Burnt Orange Report

I think what Ward Churchill wrote was idiotic and calling his essay "problematic" is definitely an understatement. But I don't think idiotic and offensive statements are grounds for dismissal from tenure. You should read Dahlia Lithwick's article in Slate last week.

Here's a good snippet:
If academic tenure means anything at all, it means professors must be allowed to say and write what they choose without fearing removal by popular referendum. That's why the decision to grant someone tenure must be taken so seriously in the first place. One hundred percent of the blame for the Churchill debacle rests with the University of Colorado's board of regents that hired, granted tenure to, and promoted an individual whose scholarship and personal qualifications are now, and must always have been, in serious question. Churchill's silly notions have been in the public domain for years. Firing him only now suggests that Bill O'Reilly, as opposed to his faculty peers, gets the deciding vote on who is allowed to teach our young people.

Churchill's 9/11 comments were patently offensive. But they were not hate speech, they were not treason, and they were not in any sense a call to imminent violence on the part of his listeners. Read in context, his words are the purest form of political speech. Does that mean students have to take his classes? No. Does it mean any university needs to invite him to speak or even hire him in the first place? No. But does it mean that the governor or the board of regents are entitled to remove him now, simply because some "taxpayer money" goes to pay his salary? No. That would make virtually every professorship in the land subject to a heckler's veto.

I hadn't read that article.... good points that make me reconsider my position a little bit. I think the question is whether removing Churchill would lead to a slippery-slope mentality where University's / Boards of Regents could take actions to remove professors with unpopular opinions for less egregious actions. If removing Churchill would give the likes of Bill O'Reilly and popular opinion an effective veto on controversial professors, then I'm much more hesitent in my position on this.

I did read the article and found fault with some of his arguments. That being said, he absolutely should not be fired. His Eichman comment was unnecessary and distracted from the larger point he was making (and that I tend to agree with). He is not calling for students to break the law, he is not himself breaking the law, he is not advocating violence, and he has not shown himself to be professionally incompetent. You remove a professor for breaking the law, breaking the rules of your school (dating your students without notifying the dean is an example at UT) or simply being bad at their job. If he produces academically defensible scholarship and is competent in the classroom, he absolutely should not be fired, not matter how stupid the comparisons he makes in his otherwise academically sound (though controversial) articles.

having been on the faculty/staff of three universities i always take a deep interest in the free speech/academic freedom/liberal education continuum. everyone here has hit on the salient points already, ones that i agree with, and am pleased to see voiced by students and young pros.

that said, and having full faith in the idea that no topic should be taboo at schools that fancy themselves universities (in the classical sense -- as world-class think-tanks), let me posit the two things that i think give conservatives ground in their constant college-bashing.

a) that too many professors have blurred the line between presenting the fundaments of various philosophies and political screeds so that students can make informed decisions (which we might, on this blog agree, would tend to make liberals of any caring individual who was raised to believe that humanity deserves as much concern as the self) vs. those who espouse their personal politics as some undeniable doctrine of truth. pedantry is obnoxious enough in principle, but these days it also makes for an easy target.

and b) that students don't have real choices in the professors they can take. it seems like there are always those classes you need to graduate, or you want to take, where only one prof is available, etc., and then you are subjected to that person's idiosyncracies. great if you happen to agree, but if you don't the typical reaction is to shut out the opinion rather than learn. were there enough teachers available for real choice to be allowed, then the marketplace would dictate which profs earned tenure, and that would save some embarrassment all around.

Byron did you read Churchill's article? Did you read his response to the critics?
The eichmann comment was incendiary (Nazism being used ad infinitum whenever someone disagrees with something someone else does) but doesnt detract only distracts from the arguments that Churchill was making, which are completely well reasoned. He basically says that according to US doctrine all targets attacked during 9/11 were military targets, anyone else who died was "collateral damage" but don't trust me
read the article, then critique
in my opinion your personal opinion is poorly formed or formed without good information
read the article, then critique,
do not let others read it for you
if you have read the article and churchill's responses I apologize and would be interested in reading/debating a condemnation of the logic of the essay and the thoughts behind it.