Professor Quits Dept. Post After 9/11 Stir

[Riprorin]

Professor Quits Dept. Post After 9/11 Stir

Associated Press/AP Online

DENVER - A University of Colorado professor who provoked a furor when he compared victims of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks to Nazis resigned as a department chairman Monday but will retain his teaching job, the university said.

In an essay written after the Sept. 11 attacks, Ward Churchill said the World Trade Center victims were "little Eichmanns," a reference to Adolf Eichmann, who organized Nazi plans to exterminate Europe's Jews. Churchill also spoke of the "gallant sacrifices" of the "combat teams" that struck America.

The essay attracted little attention until Churchill was invited recently to speak at Hamilton College, about 40 miles east of Syracuse, N.Y. Hundreds of relatives of Sept. 11 victims have protested the appearance. Hamilton College President Joan Hinde has said that "however repugnant one might find Mr. Churchill's remarks," the college was committed to his right of free speech and would not rescind its invitation.

Administrators have moved Churchill's appearance to a building that can seat 2,000, instead of the originally planned 300.

Churchill resigned as chairman of Colorado's Ethnic Studies Department, telling university officials in a letter that "the present political climate has rendered me a liability in terms of representing either my department, the college, or the university."

University officials welcomed the move.

"While Professor Churchill has the constitutional right to express his political views, his essay on 9/11 has outraged and appalled us and the general public," interim CU-Boulder Chancellor Phil DiStefano said.

Link

And this guy is still on the payroll? Just shows how screwed up academia is.

 

[ntdz]

I saw the story about this psychopath on O'Reilly. Frankly, I think he should be put on the terrorist watch list.

 

[Steeplerot]

Too bad that psychopathic liar o'really can't see beyond black and white to get what this man was actually saying.

 

[kylebisme]

So what in the world was the guy acutally saying? I don't follow.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
So what in the world was the guy acutally saying? I don't follow.

The people killed in the world trade center deserved since they were just little eichmans.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Professor Quits Dept. Post After 9/11 Stir

And this guy is still on the payroll? Just shows how screwed up academia is.

You mean it shows how screwed up that specific decision was. Generalization is usually a sign of naivety.

 

[Steeplerot]

It's a touchy thing that is easily misconstrued. He wasen't saying the victims were nazis but a citizen of a belligerent superpower and we as individuals are not totally innocent becasue of such.
It depends on what angle you see 9/11 from: US was stirring up trouble for decades now and got their just dues in a way.
Or the: We are all toally innocent and they hate our "freedoms" even though (IMO) the responsibility of our leaders falls on every one of our shoulders to varying degrees depening on your stance.
Would someone who did not make an effort to overthrow a knowingly repressive regime be guilty in some way themselves?
I am sure there were plenty of good German folk wondering this at times in the past.

I myself feel that if our goverenment does wrong it is our responsibility to hold them accountable.
I wouldn't go so far to say we are all nazis though. Just as every German was not a national socialist.
This guy just made the big mistake of using germany as an example in a time when nazi is a buzzword in the mainstream media (MSM) and republicans got a thing out for university proffessors nowdays.....
Bad mistake/timing but he is doing what I would expect of a professor- pushing boundries. That's their job, to think up new ideas and explore new concepts.
9/11 is just fvcked though. But then that is war yes?
The right around here seems to take this view regarding Iraqi civillians so I don't see why they have a problem about his statements, I am sure they probably dig them secretly.
(Sorry for blatent typos I have coffee muck in my keyboard )

 

[aidanjm]

I don't want to express an opinion on what this guy said, because I don't know the background details.

I do think it is dangerous to demand a university sack professors for expressing unpopular, controversial, "offensive" or "distasteful" views. I think professors need to be protected from that, actually. Turning academia into a popularity contest (more so than it already is) would definitely inihibit research in controversial areas.

 

[Martin]

"While I may disagree with what you say, I shall defend to the death my right not to have to hear you say it"


Yes, how evil academia is.....allowing people to say somethinng...HOW DARE THEY!!!

