I'd like to show Professor Ward Churchill what real hate is

Iraq Forum

I would love to take a walk with the Professor Churchill in Central Park, NYC some day....He is worse than the head cutters of al-Qaeda. It is unfortunate that he is a citizen of the U.S. and not an enemy combatant waiting to be shot and done away with.

He is protected only by a communistic system called TENURE.

Bastard.

----

Churchill: I'm Not Backing Up One Inch
CU Professor Receives Standing Ovation From Crowd

BOULDER, Colo. -- The controversial professor who sparked outrage nationwide received a standing ovation Tuesday evening when he spoke before an audience of 1,000 people at the University of Colorado and defiantly defended his controversial essay.

"I'm not backing up one inch. I owe no one an apology or clarification," Ward Churchill said to thunderous applause.

The University Memorial Center on campus was packed so tight that some people had to listen outside.

Churchill said that his comments comparing World Trade Center victims to a Nazi leader were misinterpreted by the media and others. In his essay, "Some People Push Back," Churchill wrote that workers in the towers were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns," a reference to Adolf Eichmann, who ensured the smooth running of the Nazi system.

Churchill also wrote of the "gallant sacrifices" of the "combat teams" that struck America.

On Tuesday, Churchill defended his essay, saying U.S. policies that have victimized people in this country and around the world helped pave the way for the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

"When you devalue, demean and degrade others to this point, naturally and inevitably, what you're putting out will blow back on you and that's what happened on that day," he said.

He said he weeps for the victims of the terrorist attacks, but not any more than for the children and women who have been killed in Iraq.

During his 35-minute speech, Churchill said the essay was not referring to children, firefighters, janitors or people passing by the World Trade Center who were killed during the attacks.

Most of the questions posed to Churchill were sympathetic but there were people who were angered by his essay who spoke up during the rally.

"Where do you get the gall to call the victims of the September 11th attacks technocrats when you get a $90,000 paycheck from the government you purport to hate?" an audience member asked.

"I am not innocent and I am subject to the same penalty, and that is the answer to your question," Churchill responded.

A longtime American Indian Movement activist, he said he is as culpable as his government because his efforts to change the system haven't succeeded.

"I could do more. I'm complicit. I'm not innocent," he said.

Many in the packed auditorium gave Ward Churchill a standing ovation after his speech.

Churchill said it's his job as professor to speak his mind and say what may be unpopular. Security was tight at the event -- about two dozen police officers were scattered inside and around the ballroom. Although the crowd was loud and mostly supportive of Churchill, it was peaceful.

The speech originally had been canceled for safety concerns, but university officials decided to allow it to go on after meeting with students.

Churchill had also filed a lawsuit asking a judge to force the school to let him speak after the state-funded university threatened to cancel his address.

CU's board of regents has launched a 30-day review of Churchill. They're examining his writings and speeches to determine whether he's violated his tenured status at the university. Churchill has already resigned from his position as head of CU's department of ethnic studies.

Gov. Bill Owens has called for Churchill to be fired.

"I don't answer to Bill Owens. I do not answer to the Board of Regents in the way they think I do. The regents should do their job and let me do mine," Churchill said.

"I do not work for the taxpayers of the state of Colorado. I do not work for Bill Owens. I work for you," he said.

The Boulder Faculty Assembly, which represents professors at the Boulder campus, has said Churchill's comments were "controversial, offensive and odious" but supports his right to say them based on the principle of academic freedom.

Churchill said he believes the controversy over his remarks will strengthen the state's largest academic institution.

His essay and follow-up book attracted little attention until he was invited to speak last month at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y., which later canceled his talk out of security concerns.

"I've read some of Ward's work," said 26-year-old Vinita Laroia, an environmental studies major. "I think what he has to say is true and interesting. I wanted to hear his actual voice say what he's thinking."

The ACLU issued a statement defending Churchill's right to speak out and called on regents, legislators and the governor "to stop threatening Mr. Churchill's job because of the content of his opinions."

David Horowitz, a champion of conservative causes who has long accused American universities of overstocking their faculties with leftists, has said firing Churchill would violate his First Amendment rights and set a bad precedent.

He called instead for an inquiry into the university's hiring and promotion procedures to see how Churchill managed to rise to the chairmanship of the school's ethnic studies department.

Source: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/

Dissenters will be shot at dawn soon enough Sordidmesh....
it's a shame you cannot see that this country was founded on dissent and that people with differing opinions than yours have the right to not only live, but speak their minds.

