Couldn't agree more, Ace. In case you're interested, Goldstein and I duked it out over this issue a few days ago here.

If Churchill had a made a racist comment - he'd be out of there and everyone would support it. But since he is only anti-American - that's ok.

I'm not saying I want him fired, but it's certainly something to think about.

Listen: Churchill argued blowback. That's a legit (if tired, wrong, and intellectually lazy, in my estimation) theory for why 911 was visited upon us.

Were I on staff with him, I'd belittle him with counter argument and let people decide who is right and who is wrong. But if that's what he believes -- and many leftist academics do -- then I don't think we should call for his head. I think universities were made for these kinds of debates. And I don't fear what Churchill says enough that I believe he should be fired for saying it.

Now, having said all that, I wouldn't have hired him in the first place. But that's just me.

Goldstein vs. Allah .

Its just like the middle east. Goldstein will probably end up building a security fence around his comments section.

FAT KID BLOG

What about if the university doesn't want to be associated with sucha moron? Does Churchill have the right to his job? (I know the Supreme Court's answer is a qualified yes, I'm talking about morally)

Doesn't the University have the right to fire someone who makes the institution look like shit?

Jeff, much as I really respect and admire (yes admire) your humor, I think that this devolves less to 1st Amendment grounds that to simple common decency.

Absent some type of legal impedimant placed on his employment (I mean a serious "no-hire" hold put on him as a person so he can't get a job anywhere) I think that even government employers should be able to fire people who embarrass the institutions for which they work. Huh?

We don't have to be more principled than the left.

We have to be principled. What the left does is the left's problem.

Jeff,

You argue for an absolutist position on free speech. Fine. The left does too, when it suits there purposes.

Does this absolutist position espoused by the left extend to, say, The Bell Curve? Or is it selectively "absolutist" -- absolutist when used in defense of arguments the left favors, not-quite-so-absolutist in regards to arguments the left despises?

If free speech is not, in fact, an absolute right as regards employment and consequences of plainly disgusting speech -- as I think the left demonstrates on a weekly basis, at least as regards speech that disgusts them especially -- then it is not an absolute right at all, and we can inquire into the exceptions.

And once we admit there are exceptions, the debate shifts to defining those exceptions, rather than continuing to maintain the plainly-false absolutist position.

One thing I haven't heard about all of this is the University's position. Or any of the students, for that matter. One thing that should be considered about CU (specifically Boulder) is that it is basically the Berkeley of the Rocky Mountains.

I think the left selectively advocates for speech all the time, but they are wrong to do so, and groups like FIRE (and even the ACLU, on occasion) are there to push back.

But the fact of the matter is, the real problem is with an entrenched leftist orthodoxy in the humanities that hires and promotes fellow travelers. I think THAT problem should be foregrounded (and just today, Malkin linked to a story about the Brown president who is worried about the lack of intellectual diversity at her school) -- but the way to do that is NOT, in my opinion, to start down the road of going tit-for-tat over what speech is "allowed" in a university.

Churchill's thinking is odious and wrong, but it is legitimate as a hypothesis, and it is one that is shared by a number of other lazy, ideologically extreme scholars. We need to counterbalance that speech with arguments that lay shoddy scholarship open to ridicule.

While it is fashionable to go back to Steven Den Beste articles, I would like to point out one where he argues for absolutist First Ammendment Protection.

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/03/Panderingtothemembership.shtml

The ACLU picked up a case that argued that Neo-Nazi's had the right to demonstrate in Skokie IL. The case was tried by a Jew. Read the whole article for more detail, but here is Den Beste's untimate conclusion:

"I fully believe that the ACLU did the right thing, by the way, on two levels. First, I agree with the basic principle the ACLU was defending: freedom of speech must include defense of highly unpopular speech. I also agree with the ACLU board's decision that staying true to its principles was more important than short-term pandering to its membership."

I'm with Goldstein and Den Beste on this. Churchill is a complete idiot, however I think he has the right to that opinion regardless of how the CU's administration would handle it if it were an unpopular right-wing opinion. The first amendment is more important than a drooling idiot.

Then Jeff,

You run square into Ace's point. How can middle of the roaders to conservatives ever hope to "win" a few if we keep playing by rules established to coccoon the other side in power?

It's not just about "exposing" him. 99.999% of the American population still has no idea who he is, even if 100% of the blogosphere can rattle off his CV to the letter.

As some point, firemust be met with fire, not a few drops of water.

Even though it's not academia, I'm reminded of Jimmy the Greek and Rush in the broadcasting/sports context. When was the last time a media personality came under fire for espousing vile Leftist views?

