This idiot obviously painted a big target on his own forehead with his remarks about 9/11. But those remarks were not---and should not have been---grounds to can his ass. In his "scholarly" work and his "art," Churchill has---as the Board realized---plagiarized the works of others. For that he should have been---and was---fired.

There is no more academic freedom in the United States. We are turning into fucking Iran or Venezuela which we claim to hate so much.

Fuck Colorado.

There is no more academic freedom in the United States.

Bullshit. The academic freedom is still there. There are, however, consequences for not using the freedom wisely.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "free".

As anyone that is or has been involved with open source software will tell you: there is a difference between "free, as in beer" and "free, as in speech". That difference is rather simple once understood, but that understanding is difficult for some to grasp as you illustrate so eloquently.

"Free, as in beer" simply means there is no cost. No consequence. No price to pay.

"Free, as in speech" means there is no barrier. You will not be stopped. This type of "free" however doesn't mean you won't have to pay a price.

You seem to think it is academic "FREEdom, as in beer" never mind the glaringly obvious fact that it is SPEECH we are talking about here. Say what you want, study what you want, and put forth what ideas you want... but don't expect that you might not have to pay a price for it if you go over the top.

"There is no more academic freedom in the United States."

Academic freedom was lost because of the intolerance of plagarism? WOW! What else should professors be allowed? Changing grades of someone whose views they don't like? Copping a feel from the young pretties? I mean, if you think plagarism is OK, where do you draw the line at academic excesses?

Goatman, I'm with you. There are some things just not tolerated. Plagerism in academia is one. Other examples are soldiers wearing a ribbon not earned, or someone falsely claiming military service.

Oh, yes, the "official" reason for firing the guy is plagarism, but we all know why he was REALLY fired. For making controversial comments.

Academic freedom is important, damned important. Without it, we would be...well, living in a GOPiggy or Stalinist nightmare.

But Ward Churchill is a moronic asshole. If you'd ever met him (as I have), you'd almost certainly agree.

He wrote absolute shit for years, but was not fired for that. He claimed to be something he isn't (an American Indian), and wasn't fired for that, either. But he's also a plagiarist. For that, he was fired and rightly so.

If he had been fired for plagarism that would be good. But I am afraid it is just a cover story.

It happens in corporate America all the time. Lay off are a good way for managers to get rid of people they don't like. Mass lay offs tend to hide the fact that a manager may have a personal problem with an employee. And I think the same thing is happening here. Under cover of firing someone for a good reason, they are actually firing him because of the controversial comments he made.

I think I get your point, Member. I don't think there's any question that if Churchill hadn't made his idiotic remarks about 9/11 he wouldn't have ended up getting canned. But I also believe he provided those who wanted him out with all the material they needed to write him an exit ticket, by engaging in actions that qualify for inclusion under the "academic dishonesty" heading.

Years and years ago there was a guy named Morris Starsky, a philosophy professor who taught at Arizona State. We're talking early to mid Sixties. He was an odious fuck and he started taking loads of flak for protesting the Vietnam War. (At a time when the protesting was just getting started, before the 1967 march on the Pentagon.) Eventually, the board of regents canned his ass. Ostensibly, because they claimed (accurately)that he'd cancelled classes to participate in anti-war protests. The underlying cause was obviously his anti-war position. But the cause cited was unilaterally cancelling classes. In doing so, Starsky handed the regents the blade with which to terminate his academic career. So, too, Churchill. Hubris, perhaps?

Anyway, the fact that your position has merit, Member, is why those who are in favor of true academic freedom need to be ever watchful.

(Parenthetically--literally, in this case--Churchill and Starsky shared some personal qualities. I spoke to one of the lawyers who worked very hard on defending Starsky, and while he was a staunch defender of academic freedom he hated working with Starsky. "What an asshole," was his conclusion. In both cases, the professors in question were correct in recognizing that they were being targeted because their views were unpopular---something for which they could not be fired---and both provided their board of regens with legitimate cause for termination.)

"What an asshole,"


First they came for the assholes ...

I take you're point, Zat.

But when you hand your enemy a loaded gun and say, "I dare you to shoot me," are you not making a fatal error?

"First they came for the assholes ...

Posted by Zatoichi "

No! No! Don't take Rob from us!

"I dare you to shoot me," are you not making a fatal error?

Posted by Doc_Sarvis


Not if you loaded the gun.


Looks like this asswipe made enough errors to lose tenure anyway and this very public stupidity just "pulled the trigger."

Interesting story Doc.It's all political, in both cases, all political. And yes, making it easier for your enemies to come after you is a strategic mistake. (If only the Decider could figure this out :( )

We agree.

By the way, Zat, the pistola reference is born of an experience from 4:15 this morning. Our landline phone is acting up. At 4:15 there was a knock on the front door. The missus and I descended the stairs, me with a .38 S&W. I saw two chotas outside and laid the gun on a table. They'd been summoned by a 911 call the phone made on its own. I invited them in. I told them there was a pistol on the table. One of them shined his light on it and said, with a smile, "Excellent choice, sir!"

its about fuckin time...............

he has to have done somethin we don't know about -cause if his behavior in past
didn't get him canned before now it has to be somethin new
jasman

Plagiarism and bad taste is hardly a winning combination.