It is not free speech when he is paid tax dollars. He needs to be removed. Removed from society maybe even.

I'd like to know how long he would have lasted (however you may interpret that) if he had said after Pearl Harbor was attacked, that the Japanese were justified in doing so, as so he claims today.

If you want to live in the cookie cutter society you are espousing sordidmesh...you may consider moving to China.

For the record, I don't agree with the majority of what he is saying....but I do agree he has the right to say it. Alot of his words are being twisted.

CU knew who they hired before they tenured him....now that we live in a near fascist mentality society post 9/11, opinions like his stick out.

And with the governor we have in this state....who is only interested in prisons and roads....oh yeah and child support for the baby he fathered out of wedlock with a young girl....while he was married to someone else....he is probably the most fascist governor in the country.

Owens, the Colo governor, would pave all of Colorado if given the chance and if it would profit the rich....don't get me started sordidmesh....

Owens is the Patriot Act poster boy...he was just waiting for something like this to happen.

Ward Churchill is the racist. Not I. He is the one declaring people who died on 9/11 as little "Eichmanns" He is the one aligning himself with enemies of the U.S. And he is doing it with payment of tax dollars. I am right and you are wrong. How do you like that comment?

Furthermore, he is a phony Native American "Indian", using the cover to enable him to promote his communist agenda.

And I am not alone. The traitors are far out numbered.

I hope Churchill is fired. There is no excuse for a college professor to be so inhumane and crass. Likening the victims of 9/11 to Nazi's. That is just wrong. Who the hell would want this man for a teacher anyway.

I didn't accuse you of being a racist Curley Joe.

And I said I don't agree with him...especially his comments about Jews....

And the issue of his being a Native American? It's absurd. I read the official word by the head of AIM and he wrote that he doesn't claim Churchill as a Native American and they turn their backs on his beliefs and say that Churchill doesn't speak for AIM....


and yet last night he showed up with AIM and on top of that Russell Means was in the front row seat.....it's perplexing to say the least....


A real traitor sordidmesh and CJ is an American who will squash someones right to speak even if they go against their beliefs.....Churchill isn't inciting hatred, he just has bad judgment.

And CU obviously had poor judgment in giving him tenure and making him head of the ethnic studies department.

If he's inaccurate now, he's been inaccurate in the past. And CU decided to promote him....
doesn't surprise me at that school when football is their main source of income and notoriety....

And sordidmesh I might be wrong, but it seems you are implying that the man ought to be hogtied and hung....and that's flat out wrong.
It just gives proof to the nature and action of his opponents as enjoying violence as a means to an end.

That kind of rhetoric sordidmesh won't bring peace into the world either.

Fired for what? And what grounds?

This is not about free speech. It is about how your tax dollars are being spent to promote agendas that the overwhelming majority of Americans would find deeply offensive.

Again...CJ

Fired for what? And what grounds?

You've obviously never attended a university....you'd be surprised what they teach and have taught for MANY years.....
they'd have to fire thousands of professors....this man just hit the radar.....and it doesn't surprise me that it happened in Boulder with Gov. Owens as the main force in this controversy.

Yes, I attended a university—in So. California, no less—I have a Bachelor's degree.


_____

Radical college professors are finally being put on notice by middle America that anti-American views will no longer go unchallenged if a liberal arts professor mutters the words “academic freedom.”

But the question is whether our elected officials will have the guts to do anything about it.

For years, Americans have been led to believe that campus radicalism was confirmed to Ivy League institutions and left wing enclaves like Cal Berkeley. But the firestorm that has erupted over professor Ward Churchill’s anti-American 9/11 screed has proven what college students have known for years: That colleges in middle America have long been led by left-wing leaders who are radical by any measure when it comes to politics, culture, and faith.

I loved my years at the University of Alabama, but my college professors were almost to politically left of center. And that was in the reddest of all states.

Don’t get me wrong. I learned a great deal by having professors who attacked Ronald Reagan as a dangerous war-monger, who questioned my religious faith, and who openly mocked my family’s middle American values.

There were a few notable exceptions, but only one or two.

So the question you need to ask yourself is this: Why are my elected officials using my taxes to promote values that are radically opposed to my own views?

And if there is academic freedom and diversity of thought, why don’t those two principals apply to conservative professors?

