Should this Professor lose his job?

[Glengoyne]

I'm just wondering where folks fall on this issue. If you aren't familiar with the story, I believe that we have had a thread here on the subject but I couldn't find it. In short this professor was chosen to speak at Hamilton College in New York. When people found out some of his opinions, and leaked them to the media it became a problem for the school in New York and now for the University of Colorado. His appearance at the event was cancelled, and now there is tremendous pressure to fire or at least censure him in some way.
School Considers Dismissal for 9/11 Slur Prof Friday, February 04, 2005
http://www.foxnews.com/images/service_ap_36.gif <table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="19" width="21"> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> <td>
</td></tr> </tbody></table> AURORA, Colo. — University of Colorado administrators Thursday took the first steps toward a possible dismissal of a professor who likened World Trade Center (search (javascript:siteSearch('World Trade Center');)) victims to a notorious Nazi.

Interim Chancellor Phil DiStefano ordered a 30-day review of Ward Churchill's (search (javascript:siteSearch('Ward Churchill's');)) speeches and writings that will determine if the professor overstepped his boundaries of academic freedom and whether that should be grounds for dismissal.

Also Thursday, the Board of Regents issued an apology for Churchill's remarks at a meeting and voted to support the university's review of Churchill.

The raucous meeting drew dozens of protesters who back Churchill; at least two were arrested for disrupting the meeting and another was led away in handcuffs.

The regents refused to take public comment at their meeting, prompting an outcry from some of the 35 students who carried signs reading, "Protect academic freedom" and "Witch hunt." About a dozen professors also attended.

"I wish the regents had agreed to take some public comments," said law professor Barbara Bintliff, chairwoman of the Boulder Faculty Assembly (search (javascript:siteSearch('Boulder Faculty Assembly');)). "Discussion and debate is what a university is all about."Gov. Bill Owens issued a written statement saying he deplored the behavior of some of the students at the meeting, and that their behavior underscored the "culture of violence" that can be spawned by essays such as Churchill's.

Owens has called for Churchill's firing.

The furor erupted last month after Churchill was invited to speak at Hamilton College in upstate New York. Campus officials discovered an essay and follow-up book by Churchill in which he said the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were a response to a history of American abuses abroad, particularly against indigenous peoples.

Among other things, he said those killed in the trade center were "little Eichmanns," a reference to Adolf Eichmann, who organized Nazi plans to exterminate Jews. The college canceled Churchill's appearance, citing death threats and concerns about security.

University officials have previously condemned Churchill's comments but defended his right to express them. University President Elizabeth Hoffman declined to comment Thursday on Churchill's future.

Churchill, whose pickup truck was vandalized with swastikas in front of his Boulder home sometime late Tuesday, has promised to sue the school if he is removed.

Earlier Thursday, the state Senate passed a resolution denouncing Churchill's comments as "evil and inflammatory." The nonbinding resolution was identical to one passed Wednesday by the House.

Democratic state Sen. Peter Groff cast the lone "no" vote, saying he disagreed with Churchill but that the resolution provides him with undeserved attention and attacks free speech.


Tthe ironic part of the story is that the event at Hamilton College was titled "The Limits of Dissent".

[SackAttack]

If he stands on a street corner and espouses these views, or goes on Jerry Springer, then fine, whatever. I think he's a moron, but it's his right to be so.

The issue I have with this is that I believe tax dollars were used to pay his lecture fee. Using government money to pay for this guy to speak his tripe lends him and his particular brand of hogwash an undeserved legitimacy.

[duckman]

I'm completely torn on the whole thing. I don't think he should be fired because he has a right to his opinions no matter how insensitive and asinine the comments were in his paper. I also don't believe that he should be punished because it would be a violation of his 1st Amendment right. However, I have inclination to want to see him be punished for his actions, but I am strongly fighting those urges as you read this.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Although I'm more taken aback by the seemingly bizarre choice of slurs (WTF do Nazi's have to do with anything here, given a reasonable presumption that a percentage of the 9/11 victims were themselves Jewish?), firing is too good for this f'n moron. But under the limitations of the law, it'll probably have to suffice.

[Crapshoot]

If he stands on a street corner and espouses these views, or goes on Jerry Springer, then fine, whatever. I think he's a moron, but it's his right to be so.

The issue I have with this is that I believe tax dollars were used to pay his lecture fee. Using government money to pay for this guy to speak his tripe lends him and his particular brand of hogwash an undeserved legitimacy.

