Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
What Kind Of People Are Teaching Our Children
Topic Started: Jan 31 2005, 11:11 PM (2,981 Views)
abradf2519
Member
Ok, question time.

Obviously some of you think that Ward Churchill should not loose his job.

How many of you same people thought Judge Roy Moore should have lost his job because he displayed the 10 commandments in his court house?

I think Judge Moore should NOT have been fired. I think he was NOT establishing a religion, I think he was doing his job very well, yet he was fired.

If you agree, then you are avocating letting a professor who is doing a lousy job to keep his, and you are avocating firing a good judge because of a contraversal technicallity.

So you are avocating screwing a good man, and supporting a bad man!
Does this make sense? :dunno:
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
CalRed
Feb 11 2005, 04:54 PM
From your source:

"Meanwhile, Ward Churchill, whose scholarship is a joke, whose evidence is tendentious at best, and who called the victims of 9/11 the moral equivalent of a man who sent babies to the gas chambers, is a hero of free speech. He has refused to apologize. Many conservatives are forced to defend free speech and "diversity" in academia while liberals let the NOWers feed on Summers's flesh.

Liberals may despise what Churchill said, but it's a matter of principle now. The normally insightful and fair Mort Kondracke declared on Fox News, "I really think it's useful for universities to have people like this around, to show students and the rest of us just how odious some of the ideas of the far Left are." Would Kondracke punt on a professor who'd endorsed slavery? I somehow doubt it.

Hopefully — and, I think, probably — someone will find enough academic fraud to fire Churchill for cause. No doubt, we'll hear from many on the left about the "chilling effect" such a move would have on "academic freedom," and many conservatives will clear their throats in embarrassment. You really have to marvel at how the other side has mastered this game."


I had read this piece and I agree with everything he said.  The difference is that he is a journalist who knows how to write and I am an old retired military man who knows how to kill the enemy so that we may have the country we now have.  Most of us would not have fought to allow people like Churchill to say the things he says about the country we all so dearly love, and so many have died for, while the government is paying his salary.  We would invite him to leave and go somewhere else to spew his hate of America.  In fact I could arrange for a flight in an F-14 to take him anywhere he wants to go as long as it was out of this country and over a deep sea.

You agree with Goldberg, Cal?

Good, then on essentials you have just agreed with me.


You have insisted on parsing out of context that the prof called 9/11 victims Nazis.

I have argued he did not call names and did not say Nazis.

Goldberg: "When invited to another school to give a talk, it came out that he had written an essay comparing the civilian victims of 9/11 to "little Eichmanns.""

Cal, comparison is the stuff of analogy, not name calling. Eichmann is not all Nazis (specific is not general).

(Get that yet, Jim?)


Cal, you also insist that he be fired for what he said.

I have said he should not be fired for what he said but certainly be fired for breaking his tenure contract.

Goldberg: "Hopefully — and, I think, probably — someone will find enough academic fraud to fire Churchill for cause."

Cal, academic fraud would break his tenure contract.



Glad, you agree. Now I can understand your anger, like Alan's. It is at least based on reality now.



Back to your desire to limit free speech and academic freedom?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
corky52
Member
The judge broke the law and defied a court order, rightness or wrongness of his cause has no impact on those facts. Civil servants should be fired for breaking the law, even in the case of your judge. Show that Churchill broke the law and you can fire him.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Jim Miller
Feb 11 2005, 06:54 PM
"Ward Churchill used a passage from a well-known colleague 99 years out of context..."

"Churchill misused a passage in fellow CU professor Patricia Limerick's work..."

"Churchill has misrepresented works..."

"Churchill misused a passage by Thornton to back up his claim..."

""He's making up a story out of his imagination,"..."

"Churchill was attempting to lend the names of acclaimed scholars to his "hostility toward Indian tribes."..."

Just how far does "free speech and academic freedom go? Certainly not that far.

I would have been fired for any one of those offenses, let alone all of them. Along with academic freedom goes academic responsibility.

Gee, that's right, you used to be a teacher. Amazing. Did you make fun of students like you have made fun of members here? Don't answer--it's a loaded question. But we could have agreed on the following when I asked would your restrict his rights.


Jim "Just how far does "free speech and academic freedom go? Certainly not that far."

No, not that far.

He can exercise academic freedom for as long as he does not breach his tenure contract and give the university just cause to fire him--as Goldberg pointed out.

He can exercise free speech for as long as it breaks no law and harms no person.

Your examples all cause harm. That is the essense of Mill's Harm Principle. Crossing that line is cause for firing, fines, even confinement.

Indeed, with rights come responsibilities.


Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
abradf2519
Feb 11 2005, 07:39 PM
Ok, question time.

Obviously some of you think that Ward Churchill should not loose his job.

How many of you same people thought Judge Roy Moore should have lost his job because he displayed the 10 commandments in his court house?

I think Judge Moore should NOT have been fired. I think he was NOT establishing a religion, I think he was doing his job very well, yet he was fired.

If you agree, then you are avocating letting a professor who is doing a lousy job to keep his, and you are avocating firing a good judge because of a contraversal technicallity.

So you are avocating screwing a good man, and supporting a bad man!
Does this make sense? :dunno:

Everything hinges on your assumption "he was NOT establishing a religion."

He was establishing and denying free exercise. His actions ran counter to our Constitution and even "Moore" so his state constitution.

Let's have that discussion elsewhere, please.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
corky52
Feb 11 2005, 07:45 PM
The judge broke the law and defied a court order, rightness or wrongness of his cause has no impact on those facts. Civil servants should be fired for breaking the law, even in the case of your judge. Show that Churchill broke the law and you can fire him.

In my opinion, he did not break the law. The law in this case was twisted to make what he did illegal.

Ward Churchill did not break the law, but I imagine that I could twist some law to arrest him. This, of course, would be wrong just as it was wrong to twist the law to get judge Moore.
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
corky52
Member
Ok so what are you saying? You want Chruchill's scalp in revenge for judge, that the courts are rigged, or what? Looks like an apples and oranges thing to me!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bikemanb
Member Avatar
Liberal Conservative
How does a judge being in defiance of a legal court order compare with some guy spewing under his 1st Amendment right?

I guess if you have an agenda it does. Moore of all people should have used the legal system to try and defeat those he disagrees with.


Apples and Oranges.
Bill, Rita and Chloe the Terror Cat

For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise.

Benjamin Franklin
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
"You want Chruchill's scalp in revenge for judge"

Trade ya, prof's scalp for judge's. :deadhorse:
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
Both are issues involving free speech.

I don't want to argue the estabishment issue here, I am sure it was beaten to death somewhere else, but you must admit that judge Moore would not have been arrested and fired for this 20 years ago!

To me, the same people who are supporting Churchill are the same ones happy that judge Moore lost his job. I was just wondering if these people realize that they are supporting a bad man and ruining a good man.
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jim Miller
Member Avatar
Member
"(Get that yet, Jim?)"

Nope.

All I know is what he said. 9/11 victims are little Eichmanns. Eichmann is a Nazi convicted of horrendous crimes. Calling the 9/11 victims a Nazi is not that far of a stretch.

As an aside...you really don't like it when someone doesn't agree with you or sees things the same way as you do, eh?
Jim

Pennsylvania in the Summer
Florida in the Winter
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bikemanb
Member Avatar
Liberal Conservative
Gee abrad, I am defending Churchill's right to free speech, not what he said. If you can't understand the difference I can't help that.

Moore was supposed to be a lawman and he broke the law, as in defied a legal Court Order, you and I would not be able to get away with it so why should he.
Bill, Rita and Chloe the Terror Cat

For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise.

Benjamin Franklin
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jim Miller
Member Avatar
Member
Again, I guess I have to ask. Does free speech have no limits? If so, help me out here. Does anything go disguised as academic freedom?
Jim

Pennsylvania in the Summer
Florida in the Winter
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bikemanb
Member Avatar
Liberal Conservative
Riddle me this Jim, since none have answered:

Quote:
 
Why in this country that prides itself on freedom of thought and speech we try to gag this guy and get him fired is beyond me, that is what separates us from the totalitarian societies of this world, we allowed a Communist Party to exist here did Russia allow a Democracy Party to exist there, and in the end who won?


What are you so afraid of, we had the courage to allow a Communist Party to exist and the Republic didn't fall.

To answer your question:

The courts say you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.
Bill, Rita and Chloe the Terror Cat

For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise.

Benjamin Franklin
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
bikemanb
Feb 11 2005, 08:12 PM
Gee abrad, I am defending Churchill's right to free speech, not what he said. If you can't understand the difference I can't help that.

Moore was supposed to be a lawman and he broke the law, as in defied a legal Court Order, you and I would not be able to get away with it so why should he.

Ward Churchill has a RIGHT to say what he said. I am not agueing that. I just would rather see him saying those things (the inacuracies, bad analogies, and missuse of facts) OUTSIDE the college. IN the college he should have the acedemic freedom to say what he wants provided he is accurate, uses good analogies and uses facts correctly. Isn't this what we want them to teach our children to do?
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply