Aug. 3, 2005

Don’t Worry — Ward Churchill Will Solve the Problem

The higher education community believes it scored a great victory on June 23 when a coalition of twenty-something organizations, including the American Association of University Professors, issued a statement supporting academic freedom. Many of their critics have fallen for it and a number of Congressmen have even declared victory. Any praise for the statement, however, must be tempered by an understanding that the people who brought us Ward Churchill won’t offer much more than lip service — unless we keep our powder dry.

Looking for a job?

See all 217 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 3,477
Administrative: 1,652
Executive: 163
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

The statement was promulgated by the American Council on Education and reiterates the importance of the free exchange of ideas, grading free of political bias, grievance procedures for students and faculty who are treated unfairly, and intellectual standards. The declaration acknowledges that “intellectual pluralism” and “academic freedom” are principles widely shared within the academic community. Yet there is nary a nod to the hundreds of widely-publicized cases of political pressure in the classroom that prompted the controversy in the first place.

For years, the higher education establishment has denied that there is a problem and engaged in a series of unpersuasive rationalizations to avoid facing the obvious facts. Roger Bowen of the American Association of University Professors has called studies about faculty political imbalance “wrongheaded” and claimed political affiliations of professors are of little consequence in the classroom. John Millsaps at the University of Georgia agreed: “we have no evidence to suggest that students are being intimidated by professors as regards students’ freedom to express their opinions and beliefs.” And Lionel Lewis in a recent issue of Academe went so far as to argue that political one-sidedness doesn’t matter because college has no impact anyway. Nowhere did they argue that students will get a better education if they are exposed to a variety of viewpoints and learn to think for themselves.

Numerous surveys, reports, and case studies documenting the politically monolithic character of the faculty have mounted. A recent student survey by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni shows that many students believe they will be penalized if they have a point of view that differs from their professors.

Faced with this mounting evidence – and a growing number of state legislators who have begun holding hearings and passing resolutions — the higher education establishment figured it would be best to have a quick conversion, endorse intellectual “pluralism,” and then go back to business as usual. The strategy is obvious: give lip service, get it out of the papers, do nothing.

Those claiming victory are right in that the first step to recovery is to admit that you have a problem. However, the ACE statement does not admit that there is anything more than a PR problem: “these issues have become public controversies.” It does not address whether there is a lack of intellectual diversity or whether there are any victims of political intolerance at all.

Second, it does not define intellectual pluralism and makes the shocking suggestion that First Amendment freedoms mean different things to different people. These are “complex topics with multiple dimensions,” it says, and it is “impossible to create a single definition or set of standards” and, well, it is simply too much for the unwashed public. Definitions will have to be left to individual campuses, where, presumably, people are smarter.

Third, it does not address any of the specific issues raised by critics: what about unbalanced panel discussions on campus, the hundreds of speech codes prevalent across the country, student newspaper theft, speakers being disinvited or shouted down, the uncivil and intolerant behavior of administrators on campus after campus aimed specifically at students with political views who differ? Not a word on any of these topics.

Fourth, the only section calling for action is very cleverly written. It says, first, that “[n]either students nor faculty should be disadvantaged or evaluated on the basis of their political opinions.” The next sentence calls for “clear” grievance procedures. And action? Not quite. Every college already has clear grievance procedures for students and faculty members. But didn’t the statement say that these should be revised to include protections against political bias? If they had wanted to, they surely could have. No, they stated a general principle, but did not call for revising any grievance procedures. An action that is no action.

Fifth, if you read the fine print, the statement did not even endorse its own principles, claiming only that they “deserve to be stated affirmatively as a basis for discussion … on campuses and elsewhere.” No action here either.

If they did not admit a problem, and did not define the goal of intellectual pluralism, and did not propose or even hint at specific ways to achieve intellectual pluralism, and really only proposed some discussion topics, what did they say? Leave the problem to us — “the community of scholars.” Isn’t the rhetoric great? The only clear intent of the statement is to tell the public to leave the problem to the institutions. Yes, the people who brought you Ward Churchill, who in fact include Ward Churchill, will solve the problem.

The responsibility for correcting the current situation should, indeed, fall first and foremost to colleges and universities themselves. However, it is the universities that have created the problem, have perpetuated it, continue to minimize it, and have failed to take concrete steps to solve. Indeed, the only apparent response by the higher ed community to the statement has been protests by the AFT, NEA, and various members of the AAUP.

This statement – so far – is just lip service to intellectual diversity. The reality remains that faculties are politically imbalanced, many course readings and campus speaking events are one-sided, and there is a basic hostility to ideas outside of campus orthodoxies.

It’s time for the institutions to take concrete steps to live up to their words.

Anne D. Neal is president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a national nonprofit group of alumni and trustees.

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

So we should trust ACTA, whose post-september 11 screed did far more to intimidate teachers and students than anything Churchill ever said or did? Why does this strike me as perverse logic? And last time i looked, didn’t David Horowitz deserve some culpability in “bringing us” Churchill?

zach, at 5:38 am EDT on August 3, 2005

Churchills are responsible for Churchills

“So we should trust ACTA ..”

As an empirically-minded political independent (EMPI), I’d rationally estimate that the median public four-year college graduate is forced to listen to faculty criticism, whining, complaining, and general hand-wringing about the United States of America approximately 50% of the time.

As Oprah’s pal Dr. Phil would opine, “it is, what it is.” This is not about Republicans and ACTA — it is about a large group of government workers who produce a very questionable service — expensive, bloviated, blantly-biased, barely coherant, and at odds with reality. Who are now upset that they have been caught and are claiming “academic freedom” and unsupervised financial support.

Mr. W.L. Churchill, M.A., is responsible for Mr. W.L. Churchill, M.A. — no one else. Thanks to him and his bizarre ethnic ID scam at the University of Colorado at Boulder, those who accepted affirmative action will think about self-identifying themselves as ethnic minorities. ("Hey — if it’s OK for Ward-o, why not me? He got a deal.")

Thankfully, today’s college student has a lot of options — such as online, community college, AP. So, thanks to Mr. Ward-o, I’m sure those options will get closer review. And, hopefully, Mr. Ward-o and his ilk will have to find something else to do, like lobby for the next Third World financial bail-out in 2012.

Thank you, Mr. Ward-o. Have a nice, taxpayer-funded retirement, based on a 85%-funded pension fund.

Art, at 7:16 am EDT on August 3, 2005

The Liberal Academy

Mr. Imp has revealed his objectivist stance that sounds very much like a temper tantrum. He claims that he has been “forced to listen to faculty criticism, whining, complaining, and general hand-wringing about the United States of America approximately 50% of the time.” Obviously, any time an instructor bothers him with information or a conclusion supported by facts and disturbs his illusions he is greatly disturbed. Unfortunately, he has failed to develop critical thinking skills that could help him differentiate fact from fiction.

His read herring claim that the argument is about “a large group of government workers who produce a very questionable service — expensive, bloviated, blantly-biased, barely coherant [SP], and at odds with reality” is a diversion and does nothing but add noise to the discussion. If “bloviated”, biased and incoherent instruction is what is wanted, corporate operated institutions are the answer. The ability to be free of a company-line and corporate-think is the main reason people seek out and work within academia. Apparently Mr. Imp wants a “don’t worry-be happy” educational experience, devoid of anything that challenges his emistomology.

His ramblings did reveal his own soloution – dropout and limit your information inout and personal contact to other people just like himself. I am sorry to tell him that everywhere in public education, even in community colleges, he will find faculty who challenge their students to think critically; sorry Mr. Imp.

The essence of this matter is that any instructor who allows his or her opinions to prejudice evaluations of student work isn’t liberal or conservative, he or she is wrong.

J.J., at 8:14 am EDT on August 3, 2005

“Don’t Worry — Ward Churchill Will Solve the Problem”

Ward Churchill is a phenomenon of the left’s long march through the Academy, resulting in ever greater regard for ethnic bloodlines and shades of skin color as marks of “authenticity,” at the expense of rigorous scholarship and intellectual daring. Churchill’s fraudulent claim (and there will be others) to a certain ethnic heritage is an inevitable outcome of an ideology that divides the human race into “oppressed” and “oppressor” races, and assigns special valuations to each. Academic freedom, unhappily, to most academics means the freedom to impose and this racialist ideology on the academic environment — and by extension on the rest of society.

Patrick, at 8:39 am EDT on August 3, 2005

critical thinking

It is loss of critical thinking that is worrisome— even in a literature class, a student will accuse a teacher of “imposing” a point of view when the student’s idea is indefensible or a mis-reading and/or incomplete reading. Careful reading of texts or situations, followed by reasoned and backed-up analysis, are the objectives of college. Telling instructors what to think and limiting readings or approaches to one possibility, not allowing for multiple well-argued analyses, is not a means to accomplish a thinking next generation. This affects us all, whatever field we are in.

LM, at 8:42 am EDT on August 3, 2005

Everyone’s a critic

“His ramblings did reveal his own soloution (SP) ..” –

Thank you for your personal attack; great thinkers/spellers like you whine when confronted, yet are among the first to attack. Phonies like you are spotted by students in a few minutes, dude.

