Here's an idea: instead of firing him, just create a new department and make him the chairman: The University of Colorado's Department of Pretentious Wacko Studies!<br><br><br>[b][i]9/11 Prof Tells Crowd: 'I'm Not Backing Up'<br><br>Wednesday, February 09, 2005<br><br>BOULDER, Colo. — An embattled Colorado University professor who compared Sept. 11 victims to Nazis struck a defiant tone during a campus speech, saying "I'm not backing up an inch."<br><br>Ward Churchill (search), who had filed a lawsuit after officials at the state-funded university threatened to cancel his address, was interrupted several times by applause as he spoke to more than 1,000 people Tuesday night.<br><br>Churchill has resigned as chairman of the university's ethnic studies department. Gov. Bill Owens (search) has called for Churchill to be fired, and the university's Board of Regents is investigating whether the tenured professor can be removed.<br><br>"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 to thunderous applause. "I'm not backing up an inch. I owe no one an apology."<br><br>In an essay, Churchill wrote that workers in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns," a reference to Adolf Eichmann (search), who ensured the smooth running of the Nazi system. Churchill also spoke of the "gallant sacrifices" of the "combat teams" that struck America.<br><br>The ethnic studies professor said Tuesday his essay was referring to "technocrats" who participate in what he calls repressive American policies around the world.<br><br>A longtime American Indian Movement (search) activist, he said he is also culpable because his efforts to change the system haven't succeeded. "I could do more. I'm complicit. I'm not innocent," he said.<br><br>The Boulder Faculty Assembly (search), 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.<br><br>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.<br><br>The essay and follow-up book attracted little attention until Churchill was invited to speak last month at Hamilton College (search) in Clinton, N.Y., which later canceled his talk out of security concerns.<br><br>University of Colorado officials cited those same concerns but backed off after Churchill filed a lawsuit earlier Tuesday asking a judge to force the school to let him speak.<br><br>The crowd Tuesday night was loud and orderly as Churchill spoke: "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.<br><br>About two dozen police officers were scattered inside and around the ballroom where the speech was given. Most of those attending supported Churchill.<br><br>"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."<br><br>The ACLU (search) 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."<br><br>David Horowitz (search), 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.<br><br>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.<br><br>

Excellent comment from Powerline:<br><br>David Bell worries that Churchill may not be as outlandish a specimen of academia as one would hope:<br>It is a good thing that you and others are pointing out the frauds and misdeeds of Ward Churchill. But there are two larger points that need to be made about this.<br><br> First, how did the University of Colorado allow such a preposterous fraud to rise so high in their institution? And how many other such frauds are on their tenured faculty, and why? What strange mission is UofC on (with taxpayer money, no less?)<br><br>Second, what does this say about the state of American academia? The fact is that Churchill is only one of the most ludicrous examples (let us hope) of what has become business as usual on even the most prestigious of campuses. To wit, as long as someone claims to be a member of an officially-sanctioned victims’ group, and as long as he says and writes “controversial” (read “polemical”) attacks on The Man, who really cares whether his credentials, his writings or his utterances have the slightest basis in fact? After all, “fact” itself is a quaintly naïve notion in the lofty redoubts of academia today, except for all the facts the deconstructionists, polemics and Oppression Studies charlatans get to assert, with immunity from the laws of deconstruction, contextualism and so on that they impose on all others.<br><br>Ward Churchill is only an absurdly extreme example of a pandemic that has all but destroyed the great universities of this country... But the real story is the iceberg of which Ward Churchill is merely a small broken off chard. The larger story is one people like David Horowitz are flogging, but I think it is important one for the blogosphere to pick up---as important as the exposing of the fraudulent and seditious MSM. And the Churchill incident is the perfect occasion to begin to raise the broader theme.<br><br>

i am surprised by much of what i read from others on this forum, yet i also understand that you can hold views on this public forum that may never reach your bosses desk and may never affect your employment. perhaps some of you are even posting on company time??? in any regard, churchill probably included his scholarly work in his university portfolio as his extra curricular writing would not do anything to help him get promoted, tenured, etc. i was recently promoted and i chose not to include my letters to the editor. i did mention that part of my community service was working on the john kerry campaign. they did not recognize political work as counting; fortunately, i tutor in schools as well and was promoted. i would guess that churchill's controversial writing is not considered by CU either. i'd guess he does fine work in his field even if he's a bit wacky on his politix.<br><br>--<br>Straw-man rhetorical techniques are the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents offer. 2 "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is 2 create a position easily refuted, then attribute that position to your opponent.

First off, congratulations on your promotion!<br><br>But I digress (and on my own time): It appears that the problem with Churchill is more than his wacko politix. He has also been accused of fraud and plagiarism, and his claim to be part Cherokee is most likely bogus - all of which reflect on his academic integrity.<br><br>Here's an example.<br><br>

Churchill? Past present future, now... <br>let me see<br>surely everyone takes a side<br>destructive or peace loving...<br>as for blood and oil<br>since the blood was spilt that day of corrupt ambition at the WTC<br>it should not be confused with dying for oil<br><br>you think energy heads of inc. stating the well will run dry and<br>"start signing up for solar/wind/tidal... hydrogen"?<br>HELLO<br><br>keep your eye on the prize<br>unfortunatley<br>not who dies and becomes a tool of media headlines<br>even shaking hands is ONLY a gesture<br>not a deciding factor<br>not a fundamental in the life by numbers<br><br>seeya<br><br>

At what kinds of things are you surprised? And why should it matter (to you, anyway) who else sees this stuff or from where it's posted? Maybe I'm missing a point here, but it reads like an admonishment meant for an unruly 2nd grader.<br><br>I mean, it appears — according to several reports — that Churchill is not exactly above reproach on a number of issues aside from his provocative 9/11 remarks. So why so taken aback by the criticism leveled at him here?<br><br>

steve, i was not clear with my statement. i merely meant that comments on this forum in general will surprise me; not that comments about churchill surprise me. i am not surprised at all that people are highly critical of the guy as he's earned criticism.<br><br>--<br>Straw-man rhetorical techniques are the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents offer. 2 "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is 2 create a position easily refuted, then attribute that position to your opponent.

To borrow a line from an Oklahoma Congressman, I'm outraged at the outrage.<br><br>Well, that's a bit strong. Actually, I'm not outraged or even surprised by the reaction this story has gotten. Conversely though, I'm not surprised that a university, even as large as the University of Colorado could be defrauded by someone. These things happen sometimes. It's not good, and yes something should be done about it, but with the volume of academics that pass through every university, people should know that a ringer is going to sneak through every now and again. The important thing is to investigate it fully.<br><br>Now as far as that Powerline nonsense is concerned, it's just another partisan opportunity. The author makes reference to that great work David Horowitz does. Well, according to David Horowitz, American Democrats are responsible for September 11th, and despite the fact that I've seen him on my campus more than any so-called liberal commentator or author, UIC is a closed minded institution unwelcoming of conservatives. (We also had Andrew Sulivan on campus, but he kicked ass.)<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey

we had a person accused of lying on his vita when i first arrived at my current university . . . there was an investigation and the investigation resulted in the professor being let go. being accused is not grounds for dismissal. if churchill is found guilty of doing what some are accusing him of doing then i think he may be let go; though, i haven't read much about the specific accusations. <br><br>--<br>Straw-man rhetorical techniques are the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents offer. 2 "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is 2 create a position easily refuted, then attribute that position to your opponent.

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>...according to David Horowitz, American Democrats are responsible for September 11th,...<p><hr></blockquote><p>Here's what Horowitz said. Decide for yourself.<br><br><br><br>