A recent study showed that an overwhelming number of college professors are big government liberals, while conservative professors rarely get a chance to teach college courses. This ideological monopoly ensures that another generation of college students will be brainwashed to believe that the values parents spent 18 years instilling in them are quaint, obsolete notions.

Enough is enough.

It is time to call your state representative and demand action.

It is time to call your governor and demand a full investigation into the political bias that is infecting the state colleges that you keep open with your tax dollars.

It is time to put campus radicals back on their heels and tell them that simply chanting the words “academic freedom” will no longer cow us into accepting the status quo.

It is time to take your college classrooms back. And if our elected officials won’t do it, we will run them out of office and find someone who will.

—Joe Scarborough

Like I said they would have to remove thousands of professors...and then after them who will they go after? It's just the beginning.

Did you study Germany in the 1930's at your S. Calif University Curley?

My alma mater is in S Calif too...and they warned about the potential of times like these...

If you don't approve of the syllabus, don't enroll your kid in the college....or don't take the class...it's that easy....

The USSR banished such dissenting intellectuals to psychiatric wards or Siberia.
I wouldn't like the USA if that's what they are going to similarly do here.

Your author said:
"It is time to put campus radicals back on their heels and tell them that simply chanting the words “academic freedom” will no longer cow us into accepting the status quo."

To that SWTT says: That's exactly what you are promoting by stifling dissenting ideas....the status quo.

There's nothing left for me to say. Mr. Scarborough in Post #16 has said it all. Hopefully this human trash will be fired. Hopefully…

I don't think this guy meant any harm. He really believes what he's saying is right. That, of course is up for interpritation. I'm more concerned with the bandwagon propogandists out there who will over politicize this. We'll have some "open minded" kids out there willing to accept anything controversal as the truth. In some cases, the more liberal the "truth" the better. I'm not saying anyone should put a muzzle on this guy, I just think he should be countered with something equally potent from the other side of the spectrum.

sowhatsthetruth is absolutely right to point out what happened in Germany in the 1930's. I'm sure the German people, even in their wildest dreams could never have imagined Hilter dragging their country into such a nightmare world.

Compare this academics words with the Bush policy of the last 3 years. Pumping up non-existant dangers in countries that are no threat just so you can premptively strike them, overthrow the goverment, and occupy them, as Bush did in Iraq, sounds a pretty radical policy to me. So the words that this guy has used, and from what I've seen what he's saying sounds tactless, but compared to the neocon agenda that is taking place right now it's nothing.

It doesn't surprise me that people are calling for a clamp-down on decent in the US. Bush once said "jokingly" that a dictatorship would be a hell of a lot easier country to run.

Is it true that a law has just been passed in a state in the US that bans baggy trousers that reveal the underwear underneath?

The story about the underwear is true and it's not just about baggy pants. It also has to do with young girls with "Hip Hugger' pants that are so low they show their thongs or underwear.

FWIW- I think it's wrong to ban such things. Growing up in the 60's and 70's, I was oppressed for having long hair and bell bottom jeans. ha.

The way I look at it, what you wear and how you wear it (this goes for piercings too) tells a lot about a person. You can only hope the McDonalds has a great retirement plan for these youg people. As a professional, I look at what they protray to me during an interview.

the Underwear law is still in the bill stage. There's no way in hell it is going to pass.

The baggy pants/underwear thing points to the young men not the women...

I get so ticked at restaurants when my waiter has his butt hanging out of his pants and I have to look at it...I don't care if he's cute...I just think its distasteful. But a law? How about just common courtesy and thinking about your customers and things such as that?

Usually I just tell them to pull up their pants, cuz you're butt is hanging out.

Or... give them a few bucks so they don't have to wear their big brother's pants.

They wear them that way on purpose. Underneath they wear huge boxers.

It's a "fashion statement." And it's supposed to be "sexy."

Sexy? It looks to me like they don't have enough sense to pull up their pants, or they just have incontenance and have to be ready to dump at any moment. In either case, it just looks stupid. Nothing else, just stupid. I'm Ok with the women doing it though. I like a little skin now and then.

Double standard of course.

I am an extremely bold person so I have no trouble asking these kids why they do it and I have fun making fun of them to their face.

Try it some time USA1, just ask one the blokes why he has his pants down around his knees...and if he even knew they were there.

Makes for good fun.

ah, there ain't nothin wrong with that.

By beating him to a pulp. Is that good enough for you?

You have lowered yourself to be like the terrorists....the ones your purport to hate.
Violence begetting violence begets more violence...haven't you noticed?

Saying and doing are two different things. Stop playing the omniscient one.

like I said, your bravado is merely a whimper....a very whiny tiresome whimper

and could be considered the same kind of hate speech Ward Churchill speaks....

What I'd like to do to this man in my dreams is not the point. What HE is actually doing, is the issue.

He's a man speaking his piece...just like you and I...except he has a bigger audience...that's all.

I don't care how stupid or ignorant someone is...they should at least be allowed to speak and expose their ignorance and stupidity.

If I thought about or did bodily harm to all those people I disagreed with or who angered me....there wouldn't be many live people and I would be a festering open wound of hate myself.

Why are you arguing with me?

I've already said he can say what he wants and respect it the right to do so.

Stop it.

Now that he has exposed his ignorance and stupidity he should be fired. This is not about free speech. It's about how your tax dollars and my tax dollars are being spent to promote agendas that the overwhelming majority of Americans would find deeply offensive.

(Why is this subject in the Iraq forum, anyway?)

Forget it…

The problem is that his free speech gives comfort to enemies of the U.S.

That is my problem with him.

This is what the guy said about those who worked in the twin towers. The Nazi thing comes at the end when he calls them "little Eichmanns".

I believe the peak of immorality in the U.S. has already occured and we are just seeing aftershocks from it now. It peaked when President Clinton lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinksky, directly to the camera and America. Not to mention the careless disregard and disrespect of the Presidency and the Oval Office itself, where he committed his acts of adultery.

I'm pretty sure it's gonna get worse than that...

If people took the time to actually read his essay, I think they would understand the analogy. It seems that any reference to Nazis suddenly becomes taboo. I mean did anyone actually read the essay or understand his usage of the term "little Eichmans"?

Some companies in the WTC, as well as many other companies around the world (this is not exclusive to the U.S.) profit from the suffering of others. You could take some random company that makes huge profits in the U.S. and then dumps chemicals in some poor community destroying the water supply and infrastructure. So how does that relate to Eichman?

Adolf Eichman, when he was tried for crimes commited during the Holocaust, used in his defense the fact that he did not set policy in the Third Reich, that he was simply an employee doing his job. If an employee is working for a company whose policies are causing harm to others in other countries that employee has a moral obligation to resist, even if it means losing his or her job. The court of world opinion, much like the court at Nuremburg, sees the participants as guilty as the leaders. This is the reason the analogy was used. Whether I agree with his assessment or not is irrelevant, but I think people are just distorting his words without reading the essay that has been around for years now.

sordidmesh taking the words that I hear many ignorant people use, if you don't like it, then leave the country. If you hate his freedom of speech so much then leave.

You are so selfish and only concerned about yourself InnerCity.

You don't see the demise of this country because you add to it.

I see it. And all I can say is that when the time comes, you guys with your liberal do it because it feels good attitudes are going to lose big.

I'm neither a conservative or a liberal. I sometimes agree with both, sometiems I agree with neither. But usually I agree with conservatives on a lot of issues.

Regaurdless. Here's to lying, stealing, and drinking:

If you're gonna lie, lie for a friend. If you're gonna steal, steal a heart. If you're gonna drink, drink with me!

Sowhat,

The challenge for you then is to contribute to change the system from inside it. We all can do that at our level. I know it is difficult because there are loops of regulation inside each organization, correcting deviations and excluding those who don't follow the "politically correct" official line (I mean - big money "political correctness").
Anyway - each of us can do something. This is not a communist-related dogma I am introducing here, I am referring to the wrongdoings big companies are doing worldwide. Public opinion matters and it starts by the opinion of the people inside these organizations.
Now the concern is - how much are we ready to loose to comply with our own set of moral values ? I for one have already left too a company I disagred with the social policy.

Churchhill says these things as to shed light on his belief that we, "America" deserved the WTC bombings. This is what upsets the masses, and it is not about freedom of speech, although he will use it in his defense of his stupid remarks. Those who lost family in TWC bombing are standing up to his claim. I for one think he is self righteous hypocrite. If he believes we deserve it, he also is a contributor to our policies by simply being an American citizen. As a professor, this is the same thing as teaching children your own personal political views as part of a curriculum. Not advisable. Many of his students do not agree with his remarks.