Of course, the writer commits the usual error of assuming matters, not in the record. I’ve personally witnessed more intellectual diversity in engineering classes than Churchill-inspired, one-sided stenography sessions. Thus — he makes an a— out of himself and others of his ilk.

Faux-intellectuals like Great Speller/Thinker and Ward-o are great at the psuedo-intellectual game of “encouraging critical thinking” and deconstruction.

They just can’t construct anything durable (except, perhaps, their skills as a Starbucks latte-maker). For an illustration of inability to construct — just read any of the comments by Michael Moore’s former colleagues at The Flint Voice. That’s an eyeful.

Art, at 9:00 am EDT on August 3, 2005

What are Neal’s ‘concrete steps’?

Neal’s attack on the statement is basically right (it is a vague attempt to stop more serious attacks on academic freedom) but that’s no excuse for her dishonesty about it. For example, Neal claims that the statement believes that “First Amendment freedoms mean different things to different people.” In reality, the statement declares that “academic freedom and intellectual pluralism are complex topics with multiple dimensions", not the First Amendment. Neal also cites the statement’s claim that it is “impossible to create a single definition or set of standards” when that claim clearly refers to the fact that there are many private colleges with different missions, not different views of the First Amendment (although obviously people have different views of the First Amendment, and it’s not a crime to say so).

But I have a bigger concern with Neal. She attacks the statement for vagueness and concludes by vaguely demanding “concrete steps.” What exactly are her concrete steps? She complains about “unbalanced” panel discussions—does Neal want a system of grievance procedures to ban panels that someone thinks are unbalanced? Does she want administrators and trustees to decide who will speak on campus to assure balance? Does she agree with the Ohio legislature’s Academic Bill of Rights? What, concretely, are all of her “concrete steps"?

John K. Wilson, coordinator at Campus Journalism Project, at 9:08 am EDT on August 3, 2005

I do not know a whole lot about Anne Neal, ACTA or its funders, however I do know about my own son’s experiences at the Ivy League university he graduated from in 2001. As a lifelong social and political liberal who believes in the first amendment and the important role of the university as a marketplace of ideas, I was horrified by the ubiquitous political correctness and resulting self-censorship that prevailed at his school. It was clear that my son and his friends all learned quickly that certain subjects were never to be discussed publicly because the consequences of doing so could be both dire and unfair. This extended not only to expressing opinions but to asking questions or expressing fruitful doubt. In short, there was no interaction about certain subjects because many students concluded that it just wasn’t worth the grief. I cannot say that my son ever observed bias against certain opinions in the classroom, but that may well be because of the self-censorship on the part of students whose views were unpopular or students who even had questions about the prevailing politically correct orthodoxy. So, from what I can tell, the real problem may not be heavy-handedness in the classroom or in grading, but the insidious, intellectually deadening effect of an atmosphere that does not really welcome or even tolerate dissenting views or questions about certain subjects. I do not agree with many politically and socially conservative views, and I like to think that my child, given the chance to truly experience them, would have come to similar conclusions. But if he never experienced them in the course of his schooling, and unavoidably concluded that engagement about certain controversial subjects was dangerous, I have to conclude that his education simply failed to prepare him adequately for citizenship in a democracy.

Mommy, at 9:13 am EDT on August 3, 2005

In the past, I often told students that despite their wish to believe that no interpretation of literature could be wrong, this belief was, indeed, mistaken. To be specific, I distinctly recall once telling a student that while it would certainly be possible to make and support an argument that Edgar Allan Poe’s “William Wilson” contains only one person with that name, as well as to make and support an argument that it contains two persons with that name, it would simply be indefensible to claim that it is a story about a little girl who loves her dog. I gather from much of this article and much of the discussion following it that I am unreasonable, constrictive, most likely utterly PC on the left-wing side, and a good riddance to academia in general.

Nonetheless, I feel no remorse at insisting that “William Wilson” cannot be meaningfully or profitably interpreted as the story of a little girl who loves her dog.

I will go further and assert that if I were teaching radioactive dating techniques and a student insisted that if I didn’t spend half of the course talking about the Bible, s/he would complain about my political intransigence to the dean, I would tell him or her to please leave and stop interrupting the education other students had paid to receive.

Given equal time to BS simply sabotages the project of education.

Thane Doss, Tokyo

Thane Doss, Yomiuri Culture Centers, at 1:59 pm EDT on August 3, 2005

Ward-o, redux

“Given equal time to BS simply sabotages the project of education.”

OK .. well, a majority of reasonable people find the claim of Mr. W.L. Churchill, M.A., of being an American Indian to be BS, a great deception. So — I presume that it is OK for the new CU president to fire Ward-o.

