AM #8
I cracks me up how the people who claim to be such big supporters of their cherished American freedoms get their panties in a bunch as soon as someone says something they don't like. Fire him, revoke his citizenship? lol, why not just imprison people for what they say.....you guys sound more like Reds than Republicans.
02-10-2005, 09:55 AM #9
Well people can say what they want , it does not mean there will not be repercussions. The freedom rolls both ways brutha, he is free to say what he wants and we are free to react to it.
02-10-2005, 10:03 AM #10
You're making a pretty big jump there Vic. Not all words are equal and he has not demonstrated that he is anything more than someone with an extremely unpopular opinion.
I'm not saying you should't be free to react and to whatever is said but why not do it in a more inteligent way?
Originally Posted by 1victor
02-10-2005, 10:20 AM #11
What would be more intelligent? To whip out some serious vacabulary words and "sting" him with them? The fact that this guy is an educator and spews this out is what sets this apart. His job is to present the facts and let the students come to their own conclusion, not to present his own agenda.
02-10-2005, 02:54 PM #12
CM - there is a difference between free speech and one who actually sides with an enemy in a time of war. Where does the line between Free Speech and treason to your country get crossed? IMO when you aid and abed the enemy you have crossed the line. This professor clearly is not only out of line but approaching criminal behavior.
Do you really want a nut case like this teaching college students? I find it interesting this idiot hides behind the Bill of Rights and other freedoms provided by the US Constitution, but actually is politically aligned with a terrorist organization who does not believe in human freedoms of any kind. Don't you find that hypocritical?
Originally Posted by chicamahomico
02-10-2005, 03:13 PM #13
I just think he is a hipocite wouldnt you agree?
02-10-2005, 03:14 PM #14
hipocite? It's that related to the hippo?
02-10-2005, 03:16 PM #15Originally Posted by 1victor
sorry, long day bro
02-10-2005, 03:18 PM #16
02-10-2005, 08:26 PM #17
1st this guy should pack up his wife and kids and move to iraq, if america so bad. 2nd econmic sanctions effect the population of a country not its ruler, saddam still lived in palaces. having said that it seems to me the people of iraq have been living under economic sanctions for over 100 years just look at the conditions hussein allowed his people live in, while he was one of the richest men on earth. imo
02-11-2005, 09:44 PM #18
I agree with you to some extent but from the article posted (who knows what the whole story is), this guy has not demonstretd any intent to do anything other than share his retarted opinion. The key word is intent, and unless he's making staements which imply intent, really, what can you say about it?
Originally Posted by Hot-Rox
Originally Posted by Hot-Rox
02-11-2005, 09:54 PM #19
I tend to lean on CM's point of view here. I don't like Churchill wrote but he has that right to write it in this country.
You can't have selective freedom's.
02-11-2005, 10:27 PM #20
Freedom of speach...that's what a lot of men have died for....freedom of worship...................whatever......but that doesn't mean you won't get your butt kicked bt someone of a different opinion when you aren't looking.
02-12-2005, 04:30 AM #21Associate Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2004
The college deserves most of the blame for this guy. They should never have let him become chair of ethnic studies. He doesn't even have a doctorate degree, making this the only chair of a department I have ever heard of with just a m.a. His statements really make no sense at all. He probably just wooed over some people by using a lot of big words and postmodern theories to get the job.
02-12-2005, 06:22 AM #22
Or maybe the guy is just saying crap to stir the pot. You know the saying concerning publicity...
02-12-2005, 08:48 AM #23
consider the source. hes not a "real" native american, i saw somewhere that they checked his background yet he parades around with his weak immune system pals. (still sore over selling manhattan for 24 dollers worth of crap). also he is an ethics professor at a school that has had more sex scandals in the past 3 yrs than any other Div 1 school.
02-12-2005, 08:54 AM #24
also his arguments lose immediate credibility when his main point makes no sense. he claims that people in the WTC were little Eichmans for contributing(indirectly i assume he means) to the injustices that go on in this country. Yet his salary is much more than a secretary or clerk who would have worked in the WTC so there is the monetary issue. Also since when are Universities free of beuracratic nonsense that over charge kids for school? Kids can pay up to 30k a yr at that school to pay his dumbass salary. what a bum. i think he has a right to say what he said but i believe thew school has a right to fire him as well
02-12-2005, 09:12 AM #25
Well said BL! What bothers me most is Churchill and his supporters hide behind the bill of rights and the US constitution. But, it reality their positions are anti-commerce and anti-democratic. In essence, they directly support the enemies of the United States. I do not believe he should be able to do that without serious ramifications, least of which should be employment termination.