Hell, they gave Olberman his own show.

I'm with ace here to the extent we need to counter the Left with its own techniques. How best to do that depends on teh situation, I suppose.

Ten Fingers

You've (inadvertently) pointed out the crux of the 1st amendment issue.

Skokie was about a march---speech itself.

The Churchill case is about a job---not speech.

One can be a 1st Amendment absolutist and still think Churchill can/should/must be fired.

What right does Churchill have to lifetime employment? I could care less about tenure, as it helps so few of my ideological allies. Why defend an institution that specifically hampers the cause to which one rallies?

If or when the academy becomes a bastion of conservative thought, I will re-think my allegiance to the concept of tenure. At the moment, I feel no loyalty to this odd and counterproductive doctrine.

Hob,

I'm not willing to betray certain principles that I believe in to fight back. I think Republicans can play dirty in other areas, but abandoning the First Amendment in doing so is a bad tactic. If I believe in free speech, then I better defend it at all costs, even for numskulls. I think it is very shortsighted to betray the first ammendment to fight back.

Actually, this is what got the Democrats in trouble. They don't have ANY principles. They just want power. Their abandonment of any principles, ala JFK/Truman, produces spineless power whores like John Kerry and Barbara Boxer.

hobgoblin --

I disagree that in the case of Churchill we're dealing with a job and not speech. Because for academics, job and academic speech are one and the same.

The way to "win" is to force an academic pendulum swing -- specifically, pressure university departments to begin hiring based on intellectual diversity. Or else defeat traditional humanities departments who refuge to budge with the market, by promoting and legitimizing non-traditional education.

But you don't do it by compromising the First Amendment.

You can argue separately about academic exceptionalism, but the fact of the matter is, were Churchill to be fired because of what he wrote, the U of C would be in the wrong.

Hob, I see your point, however I don't think it is an effective tactic. Just wait until enrollment drops for all his classes next year--ie let the free market decide--and then he can be he can be dismissed without having a reason to say that Republicans did this to him.

That way we can retain the moral high ground and get what we want.

I guess the question is whether the First Amendment is an absolute protection against your employer firing you.

I don't think it is.

Employers can fire you for all sorts of reasons. You can't embarass the company, you can't blog derogatory information about it, etc.

You couldn't expect to run a porn-site called "Steve's Mice-Being-Crushed-By-High-Heeled Busty Harlots in Heat" and expect to keep your job at Disney.

Tenure is not some guarantee of the state. It's a contrivance of a university, and they may suspend or abrogate it when they wish.

Ace, Jeff, Allah ... all the greats!

It's weird, but the longer I've been a lawyer, the less important the law is in my daily life. I don't know, maybe I've just been compartmentalizing. In any event, I don't think this is a First Amendment issue at all. Not because of what I think about the content of Churchill's speech, but because I don't think that the First Amendment should have anything to do with employer-employee relationships. That relationship is so grossly over-regulated by the state, and all of that regulation has been the impetus of the Left. Everything the Left does is wrong, so therefore that form of regulation must be, too.

Seriously, no one has the right not to be fired. Employers and employees, working together at will, do so as long as both find the relationship beneficial. If there's an employer that LIKES Churchill's special brand of anti-Caucasianism, then he can go peddle his wares there. If he has a contract with his employer, then the parties have already agreed what the criteria are for termination, which may include a great deal of discretion for behavior the employer finds discrediting. In short, Churchill should have no "right" not to be fired.

The First Amendment prevents State-based punishment for the content of one's speech. Being fired is not punishment, except in a metaphorical sense. Getting tossed in jail is punishment and being fined are punishments.

As for the decision that the University SHOULD make? As Jeff said, it's up to the University. The fact that it is a State University makes no difference to me. In this case, they are acting as an employer, not an enforcement agency of the government. They should make an assessment of the long-term costs and benefits of keeping this fool.

A university is an economic actor, just like any other business. They offer a particular service, and a valuable one. Part of that value is being open to all sorts of opinions, even the whacked out ones. The University needs to decide if they offer better value to its customers by either tolerating or dismissing this guy.

double-standard

One of my favorite quotes goes something like this: there is no such thing as a double standard; it is really only a single standard that you refuse to admit or disclose.

The "standard" at play in most Leftist organizations is not based on lofty concepts of fairness and equity. It is the standard that all lefty ideas are good and others are not.

Ace,

Jeff's point was the free speech is a function of an academic's job, hence the reason for tenure.

Comparing that to a guy that sets up porn websites at work is a strawman.

