Another one bits the dust....and another ones gone...and another ones gone...

[Justin_stacy]

TROUBLE SPEAK
Prof praising 9-11 terrorists
on school's chopping block
Compared Trade Center victims with Nazis, commended jihadists for 'gallant sacrifices'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 1, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

The fate of a tenured University of Colorado professor – who compared victims of the 9-11 World Trade Center terror attacks to Nazis, while praising the suicide hijackers for their "gallant sacrifices" – will be decided at a special meeting of the school's board of regents Thursday night.

In the meantime, Ward Churchill, who yesterday preemptively stepped down as chairman of the Ethnic Studies Department, remains a professor of Ethnic Studies and Coordinator of American Indian Studies at the Colorado school.

The controversy stems from an essay Churchill wrote titled "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens," written shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks. In it, he describes the thousands of American victims who died in the World Trade Center inferno as "little Eichmanns" (a reference to notorious Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann) who were perpetuating America's "mighty engine of profit." They were destroyed, he added, thanks to the "gallant sacrifices" of "combat teams" that successfully targeted the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon.

The 2001 essay emerged from obscurity onto center stage when Churchill was invited recently to speak at Hamilton College, in Clinton, N.Y., near Syracuse. Hundreds of relatives of Sept. 11 victims are protesting Churchill's appearance at Hamilton, which is scheduled for Thursday. However, the college's president, Joan Hinde Stewart, assured the Associated Press that "however repugnant one might find Mr. Churchill's remarks," the college would honor his right to free speech and the show would go on.

To accommodate the large audience Hamilton anticipates due to the uproar, Churchill's appearance has been re-located from the 300-seat-capacity room originally planned to a facility that will seat 2,000.

On Hamilton College's website, one page is dedicated to the furor over Churchill's appearance, and features hundreds of e-mailed comments, most of which express outrage. The first letter (out of 327 as of this report), starts like this:


MS. STEWART, I AM THE MOTHER OF A FIREFIGHTER WHO WAS KILLED ON SEPT. 11, 2001 WHILE TRYING TO SAVE THE LIVES OF THE INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO WERE ATTACKED BY THE BARBARIANS THAT INVADED OUR COUNTRY. I HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE INFORMATION OF YOUR COLLEGE ALLOWING PROF. WARD CHURCHILL TO CONDUCT A TALK OF HIS VIEWS ON THE ATTACKS. HOWEVER, HIS VIEWS SEEM TO BE SO OUTRAGEOUS AND FILLED WITH DERANGED VIEWPOINTS, I WONDER HOW YOU COULD ALLOW SUCH AN ILL-ADVISED PERSON ON CAMPUS! ... AS A FAMILY MEMBER I CAN TELL YOU, YOU ARE ALL POURING SALT IN A FESTERING WOUND …
Stewart, in response to the controversy, notes on the college's website that Hamilton invited Churchill to speak long before becoming aware of his comments about Sept. 11: "However repugnant one may find Mr. Churchill's remarks, were the College to withdraw the invitation simply on the grounds that he has said offensive things, we would be abandoning a principle on which this College and indeed this republic are founded."

Meanwhile, in a statement released Sunday, the CU board of regents announced it's "taking this unusual action" of convening a special meeting of the regents' board specifically to consider what to do with Churchill.

"Mr. Churchill's comments regarding the events of Sept. 11, 2001 have resulted in substantial controversy and the Board of Regents intends to consider the concerns of members of the public and the university community at the special meeting," the statement said.

"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, according to AP.

Some students on Hamilton's campus last week protested Churchill's scheduled appearance. According to the Colorado Daily, Regent Michael Carrigan said he and his fellow regents have been "deluged" with e-mails and messages over the Churchill controversy.

"We are hearing a lot of concern from the public and we share the public's concern," Carrigan told the Colorado paper Sunday. "That's why we called this special meeting; to discuss our options."

Regent Cindy Carlisle said she is "appalled" by Churchill's essay and insisted "something needs to be done," according to the local paper's report.

Last Friday, Isaiah Lechowit, chairman of CU's College Republicans, urged his student colleagues to protest Churchill in an e-mail titled "Oust the Auschwitz Lunatic."

The Republican student organization is holding a protest rally this afternoon, urging students to sign petitions demanding Churchill's removal.

"Churchill said what he did with confidence because he thinks he can hide under his security blanket of tenure," Lechowit told the Colorado Daily, "but even tenure has its limits." While Lechowit said Churchill deserves to be ousted from the university altogether, some students are defending the controversial professor.

Ethnic studies senior Dustin Craun and other students, many from Churchill's ethnic studies department, liken the controversy to a "witch hunt," said the paper. "White men trying to get an Indian out of Boulder? That's nothing new," said Craun. "That's how this city was started." Churchill is reportedly a Cherokee Indian by birth.

In an interview Sunday with the Colorado Daily, Craun said: "I see it as an academic freedom issue." Describing Churchill's "Roosting Chickens" essay as a revolutionary scholarly discourse by an expert on genocide, Craun added: "It's a theory; it shouldn't have anything to do with fact."

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/WC091201.html

[scitsofreaky]

I don't buy that it is a race issue, that they are just trying to run out the "indians". I also don't think that you can really say that the student body represents boulder, boulder is hippie central, and they are all about rights, human or otherwise. I am very surprised at the reaction of the boulderites, and I think that it is based in the WASPy student body.
The contraversy is from what he said, nothing else. If he expected a different reaction, he is an idiot. Any time you attack the victims of a tragedy you are going to get attacked yourself. But, he should be allowed to speak his opinions, but should be ready for a heated and emotional debate.
Oh, and I disagree with his sentiments. He feels you are only innocent if you are actively against the US' foreign policy. He also claims that the victims (even the ones in the planes) didn't accept that they are just tools (my word, not his) of the government. I am not sure how he can apply this to the victims in the planes, it isn't like he knows them personally, and this generalization is unfounded.
And as for calling the terrorists "gallant", that is just disgusting. There is nothing gallant about killing thousands of people because you don't like what a government is doing, or what their religion is(yes, I do think that this plays a big role in their hatred for America).

[cal1082]

You say you want freedom, but you try and suppress someone and their right to speak?

( I am not directing that at anyone in general. So don't try and jump on my ass. )

I'm not seeing the supression?

[cal1082]

They are trying to stop him from speaking based on his paper.

Now here's the defitions of suppress.

sup·press ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-prs)
tr.v. sup·pressed, sup·press·ing, sup·press·es
To put an end to forcibly; subdue.
To curtail or prohibit the activities of.
To keep from being revealed, published, or circulated.
To deliberately exclude (unacceptable desires or thoughts) from the mind.
To inhibit the expression of (an impulse, for example); check: suppress a smile.
To reduce the incidence or severity of (a hemorrhage or cough, for example); arrest.

I'm still not seeing how his free speech is being violated? He has the right to speak what he wants to be spoken just as the institution has the right to detail what's is and isnt being taught in its school.

Would you have a problem with a high school teacher telling students about her faith and how much she loves Jesus, or would you raise the question of free speech for her if she was let go because of this?

[cal1082]

or lets say you have a college professor teaching an islamic religion class and he's preaching and condoning radical islam (i.e.....death to jews, and authority by strict islamic code, etc......). Now would you have a problem with the school dismissing him or would you say freedom of speech?

[cal1082]

Because they are trying to suppress his right to speak by not giving him his voice.

I would let her talk. And I would let the Islamic professor talk. I believe strongly in everyone's right to speak. If you don't believe for freedom of speech for your enemies, then you don't believe in it at all.

So you don't mind preaching in a public school by a teacher of any faith. I'll have to remember that.

"suppress his right to speak by not giving him his voice"................what does that even mean? It sounds pretty if you were screaming it off the side of a balcony, but doesnt mean anytthing. He can legaly say anything he wants, and a school can legitimetly decide what they want they want taught and who they want teaching in their school. What about the schools rights?

[cal1082]

Preaching? Yes. Talking about their faith? No.

I am not talking about the school at all. I am talking about the people protesting against him.

You need to decide what your'e talking about. You just said you'd allow both teachers to talk and preach about their faith. Now you say............."Talking about their faith? No."

Which is it and why do you have two answers?

[cal1082]

"So you don't mind preaching in a public school by a teacher of any faith. I'll have to remember that."

Yes, I do mind preaching. No, I don't mind someone talking about their faith.

I SAID: "or lets say you have a college professor teaching an islamic religion class and he's preaching and condoning radical islam (i.e.....death to jews, and authority by strict islamic code, etc......). Now would you have a problem with the school dismissing him or would you say freedom of speech?"

YOU SAID: "And I would let the Islamic professor talk. I believe strongly in everyone's right to speak. If you don't believe for freedom of speech for your enemies, then you don't believe in it at all."

[cal1082]

and again I ask what about a school rights to dictate what who and what they have taught?

[cal1082]

And then I corrected myself by saying that no, I would not let them preach. Would I let them speak their mind? Yes. Would I let them talk about how they believed things should be run? Yes.

And again I say, I am not talking about the school.

preaching can be speaking there mind.

The whole point i'm getting at is no one is keeping him from speaking his mind or putting his paper out. Just as he has a right to speak his mind so do the people protesting. They have a right to tell him what they think about his speech.

[cal1082]

Preaching is different.

why is it different? Freedom of speech is freedom of speech to you isnt it?

His paper is out. I'm talking about him speaking at the college.

Just as he has a right to speak his mind so do the people protesting. They have a right to tell him what they think about his speech.


No matter what he may think, he is still a college professor. He earned his degrees and he must be an educated man.

and this matters to the argument in what way.................?

[cal1082]

Because where do you have the right to preach your beliefs to people in public schools?

freedom of speech........by your definition.

They can speak their mind, yes. But it is wrong for them to want to keep him from speaking.

I dont think so. There's many radical people on all sides of things I'd like to keep from speaking.

[scitsofreaky]

Sorry to interupt guys, but I have a small update. The New York college he was going to speak at (and I just forgot the name, damn) has cancelled his speech because of all of the "credable death threats" recieved by Churchill and the school. This is kind of upsetting because he was going to explain his analogy.
Also, the regents are looking to see if they can fire him, but it seems that he is protected because giving an opinion is not on the list of reasons professors can be fired.

[Justin_stacy]

That was an excuse to save face....the real reason they canceled him was because donators began to pull their donations from the school. The school released a "private" email to campus staff yesterday that was leaked to the media, that said there would be no pay increases next year, no new remodeling, no travel vouchers and that some staff may even see a pay decrease in the coming months.

[Justin_stacy]

As much as I don't like the radicals on both sides, I would never want to keep them from speaking.

But do you really want them indoctrinating the youth with lies? While you pay for it?

[scitsofreaky]

Churchill released a statement that you can read here (http://9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IKOBJECTID=cf45af15-0abe-421a-018d-4eaeb0e8b2a2&TEMPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf) . He explains that he wasn'ta "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. And I think he has a legitemate point, and it has definitely been spun, which isn't surprising since people don't like taking any blame.

[Justin_stacy]

Having a "legitimate" point.....Does not justify the insulting and tactless wording of his article. And it is this that most people have a problem with. Many on the extreme left, and the right, have written works that place some blame for 9/11 on the back of American foreign policy, but most have had the integrity and intelligence to not refer to the American public/victims as Nazis, or practice in the art of revisionist history, or change the real proprietor of a crime to another so that an argument seems draped in logic, when in reality it is not.

[scitsofreaky]

I agree. He probably used such strong language to start contraversy to promote his book, and it sure back fired.
Oh, and here is his clearification of the Nazi reference, just in case you didn't read it: 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 no more than "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.
I get his logic, although I don't necessarily agree with it. He continues by saying that he wasn't calling the children, janitors, food workers or random passers by "little Eichmanns".

[Justin_stacy]

. He continues by saying that he wasn't calling the children, janitors, food workers or random passers by "little Eichmanns".

he does not differentiate in the article, he calls all who died in the towers "technocratic" and only sort of "civilians" and absolutely not "innocent"......


