Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

The bad Churchill

Andrew Busch was an undergraduate at the University of Colorado. He has a special interest in this ill-named Ward Churchill. Busch modestly advises:

Instead of being fired, perhaps he should be studied and examined, much as one might probe the victim of a once-rare psychiatric disorder that has become rampant. Ward Churchill might be more valuable to the opponents of the academic left employed than unemployed.

Above all, he can serve as a living window into the intellectual, moral, and political bankruptcy of the left.  

Discussions - 15 Comments


Two good nicknames for Professor Churchill have been proposed by right-wing columnists, or their headline writers:

"Sitting Bullshit" and "Psychiatric Ward."

Any further contributions to the list?

I don’t know how old you are, Mr. Frisk, but I’m glad to see you encourage mature and respectable discussion. What a way to answer to "intellectual and moral bankruptcy" name-calling is.

Yeah, I think Mr. Oliver summed that up rather nicely.

Here’s the best synopsis of the whole Ward Churchill scandal that I’ve seen so far.

Mr. Churchill can be used by opponents of Political Correctness. If someone tells you that you need to be punished for offending someone, then you just point out Mr. Churchill’s rantings as to why you shouldn’t be punished. Mr. Churchill is far more valuable employed then not because he will spell the end to PC. Use him as an excuse to offend all the Leftists until they scream for mercy and seek his firing themselves.

Ward is in fact, just a normal left leaning College Professor. To bad the WTC was not a University. Ward is a cold dimwit ameriblamerhater feeding from the trough of the taxpayers money. Those same taxpayers whose family’s were murdered on 9-11.

If he really had any guts he would quit taking money from the government and people he propounds his hatefull commentary upon.

It is also interesting that Ward has never shown one iota of documentary proof that he is indeed a "Native American." Indeed, he is one, as anyone born in America is in fact a Native American. What Weardo has never shown is that he is in part an American Indian.

In short Mr. Churchill is a hypocrate of extreme proportions.

PS do not give me any crap about Indians as I ARE 1.

Mr. Frisk I would propose that pseudo-doctor-academic Ward Churchill be referred to as Psycho Ward

Mr. Oliver, please lighten up a little. Why be serious all the time? Churchill is revealing himself to be a most unctous clown. Take a deep breath. Consider this:

Men will confess to treason, murder, arson, false teeth, or a wig. How many of them will own up to a lack of humor?
ATTRIBUTION: Frank Moore Colby (1865–1925), U.S. editor, essayist. “Satire and Teeth,” vol. 1, The Colby Essays (1926).

It’s Friday; the end of the work week. So unwind and smile.

Dan,



Game. Set. Match. Point made. :)



Now, in order to have a sense of humor, we must think it is funny to insult someone’s opinions to the point of personal name-calling.

Something else just occurred to me. Is it legal to libel and slander someone and then force them to pay you for doing it? Mr. Churchill seems to be doing just that.

Mr. Jacobs-

While it may seem prima facie that you have made a clever little discovery about the nature of Churchill’s job, I am under the impression that he is only "forcing" someone to pay him insofar as his mutually binding employment contract with the university provides that he receives payment in return for his fulfilling his job description. (His position, as far as I have heard, is tenured.)

Ward is in fact, just a normal left leaning College Professor.

Hardly. Things in academia are bad, but they’re not that bad.

I agree with Dr. Moser. I don’t think Ward would label himself left or right but insurgent. I also am not sure that PC is a bad thing. There is a difference between watering down an argument for the sake of not offending someone(that is a bad consequence of PC)when you believe such an argument needs to be made vs. offending someone on purpose by flaunting PC. i.e. focusing on the deformity of a paraplegic. I think that J.S. Mill is instructive on the whole question of PC. I think Americans are a PC people. To me "PC" simply means in good taste. Now the standard version of good taste may not be thick skinned enough. But isn’t there a lot of PC from the right also, in terms of what is in good taste among the fair sex? One man’s complement is the others insult, PC is simply knowing your audience. In today’s world where anything said in one context can be quoted anywhere in any context, PC can dictate silence. I think the danger that Mill recognizes is that this mass opinion can have a silencing effect. True Liberalism requires a people to be more thick skinned. Being Tolerant means both being PC and not being offended by the non-PC of others. Ideally it should be politically correct to be non-politically correct sometimes (I belive it actually is). It may seem from your perspective that the areas in which it is politically correct to be politically incorect involve conservative political correctness such as treatment of women. But if you read up on the P.C. policies of most businesses you would find that sexual harrasment covers this such that it is not politically correct except by non-enforcement. But I think that Mill would agree that PC is not something that should be strictly enforced, but rather that must stem from a particular attitude to mean anything. PC is best enforced on an individual basis by confronting the person, or by walking away. Bottom line: when it comes to PC, I think you should give your heart more credit than a cool aid pumping machine, but also try not to offend or alienate people you need to deal with. Remind yourself that you are in control of how you deal with a comment, the comment is not in control of you. An example of how being non PC can be PC is when dealing with someone who might be insulted by you assuming that your comment will burn him, or that he can’t handle what you think is the truth. You aren’t being PC if you aren’t being honest and the other person can tell. Might as well spit it out.

Academic freedom was designed for this exact situation -- public "powers" trying to sanction a college professor for unwelcome "scholarship." Ok, I admit, Churchill isn’t a scholar, and his "scholarship" amounts to radical chic. Nonetheless, his defenders are correct in pointing to academic freedom as his salvation.

People who disagree with him (and I’m one) should use a kind of institutional jujitsu in this situation. Force the University of Colorado to defend this jerk. Put their hiring practices on trial (after all, Churchill doesn’t even have a Ph.D. -- was he hired to fill a quota?). The legislature should insist on a full audit of this "ethnic studies" deparment.

If Colorado is anything like Ohio, the elimination of a whole department trumps tenure claims. And in all fairness, Churchill is just a cog in a terrible and corrupt system. The emphasis here should be on reforming that system...I see Churchill as a means to that end.

Mr. Oliver

Tenure is not like diplomatic immunity where you would be shielded from civil or criminal liability. Slander and libel would hold him civilly liable where he could be forced to pay monetary damages to the people he’s libeled. Forfeiture of his salary seems to be just compensation to the "victims" of his slander. Or does tenure excuse him from any wrongdoing whatsoever?

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/5904