L’Affaire Coulter

Ace,

Yes, of course you would be shitcanned, or anyone else for that matter, if you had, as a university professor, suggested that the best way to deal with terrorism was to, in your example, kill all muslims.

Of course there are differentially applied standards when it comes to Left vs Right academic freedom, PC speech, etc.

The news is replete with these types of examples, not to mention the newsmakers themselves, and never is there the least bit of irony.

But I agree with George Gaskell (NB, I'm not an attorney), the issue here is not one of free speech or 1st Ammendment rights (although Professor Churchill will sure-as-shit try to make it one).

Rather, this is an issue regarding an employee-employer. The problem here is the previous award of tenure. That is the problem. There are, no doubt, reasons to terminate or revoke tenure at UC, and whether or not the university and its board of regents want to go there or not, is a decision, I'm sure, that no one involved is taking lightly.

Just sayin'.

Ten fingers: "I'm not willing to betray certain principles that I believe in"

OK, that's respectable. Tenure is not something I "believe in", so we disagree there. No worries, agree to disagree.

"Just wait until enrollment drops for all his classes next year"

Gotta call you on that one: the market cannot decide ina closed system of mandatory required classes. There's no teaching competition for "Native American Perceptions of the White Phallus 4309." While one's reaction might be to write off any "ethnic studies" majors, that obviates your point about market forces. Bottom line, Churchill will face no ramifications from his actions within the institution short of revoking tenure. And that doesn't address the Univerisity's ability/right to distance themselves from his rants.

And Jeff, that brings us back to your distinction between free speech and academic exceptionalism. Now I know U of C is a "government" institution. I sue some governemnt run educational institutions under Section 1983 civil rights law. I know that they are "the State" for purposes of free speech.

But free speech in the state employment context is not unlimited, and I think that the academic exceptionalism, combined with due process rights for state employment, foster a culture of Leftist insulation in the academy.

I do not think that eliminating academic exceptionalism (and thus legally permitting Churchills ouster) would harm conservative thought in the long or short term. In fact, it would go a long way to allowing market forces to work in the university system.

Free speech may be an academic's job, but you should expect your job to be on the line if you do it poorly. Saying blowback is "intellectually lazy" is to admit that this guy, odious as his remarks may be, are made worse in the academic setting because they're indefensible logically.

If he performs his job of speaking poorly, he can and should be fired.

Let's untangle things.

Maybe the univeristy tenure system is established to protect untrammeled free speech. But let us not confuse that with the actual first amendment. In other words, if universities have stronger protections than the 1st A guarantees, fine. But I abhor the claim that the 1st A ITSELF should guarantee stronger rights to some -- academics, reporter -- than to other citizens.

If that's the case, then everyone must immediately submit an article to a local paper to become a "reporter" in order to claim that stronger 1st A protection.

But even if we say the tenure system is a special, stronger protection of free speech, there are still exceptions.

You could not write a paper stating that women, because they dress provocatively, deserve to be r@ped, and expect to keep your job.

And that is what Churchill did. Jeff Goldstein is a principled guy, but I think he sweetens his argument a little too much when he claims that Churchill merely trafficked in the ho-hum "blowback" theory of terrorism.

He did more than that. He claimed that the secretaries, janitors, traders, analysts, and etc. working in the WTC were legitimate victims who deserved to be killed because they were "soldiers" of some sort in the cryptofascist industrial-military machine of the US.

ha!

ace has to bow before his own filter. =b

Now THAT's the Rule of Law.

I had to change the word "s3xy" to "provocatively," too.

Annoying.

Ace --

You, like me, are quite aware of the power of using a shocking bit of rhetoric to create a controversy and get your argument talked about. Churchill insists he was talking about the government employees in the buildings, not the janitors, children, etc; I don't believe him, but that is beside the point. He was using extreme -- and poorly crafted -- rhetoric to draw attention to the underlying thesis, which is that US foreign policy is to blame for 911: blowback.

As for the First Amendment argument: I'm no lawyer, but I do know that here in Colorado we are getting competing interpretations. Churchill is an employee of the state, so he can't be fired for his speech. The University imposed its own restrictions on his firing by granting him tenure. So we're dealing with two different issues here, it seems to me.

For what it's worth, Judge Andrew Napolitano (a pretty strict reader of the Constitution) came down on the side of Churchill and the ACLU.

There are doubtless other things Churchill can be fired for. But for arguing an unpopular (and to us, odious) political hypothesis should not be one of them. In my opinion.

Anyone can be fired for suggesting that women deserve to be r@ped, no matter what the statutes might say.

I don't see the difference between that and Churchill's claim that the victims of 9-11 deserved to be killed.