If professors were fired just for saying stupid shit (like calling 9/11 victims lil' eichmans) every prof in America would be out of a job. (Well maybe I exacgerate a little, but you get the idea).

Plagerism has always been a problem in America's schools, and now with teh interwebs you can just hop on the tubes and get any kind of paper or report you want. Many universities have a zero tolerance policy on plagerism, and I applaud Colorado for doing the same.

There is no more academic freedom in the United States. We are turning into fucking Iran or Venezuela which we claim to hate so much.
Stated like a true fool. This guy is free to plagerize and spew all the BS he wants. Just don't expect the taxpayers to pay him to do it.

Ward Churchill is an "academic" only in the sense that he was able to bullshit his way into a university.

If you read the "controversial" paper that got him in trouble, you'd realize that little thought or historical perspective went into it. By Ward Churchill's logic, anyone on this planet can be rightfully murdered as long as they belong to some ethnic group that at one time did something bad to others (that is all of us).

He was fired for plagirism. But if were fired because the taxpayers in Coloroda didn't want some complete phoney babbling his nonsense while using THEIR university to lend it credibility, that is perfectly reasonable as well.

The whole idea that some kind of "freedom" is lost when people decide not to employe a professor who spews nonsense and steals from others is absurd. Churchill is free to finance his own School of Selective Morality or whatever the fuck he wants to do. He just has zero right to expect others to foot the bill.

This guy is free to plagerize and spew all the BS he wants. Just don't expect the taxpayers to pay him to do it.

Posted by slicksterWilly at 2007-07-25 11:55 AM

YEAH!

Says the Rove supporter!

He just has zero right to expect others to foot the bill.

Posted by Sully

good thought

would that not apply to unwed mothers, illegals in ER's, welfare mothers et al?

its a good arguement and can be applied to a lot more situations than ward what an asshole churchill said .....

This is opressive. The Constitution guarantees the right to express yourself any way you want with out any fear of consequences.
If you disgrace the people you work for by acting like a schmuck in front of the national media that is your right.

This is sarcasm for all you humorless commies. Why don't you get a job and figure out how to think straight? Or do you get fired all the time for saying stupid shit like Ward Churchhill?

I take you're point, Zat.

But when you hand your enemy a loaded gun and say, "I dare you to shoot me," are you not making a fatal error?

Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2007-07-25 09:22 AM

Do you really get the point?

Is this not America? I was under the impression that we are all Americans here?

If I gave a gun to another American and say I dare you to shoot me? Why would that American shoot me?

Jesus also handed a "gun" to his enemies and said "shoot me" did he not?

We are not a Christian Nation... we are so far from it...

This man is an American right or wrong agree with him or not...

So, if we disagree with each other here in America we are enemies now?

How sad is that?

If one cannot speak out and dissent in the Academic world where is one safe to speak out anymore?

The water got just a weee bit warmer little froggies...but no worries it is for your own protection...

Security for all!

he was fired for plagiarism and misconduct not because he spoke his mind.

By the way, you scream fire in a theater you'll get arrested. You don't have total freedom and you never had it. Total freedom is anarchy. There are laws and rules to obey.

Get over it he's a nut job.

Is this not America?

Wait just a sec...going to the window...yeah, looks like America to me.

If I gave a gun to another American and say I dare you to shoot me? Why would that American shoot me?

Rereading needed. I said handing a gun to an "enemy."

Jesus also handed a "gun" to his enemies and said "shoot me" did he not?

Dunno. Wasn't there. All accounts are well after the fact, none by eyewitnesses.

If one cannot speak out and dissent in the Academic world where is one safe to speak out anymore?

Churchill spoke out for years, all sorts of crappola, and suffered no ill consequences from officialdom as a result.

His problem is he got caught plagiarizing. It's like cheating. No, not quite right. It is cheating. Also theft. That's what he got shitcannned for.

Sheesh.

The fact that it took this long indicates the U of C really made sure they dotted their "i's" and crossed their "t's."


By all accounts I have seen, this guy is a monumental prick, in spite of his views, not because of them.

His problem is he got caught plagiarizing. It's like cheating. No, not quite right. It is cheating. Also theft. That's what he got shitcannned for.




Posted by Doc_Sarvis


How many times does that point have to be made before it sinks in around here?

University Fires Ward Churchill


To me Ward looks like Imus with long hair. This episode just makes the similarity stronger.

"How many times does that point have to be made before it sinks in around here?"



Um, 12 ?

I think this shows that dumb ass comments like his on 911 and dumb ass actions like plagarism go hand in hand.

GOOD RIDDANCE TO BAD TRASH.

"would that not apply to unwed mothers, illegals in ER's, welfare mothers et al?"

No, if Ward goes on welfare because the poor decisions he's made have made him unemployable, that wouldn't bother me. I don't get off on feeling superior to or picking on people who have fucked up their lives.