 

[her209]

http://www.colorado.edu/Ethnic..._churchill_013105.html

Press Release - Ward Churchill
January 31, 2005

Printer-friendly version (.doc)

In the last few days there has been widespread and grossly inaccurate media coverage concerning my analysis of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, coverage that has resulted in defamation of my character and threats against my life. What I actually said has been lost, indeed turned into the opposite of itself, and I hope the following facts will be reported at least to the same extent that the fabrications have been.


* The piece circulating on the internet was developed into a book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. Most of the book is a detailed chronology of U.S. military interventions since 1776 and U.S. violations of international law since World War II. My point is that we cannot allow the U.S. government, acting in our name, to engage in massive violations of international law and fundamental human rights and not expect to reap the consequences.


* I am not a ?defender?of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned. I have never said that people ?should? engage in armed attacks on the United States , but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, ?Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable.?


* This is not to say that I advocate violence; as a U.S. soldier in Vietnam I witnessed and participated in more violence than I ever wish to see. What I am saying is that if we want an end to violence, especially that perpetrated against civilians, we must take the responsibility for halting the slaughter perpetrated by the United States around the world. My feelings are reflected in Dr. King's April 1967 Riverside speech, where, when asked about the wave of urban rebellions in U.S. cities, he said, ?I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed . . . without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today ? my own government.?


* In 1996 Madeleine Albright, then Ambassador to the UN and soon to be U.S. Secretary of State, did not dispute that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of economic sanctions, but stated on national television that ?we? had decided it was ?worth the cost.? I mourn the victims of the September 11 attacks, just as I mourn the deaths of those Iraqi children, the more than 3 million people killed in the war in Indochina, those who died in the U.S. invasions of Grenada, Panama and elsewhere in Central America, the victims of the transatlantic slave trade, and the indigenous peoples still subjected to genocidal policies. If we respond with callous disregard to the deaths of others, we can only expect equal callousness to American deaths.


* Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as ?Nazis.? What I said was that the ?technocrats of empire? working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of ?little Eichmanns.? Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies.


* It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center . Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad , this placement of an element of the American ?command and control infrastructure? in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a ?legitimate? target. Again following U.S. military doctrine, as announced in briefing after briefing, those who did not work for the CIA but were nonetheless killed in the attack amounted to ?collateral damage.? If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these ?standards? when the are routinely applied to other people, they should be not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them.


* It should be emphasized that I applied the ?little Eichmanns? characterization only to those described as ?technicians.? Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack. According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.


* The bottom line of my argument is that the best and perhaps only way to prevent 9-1-1-style attacks on the U.S. is for American citizens to compel their government to comply with the rule of law. The lesson of Nuremberg is that this is not only our right, but our obligation. To the extent we shirk this responsibility, we, like the ?Good Germans? of the 1930s and '40s, are complicit in its actions and have no legitimate basis for complaint when we suffer the consequences. This, of course, includes me, personally, as well as my family, no less than anyone else.


* These points are clearly stated and documented in my book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens , which recently won Honorary Mention for the Gustavus Myer Human Rights Award. for best writing on human rights. Some people will, of course, disagree with my analysis, but it presents questions that must be addressed in academic and public debate if we are to find a real solution to the violence that pervades today's world. The gross distortions of what I actually said can only be viewed as an attempt to distract the public from the real issues at hand and to further stifle freedom of speech and academic debate in this country.


These are the views of Ward Churchill, not the University of Colorado.

 

[Steeplerot]

Thanks Her209,
He will get a new job soon. :thumbsup:

Too bad he got smeared but I am not surprised.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I don't want to express an opinion on what this guy said, because I don't know the background details.

I do think it is dangerous to demand a university sack professors for expressing unpopular, controversial, "offensive" or "distasteful" views. I think professors need to be protected from that, actually. Turning academia into a popularity contest (more so than it already is) would definitely inihibit research in controversial areas.

where were you last week when the harvard prof caught heat for saying women did not do as well in hard scieces as men 😀

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Martin
"While I may disagree with what you say, I shall defend to the death my right not to have to hear you say it"


Yes, how evil academia is.....allowing people to say somethinng...HOW DARE THEY!!!