You say it "doesn't matter" whether he meant that or not; that what matters is that he was just using "extreme rhetoric" to push his thesis.

I suggest you try writing an odious essay employing "extreme rhetoric" the left doesnt' like -- not to be indelicate, but try writing a defense of the WoT making extensive use of the term "sand n*ggers" -- and see how your guarantee of free speech holds up.

ace: Anyone can be fired for suggesting that women deserve to be r@ped, no matter what the statutes might say.

That's your point, isn't it ace?

Jeff and Neapolitano are right about the actual law. But in the realm of hard, cold reality, someone on the other side of the spectrum would be out on their ass faster that you could say "insensitive." (that's why you guys are the humor writers, I couldn't even come up with a funny metaphor)

Churchill IS protected by the First Amendment, legally, in this matter. If U of C fires him, he'll get a boatload of cash.

The question is "Should he be protected?"

Since conservatives are never going to get a fair shake, should we rearrange the system while we have temporary political power in order to make it easier to boot these asshats out now?

I can't believe I'm being forced to "defend" this guy, but let me just say this: Churchill's piece argues that those who died in the towers in 911 (and, if you wish to grant the professor the benefit of the doubt, he's talking only about the government employees) are legitimate targets of an a group aggrieved group -- that they were killers by proxy based upon their participation in the capitalist system.

This argument is absurd (from my vantage point), but it is pretty standard hard left stuff, and is the blowback argument as filtered through a Marxist revolutionary perspective.

This is quite different, I think, then arguing that women deserve to be raped -- at least as you present it (I can certainly envision some theorists making such an argument under specific conditions) -- or using a term like sand n*ggers; Churchill was drawing an analogy to Eichmann which I find wrong, silly, and repulsive, but it was an analogy. It is my function as an academic to argue that analogy away -- not to turn Churchill into a martyr by taking away his right to make his case in the very setting where one SHOULD be making such cases, if that's what they believe and can attempt to defends.

Jeff,

You're also saving multnomah county from my wrath right now.

I don't think you're defending Churchill. I think you're defending the "open academy."

That's cool, and meritorious.

But it doesn't seem to be in a conservative's strategic interest (long or short term) to do so.

Really, calling people Eichmanns isn't any different from calling terrorists (specifically) negros d'sable.

Is the academy where people should be allowed to advance crackpot theories by way of insult? And if so, OK, then why should conservative support that?

not that y'all'll miss me, but have a great weekend.

and a kick ass Superbowl party

> Just wait until enrollment drops for all his classes next year--ie let the free market decide--

More likely, the enrollment would rise, but that would be even sweeter because he'd suddenly find himself having to ride herd over classes comprised of a volatile mix of Marxist idiots and sarcastic troublemakers. Hell on Earth, baby! Yeah!

Napolitano (a pretty strict reader of the Constitution) came down on the side of Churchill and the ACLU.

He may be right, in the sense that he may be accurately predicting what a typical court today would do with a case like his. But, as hobgoblin said, it's more a question of what the law should be rather than what the law actually is. (What the law is is a much less interesting question. I think the law has gotten far too technical anyway, so being a lawyer has really become an exercise in meaningless formalism. Policy questions tend to be where the real action is.)

I don't think the State ought to be in the business of running schools (or other commercial enterprises) in the first place, so I don't see why a state-run school should be subject to special rules -- rules which were designed as restrictions on the government, not schools.

It is my function as an academic to argue that analogy away

I agree that this is ultimately a powerful way of dealing with situations like this, but what if you were in a position of authority, not as a peer (or a Citizen Journalist!), but as a dean, for example? What if you had the power to fire or not (let's say the 1st Amendment issue was not a factor)?

In that position, you would have to consider the long-term costs and benefits. I agree with you -- one of a university's most valuable assets is its openness to a variety of ideas. That benefit has to be weighed against the cost of whatever embrassment or disrepute he brings by staying on.

And this decision isn't made in a vacuum. Schools should try to appeal to a specific type of student. Not everyone wants the same thing in a school. A free market in schools gives students a choice. UC could easily be either the kind of school that keeps him or the kind that tosses him. We're better off as a society if students have a choice in schools.

I guess what I'm saying is that this is, at its base, an economic decision. If this kind of decision is made by considering the complete, long-term economic picture, then the educational system as a whole will function as it should.

For the record, I think he will be shitcanned, but the stated reason will be that he lied about being an Indian. Hog on Ice has a rant about that today (part of his All-Hate Friday).

Jeff,

I really don't agree with you at all. Churchill says and you put it

:

"I can't believe I'm being forced to "defend" this guy, but let me just say this: Churchill's piece argues that those who died in the towers in 911 (and, if you wish to grant the professor the benefit of the doubt, he's talking only about the government employees) are legitimate targets of an a group aggrieved group -- that they were killers by proxy based upon their participation in the capitalist system.

This argument is absurd (from my vantage point), but it is pretty standard hard left stuff, and is the blowback argument as filtered through a Marxist revolutionary perspective."

My problem with this is that his point of government workers is absurd. If there were a way for the terrorists to attack only government workers and not attack collateral workers, he might have a point. However, he cannot. Therefore his argument is unsustainable from the get go. I also cannot believe that you and the judge see fit to force the university to keep someone on staff who so blatantly uses his positiion to advance his own political agenda in this way and also sells himself, using their reputation, as a speaker. I think they have the right of arguing that he with his arguments is damaging their brand and that they have the right to terminate him on that basis.

I also cannot believe that you and the judge see fit to force the university to keep someone on staff who so blatantly uses his positiion to advance his own political agenda in this way and also sells himself, using their reputation, as a speaker.

First, who ELSE's political agenda is he going to advance but his own. I see no problem there. And second, the university forced ITSELF to keep him on staff because IT offered him the tenure contract. If the university can find a reason within the bounds of that contract to fire him and wish to do so, I say more power to them -- though they will have created a first amendment hero out of an asshole.

Neverthess, the tenure issue is separate from the First Amendment issue, which is where this case is truly interesting. And though I respect George Gaskell (above), I disagree with him on the force of his distinction between what the law IS and what it SHOULD BE -- because those who like the law as it is now would take the position that it already IS as it SHOULD BE.

As for the content of his argument, again -- he's using standard Marxist revolutionary boilerplate. These arguments that "citizens" are complicit in atrocities by dint of paying taxes to the military industrial complex, which then uses that money to impose its will on the world, are hardly new. And technically, his argument is only "unsustainable" once you disagree with him on that premise. But disagreement on the premise is an entry point for debate -- not grounds to suggest that because his premise differs from yours, it should be grounds for dismissal.

The U of C is in a real pickle. Should they fire Churchill, everyone will know why they are doing so, and he will have an excellent First Amendment case to bring against the state and the UC board of regents (unless they can come up with a credible alternative reason for firing him); should they keep him on, their reputation could suffer with a certain segment of the population; and should they suceed in firing him AND defeat the First Amendment challenge, their reputation will certainly suffer among academics, libertarians, many progressives, and free speech absolutists

IMO, the 1st Amendment argument overlooks some very critical problems with Ward Churchill remaining at CU. I predict he will have to leave and leave with a juicy settlement, but leave he will. All his cooments did was finally focus people on this guy.

1. He is evidently a fake Indian who was hired on Affirmative Action bonus points.
2. He is in major hot water with most Indian organizations for speaking for all Indians as a faker, for damaging AIM, for calling conservative Indians "slaves".
3. CU hired him, granted tenure, and promoted him to full professor despite his lacking a PhD -a (terminal degree) requirement for being hired as Associate Prof. In fact, his BA & MA degrees were from a early 70's hippie college that didn't give grades. His thesis defense for a Masters was rejected before he was hired in. Look at the Profs in his Department at CU. All have real PhDs.
4. The rumor is that his activist years got him very close to the radical Left Jewish intelligensia. Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn regularly write forwards for Churchill's books or essays. Suppose you were a liberal selection committee pondering hiring a guy without serious credentials or any work published in academic journals - but he came, a true native American activist with glowing references from Chomsky, Zinn, Nancy Rabinowitz, the Rosenburg sons, etc. saying he is the real, brilliant voice of oppressed Native Americans. Wouldn't you want to bow to the Giants ofLeftist academia, and do as they wish with Churchill?
5. More will come out on review of his earlier writings - but it appears he has always advocated violent acts to help shape the ground of the debate. Like extolling the killing of two FBI agents at Pine Ridge.

The rumor is that his activist years got him very close to the radical Left Jewish intelligensia.

Out of curiosity, why the mention of "Jewish" here? Radical Left I can understand. But what does religion have to do with anything? And are any of these folks you mention practicing Jews? Or does that not matter?

As for the rest of the post, my argument has always been that if the University can find other grounds on which to fire Churchill -- and that's what they want to do -- they should go for it.

Does anybody know whether the university is not only stopped from firing him* but also from taking other actions?

Could they give him a basement office with no window? Take away his personal secretary and assign him a pool secretary? Restrict his research funding? Etc.? (Probably not would be my answer.)

I can understand Jeff's argument. And the others too. But do they have to provide him with all the amenities to which he is probably accustomed while he attacks the very system that defends his right to attack the system? That is one messed up system, IYAM. And a good reason to remove tenure from the university system, IMO.

*Of course, they can fire him any time they want. They'll just be liable for compensatory damages on a contract claim. And maybe other damages on a tort claim.

Jeff,

Cedarford seems to have a chronic case of the Semite sniffles. He can't go a paragraph without going ah... ah... ahhhh... ah Jews!

Well put Ace. lol! Isn't it ironic (albeit predictable) that in a discussion pivoting around the use of the phrase 'Little Eichmans' CedarTroll pops in?

First, I pretty much agree with everything Jeff G said.

Second, as a reformed leftist, I can tell you that every prominent example of someone being "silenced" for advocating leftist ideas only feeds the disease. I was able to recognize the foolishness of what I had bought into in part because I never faced persecution for my beliefs, or saw any real examples of that happening to other people.

As far as I'm concerned, the only way to counter the Churchill disease is, as Jeff said, with counter-argument. You may not convince the specific leftist "intellectual" against whom you're arguing, but you will probably prevent a lot of young people such as myself from becoming trapped for life in that way of thinking.

My big question is, how did a big fat faker like Churchill GET tenure in the first place.

It isn't a snap to get tenure, it isn't automatically granted to any yahoo who teaches at the university level.

It seems to me that UC did not exert proper care in their selection of a tenured professor, or Churchill put a con job over on them, or both.

Maybe they never granted Churchill tenure...the actual churchill, that is.

Tenure should protect a professor from being fired for writing unpopular essays, yadda yadda. It just boggles that tenure could be granted to such a poseur.

The guy is an absolute jerk, and as it turns out a liar also. Was his position and subsequent tenure influenced by those areas he espoused regarding his life and ancestry which are evidently false? If so, then give him the boot. Else, those taxpaying parents supporting this moonbat institution should withdraw their student children and let free market forces guide the idiots that run the school.

The Big Question is whether or not the true leaders of the Left will defend Churchill or cut him loose like other protegees they nurtured but became liabilities. Ward Churchill is just a proxy for the likes of Chomsky and Zinn. The old NYC Communist movement still holds the strings of the Far Left in giving organizational skills, intellectual patina, and money to help germinate pawns like Bobby Seale, Ward Churchill, Dennis Kuchinich. Ward Churchill is a bit player in the far Left, who can be lost as long as the Left doesn't cede larger objectives in the process.

If they do defend him, it will be because they recognize the ideological battle has finally come to an arena they still dominate, a true bastion of the Left - the college campuses - and Churchill must be defended or other Leftist professors implicated in fraud or exhortations to anti-American violence may also be targeted. And he will be defended on "absolutist free speech" grounds and through assertions he is a martyr to "intolerance" from mean, stupid bourgeoisie Americans and fascist conservatives out to Nazify America.

If they don't defend him, or defend him with tepid words and deeds, it will be because they recognize he is toast by way of fraudulent personal identity politics and by saying anti-American things so outrageous - that he jeopardizes the NYC red diaper baby's true anti-American agenda..

Now, that may be a tad over SpewFan's head, but whatever....

For those new here, CedarTroll has never met a code word for Jew that he didn't like:

-true leaders of the Left/The old NYC Communist movement

-NYC red diaper baby

What he lacks in intelligence he makes up for in diligence.

It seems to me that the way Ward Churchill is being treated is a lot different than the way the President of Harvard is being treated for saying something that is -to a lot of people-equally disturbing.

Churchill defends himself.

And Tim Burke explains why he's a moron from an academic perspective.

Pity, Spewfan....the free ride period accorded to certain minorities who "suffered so much they cannot be criticized" is coming to an end.

Why is it that Chinese, Irish, Indians, Gypsies, Vietnamese and Filipinos can spread to 60 other countries without suffering significant pograms?

Perhaps because they have no intention of subverting, controlling the laws and morals and economy of the locals??? And avoid royally pissing off their host nation??

Why is it that Chinese who suffered 16 million civilian dead, Soviets with 26 million civilian dead in WWII can be criticized for speading Communism and for colonizing activities - but not Jews?

Free ride's over, SpewFan.........time to play ball or leave....

Hmm. Well, I've only lived in two countries, and so far, you and Oliver Willis are the only two people who've complained. And the only thing I've ever been accused of spreading? HOT JEW LOVIN'!

BEWARE THE MONGREL CHILDREN BORN OF MY INSIDIOUS JEW SEMEN, FOR THEY SHALL USHER IN THE DOOM OF WHITEY!

Funny, Jeff G. Considering Jewish girls prefer to have either a sterile professional life or marry some hot goy 1/2 the time.

Why Jews have gone from 5% of America's population down to less than 2%. Low birthrate! And why Jewish princesses are lining up to forge intimate overnight partnerships with the best black athletes, be a loi-yah, or hook up with a good-looking gentile who will be there for her kids and give her equal say over family finances.

I'm afraid that there is as much demand for insidious "Jeff Goldstein Jew semen" as there is for hunchback semen.

Watch the kosher hotties you desire reject you for Mbutubo and Levon and Tyone-Mecca-Ali!

It must suck to be you! But if you make enough money, you can, like my obese boss, purchase an Asian honey that will love you long time, no shit!

Course momma will be upset...but she never convinced daughters to stay in the faith and was only concerned with son's money-making potential. Poor Goldstein!

Im gonna pimp THE FAT KIDS site one more time just for you Cedarford.

Its a little number i like to call

"WHAT IF CEDARFORD OWNED A DAIRY FARM"

Cedarford,

Umm, okay, that's pretty much all the hard-core anti-semitism I can take. I won't have this site getting filtered out as a hate site because you have some sort of problem with the Jews.

Knock it off. You're on warning. And this is a serious warning.

ahh...Ace is just mad cause his girlfriend left him for a dude named Tyone-Mecca-Ali. Hits a little too close to home i guess.

I for one would love to hear more of Cedarfords thoughts on semen- i hear he's an expert.

Wow, what a release of pent-up incoherence, Cedarford. So happy to have a forum for your anti-Jew material that you shot your load too soon, eh? Couldn't even onjure up a nice Jew bash fantasy before cuming all over the comments section?

Well, to each his own. Me, I think I'm gonna go plant my Jew seed in a white woman. Snowflake white. Like, Cathy Lee Crosby white. They LOVE me, these Aryan chicks. Love to get back at Vater for making them suck Uncle Otto's dick during one of the "white pride" retreats. Plus it's that bad boy thing, y'know? -- like they're fucking the devil.

HIDE YOUR DAUGHTERS SONS OF THE REICH! HIDE YOUR DAUGHTERS FROM THE BEAST!

No offense Ace, it's your site, but I don't warn pieces of shit like Cedarford, I just ban them.

And it reflects badly on you if you don't nip that shit in the bud.

No dont ban him. Hes a jerk but he is interesting. You warned him. Give him another chance. He went way over the line this time but hes sorta like Norm from Cheers. A fat racist Norm. If i dont want to listen to his crap ill just ignore it. Or make fun of him. Give him one more chance to act civil and then give him the boot if he doesnt. Just my opinion.

Ace,

While you were gone I (briefly) banned Amish for much, much, much, much less.

The HQ is WAY too cool for this kind of shit.

Look Ace- If your gonna ban him, at least wait until he can explain what the hell a "NYC red diaper baby" is. ive been setting here for like 2 hours trying to figure it out. Im like Lewis Black: "If it wasnt for my horse...I wouldnt have spent that year in college." You cant leave a mystery like that unsolved. your head will explode.

Of course if a NeoNazi professor said Jews deserved to be calcined, he'd be hounded out. It's interesting that whenever rats like Churchill make these kinds of statements, it's solely cast as a free speech issue.

What about the moral or ethical considerations, to say nothing of incompetancy? Can a man with such a psychotic worldview - he didn't just argue blowback, he went much further - really be worth a crap as a professor? It's not like he's teaching accounting.

But it's easy to see why he'd say such a thing, because this kind of stuff is rampant in university humanities depts. As Paglia says, Psychosis is a system, & within that system, people feel such statements are completely rational. And of course he played up his possibly mythical Native America roots - that's how the game is played.

Twenty-one Italian scholars and historians have issued a public statement defending freedom of speech and of historical research on the Holocaust issue, and criticizing the laws in France and Germany that restrict these rights for revisionist scholars who question the orthodox Holocaust extermination story. It specifically cites a French government order banning distribution in France of a book by Swiss revisionist scholar Jürgen Graf on the grounds that it "denies the Holocaust."

Most of the scholars who signed the statement -- which was published March 1, 1996, in the Turin daily newspaper La Stampa -- are professors at various Italian universities. Interestingly, they represent leftist, rightist and centrist political views.

The scholars conclude their appeal with the words: "We are appealing, therefore, to the scholarly community to which we belong, but also to the political world and to the press, so that they react to this state of affairs, and put an end to a tendency that wherever it develops may put the freedom of speech, press and culture in European countries at risk."

In an editorial that called the statement a "provocative protest," La Stampa commented: "The historians who signed the letter are challenging a taboo ... Until now, no one in the scientific or academic world, and outside the extreme right, has objected to the banning of denial texts, a ban codified in Germany and France by regulations that consider denial of the Holocaust a crime."

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p33_Weber.html

H.,

Relevance?

When you cite something this vague, without commentary, I have to wonder what commentary you're actually omitting. I expect it's Cedarford-style--with all the wit and class of an outhouse skull-fuck.

We'll see.

Atrocities Jeff,

Right on. The key fact of this case is that the university cannot even call a pro-terror ideology "incompetant."

Off with their Pell Grants.

Let me throw this one out there:

How eager are U of C officials to avoid another firestorm after the scandal involving the rape allegations levied against the football team?

Ace,

FWIW, I think cf isn't worth the trouble to keep around but it's your site. For me it has less to do with his anti-Jew rants than his general asshole tendencies, but the above rants are pretty vile, even by his abysmally low standards.

Unpopulist,

I think "Hymie's" (read:cf's) point might be that the demand for absolute academic free speech could result in a pretty bad scenario if the leftist academics started going down the "holocaust revision" road.

I don't think American academics (jew cabal they may be) are that far from serious holocaust revisionism. I'd hate to see the Middle East studies professors in about 10 years, they'll be pure, unadulterated Nazi thugs.

JeffG,

LOL

Nothing personal, but your semen , jewish or not, better never be within 1 mile of my daughter, but Cathy Lee is more than fair game for you. Don't get any sharp objects near her face, though, or it'll split wide open like an overripe melon.

Thanks for the laugh.

and just ignore the asshole. It's made my life much happier, I'll tell you that.

Where's Julie?

she's with Joe

Loose shit. Cedarford's getting beat up here...

Ace,

I'm with Bill on this one. Make like you're the chair of the UC hiring/firing committee and Cedarford is Ward Churchill.

In other words, boot his ass pronto.

Manufacturing a weak integrity argument to justify free speech violations...

It started in a federal Court in Pittsburgh and has moved quickly to Colorado Universtity and Iraq. It's a stretch, but political hacks have besieged first amendment free speech protections.

They attempt to combine a provacative essay comparing victims of 911 with Nazi criminals and an emotionally charged General's comments on war, questioning whether such is permissible when the comments may cause damaged to an institution's integrity.

Churchill was a relatively unknown professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, until Bill O'Reilly reported a piece about him and requested his audience to make a fuss.

Why did O'Reilly target Ward Churchill?

Because in a Pittsburgh federal court a well connected corporate crony has suggested the novice argument, and the legal question is waddling without any legal precedent in need of an activist court.

Thus the current unexplained campaign against “free speech” appears to be little more than a Madison Avenue scheme to control any discussion of the President’s desire to privatize higher education.

That is, a number of for-profit colleges have faced inquiries, lawsuits and other actions calling into question the way they inflate enrollment to mislead/increase the value of their parent company’s stock.

In the last year, the Career Education Corporation of Hoffman Estates, Ill., has faced lawsuits, from shareholders and students, contending that, among other things, its colleges have inflated enrollment numbers. In addition, F.B.I. agents raided 10 campuses run by ITT Educational Services of Carmel, Ind., looking for similar problems.

But in a Pittsburgh federal court there is a bigger can of worms.

Kaplan, Inc., is wholly own by the Washington Post Company. For-profit postsecondary education has turned the company around and individuals far more powerful than Martha Steward have made millions. However, there is a nominal “Watergate” styled federal court proceeding (scandal) involving campus “free speech,” that could expose the administration’s violation of public trust

In short, I provided the S.E.C., Department of Education, and federal courts information that appears to prove Kaplan inflated the Concord School of Law enrollment, telling investors that the “flagship” of its higher education division has as many as 600 to 1000 or more students.

I also provided evidence to prove apparent violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

However, in an attempt to protect important icons of the Washington and New York financial/political circle, hacks have been hired to stir a free speech controversy.

But even Stan Chess (En Passant http://lawtv.typepad.com/en_passant/2004/a_question_of_l.html) innocently questioned the obvious - a clear violation of the federal securities laws.

“Kaplan’s Concord School of Law says it’s one of the largest law schools in the country, yet for each administration only about 25 of its graduates sit for the bar exam. What happens to the hundreds of other students in each class?”

What are you willing to do?

Ward Churchill stole a job set aside for a Native American. Both of the largest Native American newspapers have denounced Churchill for his lying on his resume to get a job that should have gone for an American Indian.
If he lied on his resume he should be fired. For lying he should never be hired at any university since he has no credibility.