Yeah, but the same tax dollars are used to pay for the David Horowitz's of the world- at some point, they stop becoming tax dollars and instead are given to an institution to use as they see fit. Im just curious where we draw the line.

[Maple Leafs]

"I wish the regents had agreed to take some public comments," said law professor Barbara Bintliff, chairwoman of the Boulder Faculty Assembly (search). "Discussion and debate is what a university is all about."Really? When did that happen?

[Grid Iron]

He has the right to say anything he wants.

He doesn't have the right to work for anyone he wants.

I guess him saying anything he wants is more important to him than his job. Which is fine. We all make choices in life.

[JeffR]

What's not mentioned in the article, but may wind up being the thing that gets him fired: he apparently claimed Native American descent, and built his reputation as an expert on Native issues on that foundation, without having any actual Indian ancestry. The American Indian Movement put out a press release the other day flat-out calling him a fraud.

[sterlingice]

You know, this has to be the best trout option I've ever seen in a poll :D

SI

[mgadfly]

Although the guy sounds like a real A-hole I'm on the side of academic freedom. If he is a new professor they could just opt not to renew his contract. Since he apparently has some sort of property interest (maybe tenure) here, the school should give him a lot of discretion in what he is speaking and writing about.

The best result would be for the school, students, and rest of the country to give his opinions the attention they deserve (none), while allowing him to say his peace.

[rexallllsc]

If he stands on a street corner and espouses these views, or goes on Jerry Springer, then fine, whatever. I think he's a moron, but it's his right to be so.

The issue I have with this is that I believe tax dollars were used to pay his lecture fee. Using government money to pay for this guy to speak his tripe lends him and his particular brand of hogwash an undeserved legitimacy.

Tax dollars are also used for bands to play on a campus...and I'm sure there have been bands that have disagreed with this countries politics, etc.

[QuikSand]

From what little I know about this matter, the description of his writings are not done justice by the trifle of a description in the article. I don't claim to have the whole context, just to suspect that neither do you, if all you know is what you read in the selection above.

[JonInMiddleGA]

From what little I know about this matter, the description of his writings are not done justice by the trifle of a description in the article. I don't claim to have the whole context, just to suspect that neither do you, if all you know is what you read in the selection above.

Well, that was all I knew before you prompted some Googling.

Now ... whew. Damn, this guy isn't so much academia as is he Macadamia.

I'll avoid the nausea that would accompany linking to some of his stuff, and opt for a pretty good blog take I ran across instead.
http://dennisthepeasant.typepad.com/dennis_the_peasant/2005/01/there_really_is.html

Whether you're on the left or the right, if you aren't familiar with this guy, it's an interesting trip to check out his stuff. My advice: don't read what other people say about him before you read some interviews, speech transcripts, etc. (which means don't follow my link above until you've done your homework ;) )

[Glengoyne]

From what little I know about this matter, the description of his writings are not done justice by the trifle of a description in the article. I don't claim to have the whole context, just to suspect that neither do you, if all you know is what you read in the selection above.
All I have read/heard about him has been a thread here or possibly a couple of stories on various news sites. He made his name forcing Denver to change their Columbus day parade, because it was Anti-Native American. He has some pretty strong opinions regarding the oppression of American Indians, and then the 9/11 victims remarks. I don't know if there is any more to know about him.

I do not believe it is in the University's interest to fire him. They want/expect professors to make their thoughts and beliefs known. Sort of like Thoreau or maybe Voltaire "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the Death, your right to say it." I feel the same way about flag burning, but realize this is a bit different as the University might be able to claim he has done some harm to their reputation. I just think they should humiliate him, and let it go. I also think Hamilon College, should have sucked it up and let him speak.

[CamEdwards]

i don't believe the university should fire him because he said something unpopular, ill-advised, moronic, cold-hearted, and asshattish. I myself would like the freedom to offend people.

but if they could fire him because he misrepresented who he is in terms of his background... I've got no problem with that.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

He has the right to say anything he wants.

He doesn't have the right to work for anyone he wants.

I guess him saying anything he wants is more important to him than his job. Which is fine. We all make choices in life.

If this was a private college, they could fire him all they wanted to. Because he is employed by public college, there are some 1st amendment issues involved if they fire him. That's probably the only thing keeping him employed right now. So, in fact his right to say what he wants is somewhat related to his right to not get fired by the college for saying it.

[mgadfly]

If this was a private college, they could fire him all they wanted to. Because he is employed by public college, there are some 1st amendment issues involved if they fire him. That's probably the only thing keeping him employed right now. So, in fact his right to say what he wants is somewhat related to his right to not get fired by the college for saying it.

If he has been there long enough he will also have some 14th Amendment rights to due process (the question is whether a liberty and or property interest are at stake). This wouldn't necessarily prevent him from being fired, but would prevent the school from discharging him without jumping through some hoops.


______ Stop here unless you are interested in education law, which I am ____

(In Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972), the Supreme Court found that the 14th Amendment applied to professors where either a property right or liberty interest was at stake. In that case the professor alleged that he had been fired because he spoke out against the Regents plan to keep San Antonio Junior College a two year institution. Noting that he had been there longer than four years-which was significant because the school had a process for removing professors after they had been at the school for four years, but had no such process for new professors-they found that a property interest had been created. In other words, the school had given him the idea that his job was safe unless they had good cause to fire him. Because the Regents issued a press release that said bad things about the professor, the court held there was a liberty interest because it interfered with his ability to find work elsewhere.)

Compare with Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (holding that no property interest and no liberty interest was at stake when a public school did not renew the contract of a new professor.)

[randal7]

He has a right to voice a controversial opinion, and, since it appears he made a name for himself that way, maybe even an obligation to do so. Regardless of how stupid his opinion may or may not be. When he starts name-calling murder victims, however, that ranks him with the intellectual giants who make their arguments using words like "fag" or "nigger". He is an embarassment to his employer (and should be to himself) and should be fired for that reason (assuming that is possible).

[CraigSca]

Working outside the circle of academia (and thus with people who have less influence than this guy), I've seen people fired for saying lesser things. Sure, he has the right to free speech - we all do. But, as others have said, the university has every right to be embarassed and fire a guy who considers innocent victims in the same context as Adolf Eichmann.

Oddly enough, I didn't disagree with this previous statement saying 9/11 occurred because of earlier American "abuses" whether real or imagined. However, adding the Nazis to the equation = "welcome to the unemployment line, Mister."

[Vinatieri for Prez]

It's different, however, between private employers and public employers because of "state" action being involved.

[Glengoyne]

You know, this has to be the best trout option I've ever seen in a poll :D

SI
It was an epiphany of sorts.http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif

[kcchief19]

I agree with Quik here. A casual perusing of some of his thoughts and writings behind the tidbits quoted widely in connection with this story tells me that largely his comments are taken out of context.

That said, after a casual perusing of his thoughts and writings, I think he has chose a poor example in that to understand his argument you have to hear him out. He wasn't saying that the people killed on 9/11 were Nazis. His argument is that those people and most other Americans are guilty of crimes against committed by their government because they have not taken action to stop the government. His "Little Eichmanns" remark is the idea that Germans who did not try to stop Hitler were just as guilty as he was.

That said, I don't largely agree with some of his logic and conclusions, but I don't think that his statements in and of themselves are cause for his firing. I don't see his comments being viewed as a threat to anyone, he is simply stating his opinions. His views don't seem to be the result of any inherent discrimination, they simply stem from a distrust of government.

The one thing this guy seems to have in his favor is that the critics lined up against him appear to be largely people who do not know him and know little of his writings outside of a newspaper story and his supporters appear to be people that know him. If his friends had turned on him, I'd be more inclined to think that this is a real problem rather than simply a professor with a different worldview expressing his First Amendment rights.

If I had to vote, I'd for the trout.

[RendeR]

It boils down to hamilton not doing their homework. it wouldn't have been dificult for them to research his writings and views and NOT hire him, but they didn't and finally did hire him.

The school he works for must assuredly know of his writings as anything he publishes would then be carried by the school. So my question is this: IF everyone involved had the opportunity to know, or already KNEW his opinions and stances on things, and even the comments he made in writing, why the hell are we having this discussion?

he has every right to his opinion, and quite honestly, he shouldn't be fired because of his opinions. As long as he teaches his classes as proscribed and isn't inciting riots on his off time, wtf right does anyone else have to destroy his career?

defend the rights of anyone to stand on their soap box and support at the top of their lungs that wich you've spent your life denouncing, defend that, and then you can talk about freedom of speech.

if this guy gets fucked over its a travesty of our deepest beliefs in this nation.

no, I don't think he's right, or even real smart for publishing his views, but I'll defend his right to do so to the end.

[duckman]

Fired for "plagarism, falsification, and other misconduct."

hxxp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290642,00.html