View Full Version : Should Churchill be canned?
About 3 years ago a Univ. Colorado professor wrote an essay addressing the 9/11 attacks. In the essay he likened the victims of the attacks as 'little Eichmans' or Nazi's. Although the essay got little attention when it was first written, it has lately come again into the light when the professor spoke on the article in a guest speaking event in New York.
Churchill later clarified that he only referred to those inside the towers (the technocrats) as the victims in his essay. Further stating that the firefighters, passer's by, and so forth were not to be included in his assessment.
Because of this latest attention to Churchill's essay and public speaking concerning the essay's content, Colorado's Governor wants to have Churchill fired from his position as a tenured professor at the University. The Govenor said he wasnt seeking termination for what he's saying, only that he shouldnt represent a state university while he's saying it.
I have to say, as much as I disagree with what Churchill says, as long as he chooses where and when he says it so it does not violate the 2 tests for freedom of speech then he's got a right to say it.
Should he be fired? It depends on several things. First, does the controversy he's created with this essay violate any code of conduct as a tenured professor within that university? Second, is he representing himself or his essay as a product of that state university and using the benefits associated with that relationship to push the essay's agenda or controversy and is that in violation of his code of conduct as a representative of a state institution.
I do think it was a bad move, and possibly a violation of one of the freedom of speech tests by giving a lecture on that particular essay in New York of all places. If anything those flammitory remarks could incite a crowd to violence real easy in that particular city.
CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/02/09/colorado.prof.ap/index.html)
Bobmuhthol
02-09-2005, 07:26 PM
I couldn't agree with this guy more.
lolitsoppositedaylol
Latrinsorm
02-09-2005, 07:34 PM
I thought the point of tenure was so people didn't get fired for voicing politically unpopular views. I'm sure the University doesn't like having their name mentioned in the same paragraph as this guy, but tenure is tenure.
Valthissa
02-09-2005, 07:36 PM
Universities should be more careful in granting tenure. Having said that, I think that he should retain his position.
C/Valth
Mistomeer
02-09-2005, 07:39 PM
He's a represenative of the University, and by extension, of the State of Colorado as it's a state funded University. If they don't like the way he is representing them, then, sure, why not fire him?
I agree. Can him.
- Arkans
Latrinsorm
02-09-2005, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by Mistomeer
If they don't like the way he is representing them, then, sure, why not fire him? tenure - The status of holding one's position on a permanent basis
That's why.
Tenure also shouldn't constitute that once your in you can say what you want without fear of retribution. Tough call, imo. Put him on a short leash maybe.
Mistomeer
02-09-2005, 10:21 PM
Tenure is still conditional employment.
Force him to teach Freshman level logic or something.... thats a punishment almost worse than death.
Originally posted by Ganalon
Force him to teach Freshman level logic or something.... thats a punishment almost worse than death. Taking a logic class is also a punishment worse than death. Good call.
Obviously churchill needs to shoot the chair and the dean. Then no one will be able to fire him! I am a genius.
Hulkein
02-09-2005, 10:52 PM
Ahhh, symbolic logic.
That class was exciting.
Makkah
02-09-2005, 11:23 PM
Fire his dumb ass.
rht
This brought to you by the contraction "you're" meaning "you are"
Nah, far worse things have been said.
Nakiro
02-10-2005, 12:10 AM
He should be "promoted" to head director of University Waste Management - a job which would consist of emptying porta-potties and cleaning urinals.
Parkbandit
02-10-2005, 08:34 AM
If I were the head of the University, you can be damned sure I would fire his ass. Sorry.. I'm all about the freedom of speech, but dammit, you are representing the school when you go out and do your speeches. It's a bad reflection on the school and not good for business.
Good bye.
It was a stupid thing to say and a stupid place to say it. I would expect more from my professors.
Warriorbird
02-10-2005, 08:41 AM
"I'm all about freedom of speech..."
Parkbandit
02-10-2005, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by Warriorbird
"I'm all about freedom of speech..."
This isn't anything about freedom of speech. He was and is employed by the University and as such should conduct himself when on a speaking engagement. It's still a job with certain rules.
What job allows you to say anything you want, whenever you want?
Warriorbird
02-10-2005, 09:05 AM
Tenure is designed TO allow freedom of speech. If he violated a specific code, that's one thing. I hate what Bob Jones University represents. I hate what the KKK spouts. If Bob Jones University chooses to, one of their professors can say the 9-11 victims died because they were all gay and not be fired for it. That is their right. It allows for unpopular views to be spoken, be they wacko conservative or wacko liberal.
Now, do I think the families of the 9-11 victims have the right to sue him?
Hell yeah.