The problem is that his job is funded by the taxpayer. Of controversial things are said, ultimately he still has the right to say it, but he will pay the consequence.

 

[CycloWizard]

:beer: to the prof. He's spot on.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I don't want to express an opinion on what this guy said, because I don't know the background details.

I do think it is dangerous to demand a university sack professors for expressing unpopular, controversial, "offensive" or "distasteful" views. I think professors need to be protected from that, actually. Turning academia into a popularity contest (more so than it already is) would definitely inihibit research in controversial areas.

where were you last week when the harvard prof caught heat for saying women did not do as well in hard scieces as men 😀

I didn't hear about that.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Martin
"While I may disagree with what you say, I shall defend to the death my right not to have to hear you say it"


Yes, how evil academia is.....allowing people to say somethinng...HOW DARE THEY!!!

The problem is that his job is funded by the taxpayer. Of controversial things are said, ultimately he still has the right to say it, but he will pay the consequence.

So what if its public or privately funded? I honestly don't see your angle on this one.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Martin
"While I may disagree with what you say, I shall defend to the death my right not to have to hear you say it"


Yes, how evil academia is.....allowing people to say somethinng...HOW DARE THEY!!!

The problem is that his job is funded by the taxpayer. Of controversial things are said, ultimately he still has the right to say it, but he will pay the consequence.

So what if its public or privately funded? I honestly don't see your angle on this one.

If it is publically funded, he is ultimately responslble for his comments and the people that get to judge him are the people that pay his salary.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Martin
"While I may disagree with what you say, I shall defend to the death my right not to have to hear you say it"


Yes, how evil academia is.....allowing people to say somethinng...HOW DARE THEY!!!

The problem is that his job is funded by the taxpayer. Of controversial things are said, ultimately he still has the right to say it, but he will pay the consequence.

So it's a public, not private university? Even more reason to protect professors and researchers from the vagaries of popular opinion. These people must have the freedom to voice unpopular or controversial ideas, and they must have the freedom to research controversial topics.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: charrison
If it is publically funded, he is ultimately responslble for his comments and the people that get to judge him are the people that pay his salary.

I believe those people have offered their support for the notion that professors are entitled to voice their controversial opinions, without fear of losing their tenure.

The prof. has resigned from his Head of Dept. position. That is more of a "political" position, where you have to represent the department to various people and institutions, so it is probably a good idea he did resign from that role. Most profs dislike having to do duty as Head of Dept., anyway, because it involves a great deal of administrative work and takes them away from their research and writing, so he is probably pleased he got out of that role. He still retains his professorship at that university, tho, and rightfully so. I just had a look at her209's post, and this guy is making some very valid points.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Martin
"While I may disagree with what you say, I shall defend to the death my right not to have to hear you say it"


Yes, how evil academia is.....allowing people to say somethinng...HOW DARE THEY!!!

The problem is that his job is funded by the taxpayer. Of controversial things are said, ultimately he still has the right to say it, but he will pay the consequence.

So it's a public, not private university? Even more reason to protect professors and researchers from the vagaries of popular opinion. These people must have the freedom to voice unpopular or controversial ideas, and they must have the freedom to research controversial topics.

They have the freedom to do so, and the public is free to call them an idiot and demand their resignation(the public has free speech as well). Free speech is a two way street and most liberals cannot see it that way.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Martin
"While I may disagree with what you say, I shall defend to the death my right not to have to hear you say it"


Yes, how evil academia is.....allowing people to say somethinng...HOW DARE THEY!!!

The problem is that his job is funded by the taxpayer. Of controversial things are said, ultimately he still has the right to say it, but he will pay the consequence.