I was talking about a high paying job that carries the responsibility of both education and grading young people. Not the position for a bigoted thief and hiding behind "academic freedom" can't change that.

There is no more academic freedom in the United States.

Bullshit. The academic freedom is still there. There are, however, consequences for not using the freedom wisely.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "free".

As anyone that is or has been involved with open source software will tell you: there is a difference between "free, as in beer" and "free, as in speech". That difference is rather simple once understood, but that understanding is difficult for some to grasp as you illustrate so eloquently.

"Free, as in beer" simply means there is no cost. No consequence. No price to pay.

"Free, as in speech" means there is no barrier. You will not be stopped. This type of "free" however doesn't mean you won't have to pay a price.

You seem to think it is academic "FREEdom, as in beer" never mind the glaringly obvious fact that it is SPEECH we are talking about here. Say what you want, study what you want, and put forth what ideas you want... but don't expect that you might not have to pay a price for it if you go over the top.

Posted by moomanfl at 2007-07-25 01:30 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


That is magnificient...

"If he had been fired for plagarism that would be good. But I am afraid it is just a cover story"

Are you suggesting his plagarism should've been ignored because of his political views?

"Free, as in speech" means there is no barrier. You will not be stopped. This type of "free" however doesn't mean you won't have to pay a price.


Posted by moomanfl at 2007-07-25 01:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

Using your argument, the Chinese and Russians have had Free Speech all of their lives? They just have to pay a higher price (death)??

Free, as in beer" simply means there is no cost. No consequence. No price to pay.

Did I miss something? Where is the FREE beer?

If I gave a gun to another American and say I dare you to shoot me? Why would that American shoot me?

Rereading needed. I said handing a gun to an "enemy."

In your "analogy" you equate the gun to his 9/11 paper and the University to the "enemy".

The "enemy" is just another American that disagrees with him...

So my point- If we disagree in America we are then considered enemies now?

How sad is that?

To the charges of Plagiarism- I cannot speak to those I have seen no evidence. Is firing the usual penalty for such plagiarizing? How many instances occurred? I cannot make a judgment there. I can tell you this whole episode stinks to high heaven and is appears to be the knee jerk reaction to his 9/11 paper.

There is no denying that.

"To the charges of Plagiarism- I cannot speak to those I have seen no evidence. Is firing the usual penalty for such plagiarizing? How many instances occurred? I cannot make a judgment there. I can tell you this whole episode stinks to high heaven and is appears to be the knee jerk reaction to his 9/11 paper."

A liberal institution does not fire one of its own for making liberal statements.

Okay, so the plagiarism probably wouldn't have been discovered if not for his inflammatory comments. Does that matter at all? Why? Does it mean he doesn't deserve to be canned for plagiarism? Does it matter how it was discovered that the guy is an intellectual thief and a fraud? The bottom line is that had he not stolen the work of others he would still have his job (for which he is woefully unqualified anyway, having read some of his work).

There is no evidence that the University was just looking for an excuse to fire him. Whenever someone is accused of plagiarism, it is taken seriously and investigated. Often, charges are leveled by someone who personally dislikes the accused. The accusations are still investigated. Often times, nothing comes of it, or it turns out to be an honest mistake in a citation or a careless failure to cite adequately. In such cases, there may be no punishment at all or a minor punishment. If a pattern is discovered, or if it is determined that a professor intentionally plagiarized, they will be punished harshly. Any professor caught plagiarizing as much and as egregiously as Churchill did will be fired. It really doesn't matter how it is found out or whether the person making the charge has a personal axe to grind. If the charges can be substantiated (as determined by an ethics committee), then action is taken.

In Churchill's case, we're not talking about merely making an occasional honest mistake in a citation. This wasn't a witch hunt. There was very real, very serious and very obvious cause for termination.

This will not have a chilling effect on academic freedom, except perhaps among professors who have stolen other scholars' work. But such people deserve to be fired anyway, regardless of their personal views on anything. The moral of the story is don't make inflammatory statements if you have a history of plagiarizing and producing shoddy scholarship. Attention whores get attention, and with attention comes scrutiny.

"He's an utter embarrassment to the University"

Can you say "last straw?"
I thought you could!

Some profs deserve to lose tenure; That's why it's possible. Even the President of the United States can be removed.

Even the President of the United States can be removed.

Posted by Zatoichi at 2007-07-25 06:42 PM


except Chimpy... we can't remove Chimpy...remember?

It's definitely something we have thought of but it's off the table.

Whatever that means.

Using your argument, the Chinese and Russians have had Free Speech all of their lives? They just have to pay a higher price (death)??

No, the Government actively tries to stop them (barrier) from exercising free speech.

The only thing that the 1st Amendment provides for you is protection from the government for speaking your mind. THAT is freedom of speech. It speaks nothing of possible social or professional consequences of reckless speech.

Think of the 1st Amendment like a sign at the edge of swamp land that reads "Enter at your own risk". You are free to enter the swamp. Just because it doesn't stop you from entering doesn't mean you are safe from quicksand. It simply means that the owner of the land won't stop you from going, and any consequences you render from recklessly blundering through are yours and yours alone.