[Edited on 2-10-2005 by Warriorbird]
Parkbandit
02-10-2005, 09:12 AM
I'm not too familiar with the term "Tenure", but from my understanding, it doesn't grant you the ability to speak on the University's behalf whatever you want. Perhaps I am simply wrong in that definition.
It's still a business and as such will still have rules. How many students have now changed their mind and applied to another University because of this fuck?
StrayRogue
02-10-2005, 09:20 AM
Heh, considering some schools/colleges teach Christian Science and such, I think we can let this guy off. The outspoken lecturer isn't a rare thing.
Warriorbird
02-10-2005, 09:34 AM
Yeah, those schools represent Parkbandit's party, though.
You are allowed to speak on your own behalf while tenured.
Parkbandit
02-10-2005, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by Warriorbird
Yeah, those schools represent Parkbandit's party, though.
You are allowed to speak on your own behalf while tenured.
Yea, because as an athiest I really believe in that shit.
:rolleyes:
Been there (years and years of Sunday School) done that.. finally woke up and realized there isn't some all powerful alien that is all over the world at every moment watching everyone.
Parkbandit
02-10-2005, 10:04 AM
Is it true that the paper was chock full of inaccuracies and even the footnotes didn't match up to his sources? Someone just told me that at work, but I haven't done any digging into it.
Warriorbird
02-10-2005, 10:07 AM
Domination theology is the core of Bush's own belief system. You're buying into that by voting.
Parkbandit
02-10-2005, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by Warriorbird
Domination theology is the core of Bush's own belief system. You're buying into that by voting.
I'm not "buying" into anything by voting my friend. I simply believe that Bush was a more capable President than Kerry.. and as such voted that way. Just because I voted for Bush doesn't make me a bible toting Christian.
CrystalTears
02-10-2005, 11:01 AM
PB has stated several times that he doesn't agree with Bush's religious stances, but that overall he believed Bush was the better choice.
OMG I can't wait until 2008 cause I really can't handle these sour grapes for the next four years.
I think part of being a University Professor is the ability to voice opinions that may not be popular. It is a repressive society that silences the voice of the academic. In a fair, open, and democratic society academics should be able to voice unpopular and controversial opinions.
I am pleased to see that even those who virulently disagree with Churchill support his right to free speech and to remain employed by the university.
[i]“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”.[i]
[Edited on 2-10-2005 by xtc]
Parkbandit
02-10-2005, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by CrystalTears
PB has stated several times that he doesn't agree with Bush's religious stances, but that overall he believed Bush was the better choice.
OMG I can't wait until 2008 cause I really can't handle these sour grapes for the next four years.
LOL... you don't think there will be sour grapes when another Republican is elected? Or how about the sour grapes from the Republican side when a Democrat gets elected?
There will always be sour grapes.
Warriorbird
02-10-2005, 11:18 AM
:grins: Just doing the "card carrying liberal" "card carrying ACLU member" game in reverse.
Sure it galls me when people say some of the awful things they do in this country. I like that we can say them though.
Warriorbird
02-10-2005, 11:22 AM
:chuckles: So. Only way to dismiss reality is to claim that it's, "sour grapes." I'm sorry. There's a fundamentalist Christian perspective to the Republican Party. A huge one. Folks like the fellow who made that "God Hates Fags" website are Republicans. Karl Rove spun an issue that should've been about American freedom (gay marriage amendments) into political percentage points. There's despciable people who are liberals, too, like this professor. Everybody's gotta deal with all of em. If we didn't, we'd be even more like some of the countries we "hate."
Parkbandit
02-10-2005, 11:40 AM
Theres a big difference from "buying" into the whole God thing because I voted Republican.. and having people who believe in God in the Republican Party.
CrystalTears
02-10-2005, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Originally posted by CrystalTears
PB has stated several times that he doesn't agree with Bush's religious stances, but that overall he believed Bush was the better choice.
OMG I can't wait until 2008 cause I really can't handle these sour grapes for the next four years.
LOL... you don't think there will be sour grapes when another Republican is elected? Or how about the sour grapes from the Republican side when a Democrat gets elected?
There will always be sour grapes.
I do realize that, it just seems to be the worse case that I've noticed.
Warriorbird
02-10-2005, 12:33 PM
It must be so difficult for you.
Parkbandit
02-10-2005, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by Warriorbird
It must be so difficult for you.
Voting Republican and not believing in God?
It's SO MUCH BETTER than the alternative.
Warriorbird
02-10-2005, 12:43 PM
Oh no, I was referring to CT.
:chuckles:
As far as I'm concerned, blowing smoke while denying conditions must be terribly difficult.
