Comments on: Academic freedoms and Ward Churchill

By: Juegos de casinos

Juegos de casinos — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 12:08:41 +0000

Very useful comments - good to read

By: Oscar

Oscar — Tue, 08 Feb 2005 00:04:52 +0000

Ward Churchill should be fired if it is proven that he is either incompetent, or that he got his postion under false pretenses (in which case I would support firing the committee that fell for those pretenses.) Barring those two reasons, why should UC get rid of him?

By: David T. Beito

David T. Beito — Sun, 06 Feb 2005 20:14:07 +0000

During this week, academic freedom has not only been under assault at the University Colorado but also at UNLV. In many ways, this case is even more troubling.

For more on Hans Hermann-Hoppe, see here

By: David T. Beito

David T. Beito — Sun, 06 Feb 2005 20:13:00 +0000

During this week, academic freedom has not only been under assault at the University Colorado but also at UNLV. In many ways, this case is even more troubling.

For more on Hans Hermann-Hoppe, see here

By: David T. Beito

David T. Beito — Sun, 06 Feb 2005 20:11:15 +0000

During this week, academic freedom has not only been under assault at the University Colorado but also at UNLV. In many ways, this case is even more troubling.

For more on Hans Hermann-Hoppe, see here

By: abb1

abb1 — Sun, 06 Feb 2005 19:02:45 +0000

Einstein could not really be touched because of his pre-eminence. One does not openly persecute the greatest physicist after Isaac Newton, for basically harmless political views, unless one is a Nazi. Well, it depends on the meaning of ‘touch’. According to reviews of The Einstein File: J. Edgar Hoover’s Secret War Against the World’s Most Famous Scientist

From 1933 until 1955, the Federal Bureau of Investigation compiled a 2,000-page file on Albert Einstein, hoping to “destroy” his immense stature by linking him to Soviet espionage activities. At one point, not long before the scientist’s death, a serious attempt was made to have him deported. … Accusations of subversive activity ranged from the surreal (mind control and death rays) to carelessly recycled Nazi propaganda. Hoover’s only hope lay in exposing Einstein as a Soviet spy, a task he fruitlessly pursued from 1950 to 1955 (when Einstein died). … It was part of Hoover’s secret, 23-year campaign to undermine Einstein’s influence, a campaign that included illegally opening the scientist’s mail, monitoring his phone, trying to link him to Soviet spies, and trying to take away his American citizenship – a campaign detailed for the first time in The Einstein File.

By: mw

mw — Sun, 06 Feb 2005 18:49:21 +0000

I think though that this present furore is pretty harmless compared to what happened then. The person involved has not lost his job, and neither is he the subject of govt investigation. However, I believe that this is indicative of a general trend among many right-wing circles to use straw men to attack anyone who disagrees with them. Straw men? Ward Churchill seems flesh & blood enough to me. I don’t see any problem with those who are offended by Churchill’s writings in: 1. Calling public attention to them. 2. Protesting his occupying a position of authority at a state university or being honored with speaking invitations by other universities. I have a hard time seeing a problem with either of these activities. They are nothing like secret government surveillance nor being called to testify before the HUAC.

By: mw

mw — Sun, 06 Feb 2005 18:48:31 +0000

By: v

Sun, 06 Feb 2005 18:27:16 +0000

“There is an enormous difference between secret government surveillance and …” Einstein could not really be touched because of his pre-eminence. One does not openly persecute the greatest physicist after Isaac Newton, for basically harmless political views, unless one is a Nazi. However, the McCarthy hearings very much were in the business of public persecution of anyone who had remotely communist opinions, and they did try to go after academics. Also, secret govt surveillance is sufficient to ruin a person’s ability to get employed if the govt so chooses, and this is not exactly a trivial thing. I think though that this present furore is pretty harmless compared to what happened then. The person involved has not lost his job, and neither is he the subject of govt investigation. However, I believe that this is indicative of a general trend among many right-wing circles to use straw men to attack anyone who disagrees with them. Another prime example of this is the fuss made in some circles about the non-recognition of Mel Gibson’s movie “The Passion”.

By: john c. halasz

john c. halasz — Sun, 06 Feb 2005 11:15:12 +0000

Just to be clear, when I remarked about what was most offensive about Churchill’s screed, I meant that much else in it was scarcely offensive: much of its points are susceptible to rational reconstruction. I find the readiness to take offence at Churchill’s remarks still more suspicious than Churchill’s desire to give offense. Something of the same sort of point was made by Sontag in the New Yorker immediately afterward,- the only objection being to the superciliousness of her tone,- and still better by another writer in the same issue, who had extensive experience touring the world’s war zones. The randomness of the violence of the 9/11 actrocity,- an objection to all terrorism,- is mirrored in the randomness of the much more extensive violence in “the other”. That would not, however, constitute a brief for setting up non-random violence as a rationalist ideal. Still, the idea that academics in their cubicles should be solely dedicated to the disinterested search for truth belies the larger context in which truth unfortunately is to be found. Churchill’s inauthenticity is perhaps the lesser instance.

By: abb1

abb1 — Sun, 06 Feb 2005 10:01:00 +0000

Questioning someone’s Indianness or Jewishness is like using the word ‘nigger’ – it’s very wrong when outsiders do it, but it’s the most common and most fun thing to do for the members of each group.

By: T. Paine

T. Paine — Sun, 06 Feb 2005 05:47:20 +0000

Two thoughts: First, it’s terribly interesting that discussion of Churchill’s writings have revolved around the media spin on them. I haven’t seen any actual, y’know, refutation of his central assertion. I don’t recall red herrings (identity politics!) or ad hominems (incivility!) qualifying as evidence. Second, is it any wonder that Churchill (and others) are militant in their rhetoric? There’s a commenter above denying his “Indian-ness”, for goodness sake! How many Jews (including me) can claim non-miniscule-fraction blood-based connection to Jewish people living in Israel 6,000 years ago? Why should we have to? It should be obvious that the same argument holds true for Churchill and his ethnicity. And this type of argument about who gets to be Indian helps to prove some of Churchill’s points.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Sun, 06 Feb 2005 02:45:52 +0000

“its self-appointed pose as moral spokesman for the oppressed.” Yup. Some of whom want nothing to do with him. It’s pretty funny, reading all those Native Americans saying Hey, he’s not one of our friends, and he’s not a Native American, either, he just says he is. And one wonders if Churchill seriously thinks al Qaida is on the side of the oppressed? I can think of one or two oppressed women who don’t think so.

By: john c. halasz

john c. halasz — Sun, 06 Feb 2005 02:00:44 +0000

Actually, having perused the original offending screed, what was most offensive about it was its self-appointed pose as moral spokesman for the oppressed. That there has been massive colonial/imperial violence perpetrated by the U.S. and other Western powers on weaker, non-Western peoples is very little in doubt, and the technological sophistication of the means is hardly a mitigation. But by what political reasoning or logic of political action or organization his screed was supposed to count as effective opposition to that violence is a mystery to me. It struck me as another instance of “leading with your chin.”

By: Jon

Jon — Sun, 06 Feb 2005 00:25:00 +0000

I don't recall Fox being too upset after the disgusting/psychotic post-9/11 culture war rage of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson: "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'" For more, see: "The American Taliban"