So it's a public, not private university? Even more reason to protect professors and researchers from the vagaries of popular opinion. These people must have the freedom to voice unpopular or controversial ideas, and they must have the freedom to research controversial topics.

They have the freedom to do so, and the public is free to call them an idiot and demand their resignation(the public has free speech as well). Free speech is a two way street and most liberals cannot see it that way.

Well, sure individual citizens have the right to call for his resignation. It's not going to do much good, tho. 🙂 Please continue.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Martin
"While I may disagree with what you say, I shall defend to the death my right not to have to hear you say it"


Yes, how evil academia is.....allowing people to say somethinng...HOW DARE THEY!!!

The problem is that his job is funded by the taxpayer. Of controversial things are said, ultimately he still has the right to say it, but he will pay the consequence.

So it's a public, not private university? Even more reason to protect professors and researchers from the vagaries of popular opinion. These people must have the freedom to voice unpopular or controversial ideas, and they must have the freedom to research controversial topics.

They have the freedom to do so, and the public is free to call them an idiot and demand their resignation(the public has free speech as well). Free speech is a two way street and most liberals cannot see it that way.

Well, sure individual citizens have the right to call for his resignation. It's not going to do much good, tho. 🙂 It's kind of like me, a non-US citizen, calling for the resignation of George W. Bush on account of HIS atrocities.

If it does not good, why did the guy resign his chairman position? Poltical action by the general public works.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: charrison

If it does not good, why did the guy resign his chairman position? Poltical action by the general public works.[/quote]

I wouldn't call a biased media smear "poltical action by the general public works"
More like bullying those with a diffrent view and misleading of public opinion for the US propaganda machine.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Martin
"While I may disagree with what you say, I shall defend to the death my right not to have to hear you say it"


Yes, how evil academia is.....allowing people to say somethinng...HOW DARE THEY!!!

The problem is that his job is funded by the taxpayer. Of controversial things are said, ultimately he still has the right to say it, but he will pay the consequence.

So it's a public, not private university? Even more reason to protect professors and researchers from the vagaries of popular opinion. These people must have the freedom to voice unpopular or controversial ideas, and they must have the freedom to research controversial topics.

They have the freedom to do so, and the public is free to call them an idiot and demand their resignation(the public has free speech as well). Free speech is a two way street and most liberals cannot see it that way.

Well, sure individual citizens have the right to call for his resignation. It's not going to do much good, tho. 🙂 It's kind of like me, a non-US citizen, calling for the resignation of George W. Bush on account of HIS atrocities.

If it does not good, why did the guy resign his chairman position? Poltical action by the general public works.

I wonder if the public understand what that role involves. It's primarily an administrative and public relations role. The good professor is now free to get back to his research and teaching responsibilities at that Uni, as of course he should.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Martin
"While I may disagree with what you say, I shall defend to the death my right not to have to hear you say it"


Yes, how evil academia is.....allowing people to say somethinng...HOW DARE THEY!!!

The problem is that his job is funded by the taxpayer. Of controversial things are said, ultimately he still has the right to say it, but he will pay the consequence.

So it's a public, not private university? Even more reason to protect professors and researchers from the vagaries of popular opinion. These people must have the freedom to voice unpopular or controversial ideas, and they must have the freedom to research controversial topics.

They have the freedom to do so, and the public is free to call them an idiot and demand their resignation(the public has free speech as well). Free speech is a two way street and most liberals cannot see it that way.

Well, sure individual citizens have the right to call for his resignation. It's not going to do much good, tho. 🙂 It's kind of like me, a non-US citizen, calling for the resignation of George W. Bush on account of HIS atrocities.

If it does not good, why did the guy resign his chairman position? Poltical action by the general public works.

I wonder if the public understand what that role involves. It's primarily an administrative and public relations role. I'd say it's a good thing he resigned from that position, it's probably not ideal to have a figure who inspires controversy in that role. But the good professor is of course free to continue his research and teaching responsibilities at that Uni, as of course he should.

That remains to be seen. The school admins are meeting this week to discuss his position, so I doubt this over yet.