As to those in the World Trade Center . . .

Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it

[scitsofreaky]

Oh, I don't agree with him. He is basically saying that the attack on the WTC was an attack on the CIA, which it wasn't, it was an act of terrorism, ie an attack meant to terrorize civilians. But, I now understand what logic he is using, which is all I have been interested in. I don't like his logic, and I think that part of him is angry over the western expansion and subsequent slaughter of the natives. Also, I don't really understand why he thinks that trading deaths of innocent lives is justice. The US has killed civilians, but that doesn't mean we were out to kill them like these terrorists were.
He has every right to say this crap (which the governor doesn't agree with, but Owens is a douche), and we have every right to argue with him. That is why I love this damn country.

[Justin_stacy]

First let me say I never thought you agreed with him, and I apology if you got that impression.

I agree that everyone should be free to say what he or she feels and thinks. And I also feel that people should be free to criticize them.
But what my point was, and the original article spoke of, is that every person does not deserve federal funding or absolute job protection. Ward Churchill is a proven hate speaker and a revisionist and the taxpayers have every right to call him on this. When teachers start indoctrinating instead of teaching or turn fanatical, the taxpayer/public has a right to protect the students and their well being.

People have every right to say what they want, but everyone else also has the right to hold them accountable for what they say....

[scitsofreaky]

The college students are big enough to think for themselves, so I don't think indoctrination is a big issue here. But, I could be wrong, which would sadden me that today's college students can't think for themselves, especially in Boulder of all places.

[Justin_stacy]

I don't know? From personal experience (i.e. college experience) most fanatical “liberal” students I know, are too ignorant (definition, not intended as an insult) to know fact from fiction, and don't understand that most teachers live in an ideological world, rather then the real world.

But that is just one mans perception.

It also should be noted that when most student enter the job world, following college, they become far more moderate. Which means that there must be something on the campuses that foster extremism, which isn't present in the "real world".....

[scitsofreaky]

Well shit. I only know that is not how my friends are, and you can't get much more liberal than them.
Why do people have to be sheep? Maybe I will go up there(Boulder) with my "Stick of thinking for yourself" and teach these stupid kids a lesson.

[Justin_stacy]

:shenlong_ :hippy:

didn't see that one coming did ya....

[scitsofreaky]

It's all the weed those liberal hippies are smoking.

[UndefinedBoy]

It also should be noted that when most student enter the job world, following college, they become far more moderate. Which means that there must be something on the campuses that foster extremism, which isn't present in the "real world".....

Youth?

Or more specifically youth living in a bubble, not yet responsible for every facet of their lives, but aware and old enough to judge the world through idealistic eyes. Just my theory.

[Poopy]

Youth?

and kids know everything right? Just ask any 8 year old.

[UndefinedBoy]

and kids know everything right? Just ask any 8 year old.

That has nothing to do with my point. I didn't say they were right, only that that could explain extemism found on campuses. I refuse to join any political group on campus just because none of them really know much of what they're talking about...

[Poopy]

That has nothing to do with my point. I didn't say they were right, only that that could explain extemism found on campuses. I refuse to join any political group on campus just because none of them really know much of what they're talking about...

I think, and this is my opinion, that you have to go out and work in the real world to gain a better perspective of politics. Thats why I dont trust career politicians.

[UndefinedBoy]

I think, and this is my opinion, that you have to go out and work in the real world to gain a better perspective of politics. Thats why I dont trust career politicians.

That may be true but I also don't think there's anything wrong with idealism.

[scitsofreaky]

I think, and this is my opinion, that you have to go out and work in the real world to gain a better perspective of politics. Thats why I dont trust career politicians.
Holy crap, I actually agree with Poopy on this.

[Poopy]

That may be true but I don't think there's anything wrong with idealism.

Either do I, but if your ideals dont match mine, I'll give you hell.

[UndefinedBoy]

Either do I, but if your ideals dont match mine, I'll give you hell.

Your private messages have shown that.