That and I still think the fellow shouldn't be fired, just as much as ridiculous conservatives shouldn't be fired.
CrystalTears
02-10-2005, 12:50 PM
I don't understand what you mean it must be difficult for me.
It has felt, to me, that this election has caused the most sour grapes because Bush won and Kerry didn't. Maybe it's because this one has been the most controversial.
There's nothing "difficult" about any of it for me except that it turns me off to want to even discuss it with anyone, even people I agree with, because they get SO pissed off with the opposite point of view. I read it all to get several points of views, and only comment here or there because I'm not the best debater so my argument falls in the cracks. :shrug:
[Edited on 2/10/2005 by CrystalTears]
Hulkein
02-10-2005, 12:55 PM
Kerry is the same religion as me... I'd rather have Bush in office for a plethora of reasons not dealing with religion - I would've voted for Bush over Kerry if every one of their moral stances were the same, period.
Sour grapes.
In my case, I didn’t like Bush Jr. until after 9/11. As time went on, the more I’ve disagreed and I don’t think anyone can argue that I haven’t voiced that opinion from before the election.
Sour grapes is reserved for playground sports and science fair losers.
Ugh. This is not about Kerry or Bush and I'm sure had Kerry won I'd have as much to detest about his administration as I do the current one. No politician is perfect.
Anyway, I don't think firing him for expressing his views would be appropriate unless this University is trying to set a precedent for ridding themselves of tenured professors who speak when they should probably be shutting the fuck up. He should be held responsible for his actions but a move like that would no doubt ruin his reputation and possibly his career.
CrystalTears
02-10-2005, 01:03 PM
I see him in the same light as Michael Moore. A very intelligent person who says what he likes, and if they fire him, it's just going to fuel him into doing it more, getting justice for getting fired, and give him more publicity.
He should be reprimanded, but I don't think he should get fired for sharing his point of views. Just as long as he doesn't treat his ideals as absolute facts and doesn't flunk someone for not using it in their thesis. :D
[Edited on 2/10/2005 by CrystalTears]
Parkbandit
02-10-2005, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by CrystalTears
I see him in the same light as Michael Moore. A very intelligent person who says what he likes, and if they fire him, it's just going to fuel him into doing it more, getting justice for getting fired, and give him more publicity.
He should be reprimanded, but I don't think he should get fired for sharing his point of views. Just as long as he doesn't treat his ideals as absolute facts and doesn't flunk someone for not using it in their thesis. :D
[Edited on 2/10/2005 by CrystalTears]
Michael Moore works for himself. Churchill works for the University.
One is free speech. One is acting in such a manner that could damage the University's reputation.
Freedom of Speech, in my opinion, has no bearing in this argument. Did he or did he not act in a manner that damaged the reputation of the University? My argument is that he did. If he were on my staff.. he would be fired, tenure and all.
CrystalTears
02-10-2005, 01:21 PM
Unfortunately some are looking at it that way. That he's a teacher with tenure and is just stating his points of view.
Then again I tend to change my view on whether he should get fired or not. Sitting here I feel that he should just be reprimanded. Catch me after watching him on the news flaunting around on campus as though his shit doesn't stink, I scream that they fire the asshat.
[Edited on 2/10/2005 by CrystalTears]
It's not easy to just up and fire a tenured professor. Also, If he's fired he will likely file suit against the school. The University must weigh those options as well.
Parkbandit
02-10-2005, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by DeV
It's not easy to just up and fire a tenured professor. Also, If he's fired he will likely file suit against the school. The University must weigh those options as well.
Yea, I guess I am not taking this whole "tenured" thing as solid as it sounds. I simply cannot believe that someone who is employed by others is free to basically do as he pleases.
By the way, I've never had a problem getting rid of people I deemed bad for business.
:smug:
Lavastene
02-10-2005, 03:02 PM
To quote Anthony Lappé:
"But there’s a big difference between the right to speak your mind, and being right. And I think he’s dead wrong."
That sums up my position rather nicely. I don't think it is something that he should be fired over. But I don't think he is anywhere near the truth.
- Matt
Nakiro
02-10-2005, 03:20 PM
He is condoning and encouraging genocide on Americans.
Originally posted by Nakiro
He is condoning and encouraging genocide on Americans.
This is not true. Churchill has stated that his comments do not apply to all Americans.
Nakiro
02-10-2005, 03:59 PM
Go ahead and point out which ones he thinks should be exempt from the horror of jumping from a ninity story burning building for being apart of an economic power that provides finical support for their military?
We all contribute and support our government, and subsuquently our military, in some way. In this way alone Churchill deems us guilty of such a fate.
TheRoseLady
02-10-2005, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by Hulkein
Kerry is the same religion as me... I'd rather have Bush in office for a plethora of reasons not dealing with religion - I would've voted for Bush over Kerry if every one of their moral stances were the same, period.
Man....it kind of disturbs me that you share the same religion as me as well. J/K
I wouldn't have voted for Bush even if he were Catholic and had a cool confirmation name.
Warriorbird
02-10-2005, 10:31 PM
Funny how varied y'all are. That Church really does represent many many different kinds of people.
Ey mang, dis guy should initiate a pre-emptive attack and kill the dean and the chair, that way he be protectin' his freedoms that are bein' all threatened and shyt up in dis piece.
Originally posted by Nakiro
Go ahead and point out which ones he thinks should be exempt from the horror of jumping from a ninity story burning building for being apart of an economic power that provides finical support for their military?
We all contribute and support our government, and subsuquently our military, in some way. In this way alone Churchill deems us guilty of such a fate.
His quote was about particpation, not financial support. So he wasn't advocating genocide.
I am not saying I support his view. I am saying I defend his right to say it.
He has his right to say it, but as an educator, I am worried about him trying to indoctrinate his class with his psychotic beliefs.
- Arkans
Originally posted by Arkans
He has his right to say it, but as an educator, I am worried about him trying to indoctrinate his class with his psychotic beliefs.
- Arkans
I agree this is a concern. However I don't think he should be fired. A faculty should be balanced some right, some left to provide a variety of views.
Frankly, a faculty can be 100% liberal or 100% conservative as far as I am concerned. What *SHOULD* be the the ideal case is that no political rhetoric should be allowed in the classroom, period. Unless it is a course that specifically deals with it and the instructor is using his views as a jump off point for a debate, why even allow it to be mentioned? Unfortunately, bias is unavoidable, so a balance faculty really is the only way to go.
- Arkans
That would be a factor in the University's decision. Does he teach these types of views in the classrom? If this guy has an iota of sense, he, like most liberal or conservative professors, would not and leave it as something he does on his own personal time.
This guy is ridiculously out spoken. I have a hard time believing that he does not preach in class.
- Arkans
Warriorbird
02-11-2005, 11:53 AM
Depends on what your view of political rhetoric is however, Arkans. Many conservatives would believe evolution and the Vietnam War being bad were political rhetoric.
Originally posted by Arkans
Frankly, a faculty can be 100% liberal or 100% conservative as far as I am concerned. What *SHOULD* be the the ideal case is that no political rhetoric should be allowed in the classroom, period. Unless it is a course that specifically deals with it and the instructor is using his views as a jump off point for a debate, why even allow it to be mentioned? Unfortunately, bias is unavoidable, so a balance faculty really is the only way to go.
- Arkans
This works in an ideal world. Professors may tone it down in class but their bias comes through loud and clear.
I don't mind him preaching his ridiculous theories as long as there are other professors who are on the other side of the spectrum.
The chances of a good conservative professor teaching a class that reaches lots of students is kind of slim though. Not impossible, but not enough to balance it out, unfortunately.
- Arkans
Latrinsorm
02-11-2005, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by Parkbandit
It's still a business and as such will still have rules. How many students have now changed their mind and applied to another University because of this fuck?I certainly wouldn't apply for a professorship there if I knew I'd get canned if I said something they didn't like.
Arkans: give kids a little credit, eh? :)
Parkbandit
02-11-2005, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Originally posted by Parkbandit
It's still a business and as such will still have rules. How many students have now changed their mind and applied to another University because of this fuck?I certainly wouldn't apply for a professorship there if I knew I'd get canned if I said something they didn't like.
Arkans: give kids a little credit, eh? :)
But chances are, you wouldn't say something so outrageously fucked up as this professor. I am of the mind that this professor is so fucking whacked out of his mind on this retarded view that it gives his employer, the University, a bad image.
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Originally posted by Parkbandit
It's still a business and as such will still have rules. How many students have now changed their mind and applied to another University because of this fuck?I certainly wouldn't apply for a professorship there if I knew I'd get canned if I said something they didn't like.
Arkans: give kids a little credit, eh? :)
But chances are, you wouldn't say something so outrageously fucked up as this professor. I am of the mind that this professor is so fucking whacked out of his mind on this retarded view that it gives his employer, the University, a bad image.
I don't agree with this Professor's statement but that this is my opinion. Just as it is your opinion that his statement is fucked. There are a lot of people who do agree with him, he received a standing ovation by his students.
Universities should be bastions of free speech no matter how ridiculous the ideas.
[Edited on 2-11-2005 by xtc]
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.