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 (2,986 Views)
Jim Miller
Member Avatar
Member
I think Cal's, and all of those other people, points are well taken. Call 9/11 victims little Eichmanns is free speech but call someone a RINO is blasphemy. You crack me up Chris. Am I allowed to say that?
Jim

Pennsylvania in the Summer
Florida in the Winter
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Long as I can say you crack me up with your moral relevance, Jim.

Calling someone names on this forum as you did was against the rules and your were simply asked not to do that again. For some reason, unlike 99% of the other people here, you found that request unbearable and went elsewhere to whine about it and still to this day, what, 3 months later hold a grudge.

The reason it is against the rules is because it detracts from free speech that same as Call want to detract from free speech with his tactics here and academic freedom by demonizing and calling the professor names.

It is not my problem, Jim, that you do not understand what analogy is and the difference between it and name calling. But your failure to recognize the difference is not a sound argument for your stance, nor is appeal to authority a sound argument. The fact remains, you nor Cal nor any of the people he quotes have shown that the prof called 9/11 victims Nazis--I see you have even back pedalled on that, correcting yourself to what was actually said. Look up the definition of analogy.
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
 
Colo_Crawdad
Member Avatar
Lowell
I just think it is indeed sad that some folks cannot separate support for what he said from support for his right to say it and the need for such ideas to be articulated in an academic environment where more, not less speech, is the answer. In a paraphrase of Thomas Jefferson's views, the market place of ideas will take care of those who have a wrong world view.

And don't attempt to say that college students are just malleable minded little kids. Most are old enough to for "adults" to send them to fight for the freedoms the rest of us enjoy.
"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US." --- Pogo
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sylley2000
Member Avatar
Sylvia, Grand Bend ON
I knew what an elephant and donkey politically represented and was also familiar with hawks, doves, scapegoats, dark horses, lame ducks and dogs that won't hunt, but I didn't know what a RINO was so I looked that one up.

It's a Republican that doesn't adopt the party line. A Democrat who does that is a DINO, but apparently they are a relatively rare breed! I'm learning a lot about animals!!!

From that I would have to conclude that President Bush is a RINO, because he's definitely not a typical Republican.

But to get back to the topic at hand, Professor Ward Churchill, is being championed by a great many people, not the least of which is his students:

http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill_ud.html

Students, faculty at Hamilton College back controversial discussion

Fri, Feb 4, 2005
MARSHAND BOONE
Observer-Dispatch

CLINTON -- The cancellation of Ward Churchill's appearance at Hamilton College didn't prevent students from gathering on campus Thursday night to discuss the larger issues that placed the liberal arts college in the national spotlight.

More than 150 students and faculty members gathered in the Kerner Building to discuss the future of intellectual inquiry at Hamilton. The two-hour discussion covered a number of topics, asking whether free speech is an absolute right and examining the conflict between intellectual freedom and the loss of financial support.

But those in attendance overwhelmingly expressed frustration that the event was canceled. Churchill was scheduled as a panelist for the discussion "Limits of Dissent?" The event was cancelled after his writings, which compared victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to Nazis, gained media attention and college officials received threats of violence.

http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill_aaup.html

Statement from the American Association of University Professors Statement on Professor Ward Churchill Controversy
February 3rd, 2005

"We have witnessed an extraordinary outpouring of criticism aimed both at Professor Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado at Boulder, for his written remarks describing victims of the attacks on September 11, 2001, as "little Eichmanns," and at the invitation for him to speak at Hamilton College in New York. Television commentators urged viewers to write to Hamilton College to condemn what the professor had written and the college's decision to invite him. More than 6,000 e-mail messages were sent to Hamilton College president Joan Hinde Stewart, who described them as "ranging from angry to profane, obscene, violent." The governor of New York wrote a letter of protest to President Stewart and in a dinner banquet described Professor Churchill as a "bigoted terrorist supporter." The governor of Colorado called on the professor to resign from the University of Colorado and, one day later, called for his dismissal. Professor Churchill reports that he and his wife have received more than 100 death threats. The prospect of violence at Hamilton College led the administration there to cancel the visit.

The American Association of University Professors, since its founding in 1915, has been committed to preserving and advancing principles of academic freedom in this nation's colleges and universities. Freedom of faculty members to express views, however unpopular or distasteful, is an essential condition of an institution of higher learning that is truly free. We deplore threats of violence heaped upon Professor Churchill, and we reject the notion that some viewpoints are so offensive or disturbing that the academic community should not allow them to be heard and debated. Also reprehensible are inflammatory statements by public officials that interfere in the decisions of the academic community.

Should serious questions arise about Professor Churchill's fitness to continue at the University of Colorado—the only acceptable basis for terminating a continuing or tenured faculty appointment—those questions should be judged by a faculty committee that affords the essential safeguards of due process, as required by the university's and the Board of Regents' official policies. Special care must be taken, however, to avoid applying harsher standards in such a case, or following less rigorous procedures, because of the statements made by Professor Churchill about the tragic events of September 11, 2001."

