Churchill Update
Christ, they don’t need to give that asswipe one fat nickel. CU had best grow some balls and do the right thing: shitcan Churchill and let him TRY to sue them for it.
Suppose UC decides to do nothing about Ward Churchill, or gives him a nice fat buyout. Would this result in even more public scrutiny of what is wrong with our college university system than if UC just quietly disappeared Churchill?
Although very noisy, Churchill’s supporters number very few. On a CBS4 Denver news poll roughly 92% of the people responding favored termination of Churchill. That is a mandate. I think the vast majority of these people are smart enough to recognize that the first amendment cannot be used as a shield to protect Ward Churchill from lying, acts of fraud, plagiarism, and host of other sins.
Ward Churchill is now serving as a lens to focus intense scrutiny on just what is wrong with with PC domination of vital public institutions. Keeping him on or buying him out may cause even more light to shine on the larger global issues than would otherwise happen.
Ward Churchill hangs like a millstone around the neck of the PC. Keeping him on may prove to be akin to ignoring a cancerous growth in the early stages. The PC may be sowing the seeds of their own demise by mounting a successful defense for this loser.
Posted by dukmn
02/28/2005 at 12:30 PM
Vilmar - That FrontPageMag article was a good find.
Heard an interview the other day on the radio here in Colorado with a professor about Churchill’s public persona prior to the 9/11 essay, Hamilton College controversy that put him in the public’s eye. The Prof said that while Churchill was not a well known figure in public, like Chomsky is, he was very well known figure in academic circles. He was a regular speaker at talking engagements like that one sponsered by Hamilton College, to the tune of dozens a year, and he was getting paid between two to three thousand dollars a pop per speaking engagement. Another observation that the Prof made was that since the early 90’s Churchill has been one of the major figures in academics pushing the idea that the U.S. is responsible, either directly or indirectly, for every atrocity made against any indigenous person world wide. One of the Prof conclusions was that if you look back over the past fifteen years and think about hollywood/political types that have publically regurgitated this idea, you will probably find one of Churchill’s books on their shelves. The point of the interview was to put to lie the idea that Churchill is just some lonesome nut job hiding in a building basement on the CU campus and that other academics did not take him seriously. Hell, if Chomsky said about Churchill “I’ve read a fair amount of his work, and a lot of it is excellent, penetrating and of high scholarly quality,” then we are talking about someone that has an influence on the ideas being taught on our campuses. The FrontPageMag article reinforces this idea. If Churchill didn’t have any influence he would not be getting the kind of support that he is getting today from the far left.In my mind this makes Churchill a more than worthy target for a take down. If the far left in academe are going to support Churchill without one word of criticism for his falsehoods, plagiarism, and fraud, then if we don’t take Churchill down they will have carte blanche to do whatever the fuck they want. If Churchill can get away with it they can too.
One thing about the “buy out”. If that happens then there will be a recall election for the Regents. It is already being talked about.