Originally Posted by biglouie250
02-12-2005, 11:12 AM #26Originally Posted by Hot-Rox
If tenure is part of an organization's employment rules, then ya gotta compensate any employee if you wrongfully fire him, period. And speaking one's honest opinon is hardly reason to fire a tenured college professor.
Some states (mostly anti-liberal ones uncomfortable with the notion of people speaking frankly) have passed legislation meddling with the tenure rules, so ya, college professors in Texas and Tennessee are unlikely to say things people might not want to hear. In Colorado, for the moment anyway, college professors are free to speak unfettered.
So, if you want to do something to keep people from saying things you don't like, contact your state legislators and ask them to eliminate tenure for academicians. You'll be a fool if you do, but then, there are no laws against doing stupid things.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Tenure commonly refers to academic tenure systems, in which professors (at the university level)—and in some jurisdictions schoolteachers (at primary or secondary school levels)—are granted the right not to be fired without cause after an initial probationary period. Tenure systems are usually justified by the claim that they provide academic freedom, by preventing instructors from being fired for openly disagreeing with authorities or popular opinion. Such systems may also have an economic rationale, similar to the rationale for senior partner positions in many law and accounting firms, in that employees who cannot be replaced may be more likely to give accurate assessments of more junior colleagues who might otherwise threaten their positions. Another reason tenure exists is that, in the realm of academic and intellectual persuits, individuals may produce higher quality output when they have job security than when they don't. When they have the job security and autonomy of a tenured position, academics are able to pursue their own topics of interest, which they are usually more passionate about, and produce better results. Without job security, they will generally attempt to measure what pursuits they are "supposed to" follow, and in imitation of those guidelines, produce a lower quality of output.
Academic tenure is politically unpopular in many places, where opponents charge that it removes incentives for its holders to be productive and unfairly relieves professors of the economic uncertainty felt by other workers. For these reasons, tenure was officially abolished in public universities in the United Kingdom by the Thatcher government in the 1980s, and has repeatedly come under attack at state universities in the United States. Many universities have also moved to supplement tenured professors with non-tenured adjunct professors, who teach classes on a contract basis for relatively low wages and few benefits.
How tenure is awarded
In most cases, tenure is not given immediately to new professors upon hiring. Instead, open jobs are designated eligible for tenure, or "tenure-track," during the hiring process. Typically, a professor hired in a tenure-eligible position will then work for approximately five years before a formal decision is made on whether tenure will be granted.
The academic department will then vote to recommend the candidate for tenure based on the tenure-eligible professor's record in teaching, research, and service over this initial period. The department's recommendation is given to a tenure review committee made up of faculty members or university administrators, which then makes the decision whether to award tenure, and the university president approves or vetoes the decision. The tenure process is fraught with institutional politics so often despised that many capable individuals avoid academia altogether because of it.
A candidate denied tenure is sometimes considered to have been fired, but this is not entirely accurate: employment is often guaranteed for a year after tenure is denied, so that the non-tenured professor can conduct an extended search for new employment. Also, some prestigious universities and departments award tenure so rarely that being denied it is scarcely an insult.
Professors who have earned tenure at one institution are often offered tenure along with any new position (as "senior hires"); otherwise, tenured faculty would rarely leave to join different universities.
Revocation of tenure
Tenure can only be revoked for cause, normally only following severe misconduct by the professor. In the US, according to the Wall Street Journal (January 10, 2005), it is estimated that only 50 to 75 tenured professors (out of about 280,000) lose their tenure each year. Revocation is usually a lengthy and tedious procedure. In Colorado, where the question of what constitutes grounds for dismissal of a tenured professor arose as the result of the controversial comments of Ward Churchill regarding the victims of the 9/11 attack, grounds for dismissal are "professional incompetence, neglect of duty, insubordination, conviction of a felony or any offense involving moral turpitude ... or sexual harassment or other conduct which falls below minimum standards of professional integrity."
Last edited by Tock; 02-12-2005 at 11:15 AM.
07-29-2005, 11:43 AM #27
the world trade center attacks were carried out by al queda. Al queda is from Afganistan, the first country we invaded. 9/11 and Iraq have nothing to do with eachother. So to say that thiese attacks were for something in Iraq in the first place is ignorance. Bush was gunning for Iraq for "weapons of mass destruction," which he never found let me remind everyone. To say these poeple were innocent is all perspective. Is it insensitive? Yes, but thats why we live in a society with freedoms. If there wasn't the first amendment, do you think a forum regarding illegal steroids would even exist. Open you eyes poeple!
Last edited by mike2nice; 07-29-2005 at 11:45 AM.
07-29-2005, 12:03 PM #28
I think he can say what he wants. Do you think it is all lies? Or did Dubya tell you the truth? How about we can listen or not listen and make up our own minds. I am suprised with patriot act he has not been arrested and tortured for having an opinion.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)