While members of the academic community are free to condemn what they believe are repugnant views expressed by a faculty member, any charges arising from such statements must be judged by the same standards and procedures that would apply to statements unrelated to the terrorist attacks and the loss of life on that fateful day. We must resist the temptation to judge such statements more harshly because they evoke special anguish among survivors and families of the September 11 victims. The critical test of academic freedom is its capacity to meet even the most painful and offending statements. A college or university campus is, of all places in our society, the most appropriate forum for the widest range of viewpoints."

***

If he was fired, that would not shut him up. In fact, it would have quite the reverse effect. Freedom of speech is very much at stake in this controversy.

Sylvia
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jim Miller
Member Avatar
Member
I am not back-pedaling Chris. Eichman was a Nazi. Not to hard for someone of low intellect like myself to figure it out. I know, Kerry wasn't a war criminal either. Go figure. Braha,ha,ha,ha,ha. :floorrollin: You crack me up. With your logic, it is hard to take you seriously, so I won't.
Jim

Pennsylvania in the Summer
Florida in the Winter
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jim Miller
Member Avatar
Member
Sylvia, I agree with you that President Bush is a RINO. For some reason Chris gets his nickers in a knot when you call someone that. Better be careful! Naw, never mind. Have at it, you are a favorite daughter.
Jim

Pennsylvania in the Summer
Florida in the Winter
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
Jim...I don't think your being fair to Chris. He is just saying the guys should not lose his job for his extreme views. He said several times that he thought Ward was wrong.

I, of course, think that he should loose his job, but because of tenure, it doesn't matter what I think, he can legally keep his job. I think tenure is a bad thing, and Ward is a good example why.

Ward has a right to say what he said. We do have free speech in the USA. He should not be suprised when he gets death threats. He deserves them for his irresponsible statements.

You have to understand, Ward insulted me personally. I want to punch his face in, for comparing me to a nazi. I won't do it though, because he is just spouting words out of his big mouth, and doesn't really deserve a beating.

He does deserve to loose his job though. Why?
1. For saying something stupid, when, as a professor, he should be saying smart things.
2. For saying something imfamitory. Imagine he compared gays to nazis instead of people in the financial services industry. Do you think he would still have his job then?

Where I work, I would get fired for saying what he said. I do not have tenure, and I have to watch what I say.
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CalRed
Member Avatar
Member
Chris

You keep back-pedaling more and more and insisting Churchill didn't say those things but we have taken it out of context. PLEASE read once more his exact quote and tell us he didn't call those in the twin towers "little Eichmanns" and we all know Eichmann was a convicted Nazi and executed for his crimes.

Quote:
 
There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. 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.


He is not mentioning just "some" of the people in the Pentagon or the twin towers but is including "all" the people there. It can't be read any other way. On any given day there were as many as 50,000 people in those towers. To say you have to read everything else he said just to prove he "didn't really mean it that way" is ludicrous.

For you to continue insisting this man was quoted 'out of context' is disingenuous. I believe it is simply the fact that you never can be wrong...
Something instead of Nothing?

"I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle.
God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."
Alan Sandage

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Jim Miller
Feb 9 2005, 11:46 AM
I am not back-pedaling Chris. Eichman was a Nazi. Not to hard for someone of low intellect like myself to figure it out. I know, Kerry wasn't a war criminal either. Go figure. Braha,ha,ha,ha,ha. :floorrollin: You crack me up. With your logic, it is hard to take you seriously, so I won't.

Do you have anything to add beside personal statements, Jim? You out of arguments, so in frustration you attack the person? Weak, truly weak argument.
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
 
Jim Miller
Member Avatar
Member
abradf2519,

I don't recall ever saying the guy should lose his job either and I agree he has a right to speak his mind. Along with rights comes responsibilities. He should be held responsible for his words as I have been held accountable for mine. To Chris it is ok to call someone a little Eichmann (who just happened to be a Nazi Chris).

Cal,

"I believe it is simply the fact that you never can be wrong... " BINGO! Nail on the head. ect., etc., etc.. :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Jim

Pennsylvania in the Summer
Florida in the Winter
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
CalRed
Feb 9 2005, 12:08 PM
Chris

You keep back-pedaling more and more and insisting Churchill didn't say those things but we have taken it out of context. PLEASE read once more his exact quote and tell us he didn't call those in the twin towers "little Eichmanns" and we all know Eichmann was a convicted Nazi and executed for his crimes.

Quote:
 
There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. 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.


He is not mentioning just "some" of the people in the Pentagon or the twin towers but is including "all" the people there. It can't be read any other way. On any given day there were as many as 50,000 people in those towers. To say you have to read everything else he said just to prove he "didn't really mean it that way" is ludicrous.

For you to continue insisting this man was quoted 'out of context' is disingenuous. I believe it is simply the fact that you never can be wrong...

Cal, if you have trouble understanding analogy I don't think I can help you. It is different than name calling. See analogy is taking two things whose attributes are different in all respects but one. You use analogy at times to shock with the obvious differences the reader or listener into perking up his ears and listening while you make you point. Seems to me you and a few others are hung up on the shock and missed the point. Name calling simply equates the two things on all attributes. The aim is not to make a point but to disrupt and end free expression. Same as twisting what someone says and misrepresenting them.

Why do you want to stifle free speech? Do you believe yourself so right and everyone else wrong?

Like Jim, what have you in your last posts contributed to discussion besides attacking the messenger instead of the message?
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
Jim Miller
Feb 9 2005, 01:20 PM
abradf2519,

I don't recall ever saying the guy should lose his job either and I agree he has a right to speak his mind.  Along with rights comes responsibilities.  He should be held responsible for his words as I have been held accountable for mine.  To Chris it is ok to call someone a little Eichmann (who just happened to be a Nazi Chris).

Cal,

"I believe it is simply the fact that you never can be wrong... "  BINGO!  Nail on the head. ect., etc., etc..    :clap:    :clap:    :clap:    :clap:

Jim, now you decide to distort what I am saying? Nice try. Attack the messenger when you cannot attack the message.

I do agree, Cal has a penchant for never admitting he's wrong. Never even considering another point of view. Like you. Someone disagrees with your opinion, and out of frustration, you attack.
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
 
sylley2000
Member Avatar
Sylvia, Grand Bend ON
Freedom of speech, tenure and constitutions are inter-related. If there is no protection for minority rights, there is only rule by the majority. Majorities cannot be given carte blanche because they would destroy the very thing that freedom is about.

Majority opinion comes and goes--what is right for one period of history, "slavery, subjugation of the mases" is totally wrong for another period in history. If the principle of rights for the minorities had been upheld in earlier times, there would not have been the amount of world suffering that has been perpetrated through the ages.

This professor, even if he is wrong, deserves the protection to speak his mind. Many have died to ensure that right. It is not 'this particular professor' that is being protected, it is the principal of freedom that is being defended and upheld.

There is no room for emotionalism about this debate. To threaten his life, and say that he makes you angry enough to punch out his lights is beyond the pale. If indeed that is a reaction, it would be best to take a cold shower and come back to the table when it can be discussed.

Sylvia
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CalRed
Member Avatar
Member
Jim

Finally, someone else who is not afraid to speak the truth. It has been apparent on this forum for quite a while that the pseudo-intellectuals want to remain in complete control and NEVER admit being wrong.

I HAVE admitted being wrong before but I am not wrong here.

I agree with the constitutional right of free speech but not to the extension some would like to see it. It does not cover free expression for example or burning an American flag, etc.

Where is the constitutional right to work for a University?

Where is the constitutional right to spew hate to students in a controlled environment while being paid by their parents?

Where is the constitutional right to get tax payers money while calling them ALL cowards and murderers and wishing them harm?

You can not shout FIRE in a crowded theater. There is no constitutional right to do that. You do not have a right to call for murder. You do not have the right to excuse murders.

Governor Owens says he can be removed because of numerous reasons. He has been called a plagiarist. That is one ground to fire him. If it is proven he is not an Indian, he can be removed. If he is shown to have a lack of integrity, he can be removed. If he is shown to have professional incompetence he can be removed. He is under very careful scrutiny now and he should be.

He called every one of us cowards and especially referred to our young men fighting in Iraq.

Get this guy out of the job we are paying him to do and let him go to any street corner in America and say whatever he wants to say. Of course he wouldn't do that. The first U.S. Marine that came along would take care of him quickly, or just about any veteran of any of our wars.

If you read his essay carefully you will find he is, in effect, including us all in his "cowards" statements. He calls the people who bought tickets on an airplane to go home to see their family cowards. He calls everyone involved cowards except the real cowards, the terrorists. He calls the clerks who were simply trying to make a living working in the twin towers cowards.

He said he wants the U.S. out of North America. He says he wants the U.S. off the planet, the U.S. out of our lives. He also said in the same speech that more 9/11s were necessary.

Where does he condemn the mass graves and torture chambers we found in Iraq? Where is his condemnation of Saddam Hussein when he killed 10,000,000 of his own people in the 35 years he has been in power? Where was this guy when Saddam gassed his own people? It wasn't America that invaded Kuwait. It wasn't America who stored their weapons and ammunition in schools and mosques so they would not be bombed.

The only people defending this guy are the few that feel Academia is merely a platform for them to do or say anything they want. Notice how there are certain people who always defend such subjects. They are in the minority. The problem is that some of those that disagree with them will not speak out against them for fear of being attacked.

Ward Churchill has no right to show his blazing hostility toward the entire concept of America as a subsidized teacher of young people. He should be fired and then let him go to work for Michael Moore as a speech writer or script writer. He would fit right in. Michael Moore can well afford to pay him much more than he currently makes.

HE MUST GO!!!

Something instead of Nothing?

"I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle.
God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."
Alan Sandage

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CalRed
Member Avatar
Member
Posted Image
"I do not work for the taxpayers of the state of Colorado. I do not work for Bill Owens. I work for you," he told the CU audience.


Does it appear he is saying "Heil Hitler" here? Surely not!
Something instead of Nothing?

"I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle.
God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."
Alan Sandage

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply