Comments on: Should Ward Churchill be Fired?

By: Halina Minadeo

Halina Minadeo — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:04:57 +0000

Regarding Ward Churchill's native ancestry, I just found a link that claims that genetic tests have proven that he is indeed of native origin. Can this site be legitimate? http://www.aztlan.net/churchill_creek_cherokee.htm.

By: IrateMoFo

IrateMoFo — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 08:45:19 +0000

You cannot have an intelligent discussion about a subject unless you have the facts straight. A whole shipload of what is being said about what Ward Churchill "supposedly" said is based on a MIS-reading and a MIS-representation of what he ACTUALLY said. Strongly suggest going DIRECTLY to the source and checking out what he REALLY said BEFORE you put your mouth in gear. - There appears to be a stupidity epidemic sweeping America! Don't be the next victim.

By: dw

dw — Sun, 06 Feb 2005 08:23:01 +0000

And on this "he's not an Indian" thing: He is, but not a Keetoowah Cherokee. A 3/16 blood quantum, though, is above the 1/16 required for the "regular" Cherokee Nation rolls. I should know -- I was put on the Cherokee rolls when I was a kid, even with 1/16. I think he said something about wanting to be identified at Keetoowah because they are more "hard-line." Sounds like someone wants to hand with the cool kids.

By: dw

dw — Sun, 06 Feb 2005 08:09:44 +0000

I'm a CU grad, and I know that Churchill isn't going to be fired. You see, 13 years ago Bill McCartney sat in a press conference in a Colorado sweatshirt and said that "homosexuality... is an abomination of almighty God." And there was a massive outcry over it, because Bill McCartney, private citizen, was at a press conference dressed as Bill McCartney, head football coach, and saying what on campus was considered hate speech. In the end, the president called him on the carpet and told him to never represent any of his Promise Keepers stuff as coming from Bill McCartney, head football coach. Firing Churchill after what happened to McCartney would do two things: Give the appearance that athletic staff have a longer leash than tenured professors, and give the appearance of a bias against the far left but deference to the far right. The result would be a faculty rebellion. They came very close to it when the Colorado Legislature tried to impose what would have essentially been a "conservative quota" the last couple of years. Professor Volokh is dead on with this issue: Canning Churchill would effectively open the door to a purge of the conservatives by the liberals on campus. Universities need a diversity of ideas to survive. You start firing people because they're out of the general populace's philogical mores, you run the risk of creating an academia that is inflexible and uncreative. And that would certainly doom the United States in research globally. And that idiot above who wants him fired has never worked in a university.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Sun, 06 Feb 2005 01:46:38 +0000

That's a separate issue, entirely. I'd argue, though, that since a state university (indeed, no institution receiving public funds) may legally discriminate on the basis of race in hiring, it would be difficult for CU to maintain that they hired him, in part, because he was Amerindian.

By: Bachbone

Bachbone — Sun, 06 Feb 2005 01:42:48 +0000

Falsifying a resume is grounds for dismissal. If he isn't part Native American, yet claimed to be, that is grounds for being fired. Does the university have the guts to do it?

By: PoliBlog: Politics is the Master Science

PoliBlog: Politics is the Master Science — Sat, 05 Feb 2005 20:46:47 +0000

On Ward Churchill, Tenure and the Nature of the Professoriate
Many in the Blogosphere (and elsewhere--for example) are simultaneously calling for Ward Churchill's head on a platter (figuratively speaking, of course) and for the reform/abolishment of the tenure system.

Below are some additional thoughts on th...

By: Bithead

Bithead — Sat, 05 Feb 2005 17:03:53 +0000

The likes of Churchill may not dominate the faculty of our schools but I fail to see how that enters the question of if he should be fired or not. But let's face it, gang; Churchill's comments had they been made by a conservtaive, would have had the leftists howling "hate speech"... and he'd be looking for a job before the echo died. And let's remove something from the discussion right now; this is most decidedly NOT a free speech issue. It would be, if the government had arrested him. (And isn't that ironic? They'd likely be prompting the arrest under 'Hate Speech') But that's not what's up here. This is simply a employer/employee relationship run afoul by Churchill running his mouth. Can this guy. Now.

By: Ol' BC

Ol' BC — Sat, 05 Feb 2005 15:47:46 +0000

Just when you think you've heard all about this story, THE BARON, uncovered more. This guy isn't only nuts - he's dangerous!!!

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 05 Feb 2005 14:51:27 +0000

Volokh's opinions are always so well-thought-out that I don't even try to argue against them. With Eugene Volokh, you usually have to just accept that he's right! :-)

By: History News Network

History News Network — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

of opinion about appropriate sanctions for him that the CU review panel reached. *I hasten to point out that such other notorious left-wingers as Eugene Volokh and David Horowitz are also divided on the matter. Horowitz agrees with KC; Volokh,who once defended Churchill's tenured position, now agrees with me.