The Ivy League mother’s note was well-said. The Ward-o’s of the world would be amazed how “liberal” those in “the great middle” are — if those Ward-o’s would try listening and thinking, instead of ranting. But, as Mary Chapin-Carpenter once sang, “that’s too much to ask.” Such a pity — they might have actually learned something new.

Homer, at 4:36 pm EDT on August 3, 2005

Unfortunately, this debate really isn’t about whether an interpretation of Poe is correct or not or whether radioactive dating is scientifically defensible. This is about more contentious issues such as affirmative action or whether the US is to blame for Third World poverty. These issues do have two sides to it, and often times students do feel afraid to voice their opinions, which are perfectly legitimate and do not rely on a “proper reading” of the text. Nobody will address a professor as leftist simply because of an interpretation of a story or poem.

pkphlam, at 4:36 pm EDT on August 3, 2005

Formal Operational Thinking & Idealogy

Formal Operational Thinking & Idealogy: Science, Religion & Politics

According to the 1979 Congressional act, truth must prevail at the Universities. Advanced University Teaching and “high level intellectualism” consists of formal operations, thinking about thinking about thinking... Sometimes this formal operations is conceived of as an ideology, a religion of its own relegated and defended by the formal sciences- which are antithetical to anything that has a hint of religion. This way of thinking, however, seems to be a confusion among formal operation thinking, religion, science and ideology. After all, would science or could science ever study the creator? For that matter, could we not study political matters instead of promoting a political ideology. Isn’t that the role of a University? Since schools, colleges and universities are supported by the general public, must we not teach in a formal way all political and religious angles present in the Universe? That is one role of a professor- to present opposing views and factual evidences. Aren’t comparative religion and comparative biology taught at the same schools? Why then we now have comparative ideology? Perhaps Comparative Ideology should now be formal operations course so that such political and ideological attitudes could not be at issue. You could simply tell a student or a professor with attitude to enroll in such a course! That way the confusion between ideology and formal operations in higher education could be clarified.

Additional Related Notes:

1. Since the advent of formal technical writing, elements of style in sciences faded. That may had affected critical thinking.

2. The information technology and classification seems to have affected some level of integration.

3. The idea of intellectual of property was demeaned by a wave of those who used “creativity” and “constructionist”ideology to defend takeover of original ideas or thinking about them.

4. The Title 17 copy right law and the rule against omission that says content is irrelevant may had been overlooked.

5. The boundaries became confused between individual intellectual property and institutional ownership because grants and awards went to the institution and not the individual. The censorship and espionage laws could had been overlooked; the law protects an individual who obtains information under FOIL.

6. During my graduate study a seemingly reversed ideology took place. A science report on aggressive behavior of animals (a project that began prior to the Gulf war and one which was accepted for presentation at an international conference and entailed a title of the book “Drive Towards War” by Edward Chase Tolman) was deemed inappropriate for presentation and publication at the time of Gulf war; and that resulted in a faculty gathering and an inadvertent cancelling of the student’s paper at the conference.

Kiumars Lalezarzadeh, Ph.D., Bio-Psychologist, Minister, Psychotherapy, Medical Social Work at Q’s Ministry of AIWP, UIL, UAIWP, ADHC, at 4:37 am EDT on August 4, 2005

Diversity and Freedom

I was fortunate enough in my education to have been exposed not only to the espousal of Marxist thought in the philosophy department but also to varying strains of conservative thought in history and geography, pragmatics in computer engineering, and even the confessional approach to teaching in religious studies.

My experience suggests that if there is an inclination on the part of professors to return higher grades to work that reflects their own views, this inclination operates equally regardless of political affiliation. And I have the low grades and battle scars from conflicts with the aqcademic right in order to prove it.

Allegiance in academia runs in streaks. In my dealings with the Business faculty I found not one person who did not believe in the merits of capitalism and free enterprise. Through the numerous courses I took in Religious Studies I found not one irreligious professor. Sitting on the Board of Governors I found that I was the lone socialist, with the more leftward strains of communism and Marxism not represented at all!

One wonders, when we hear voices from the right calling for greater diversity and balance, why their aim is not so diverse. From my perspective, it would be healthy to have substantial representation from the Muslim community teaching at Oral Roberts University. Business faculties worldwide could do with more thought representative of Singer’s deep ecology or Freire’s liberation theology.

Indeed, one wonders why the calls for diversity end at the ivory tower walls. Where is the representation from the left on the New York Stock Exchange, in the membership among boards and CEOs in the Fortune 500, in the membership of the various think tanks and agencies that have been created to foster the conservative agenda? In Canada I ask, why no socialists at the Fraser Institute?

If we are to embrace diversity of political opinion, moreover, what will we then do regarding the demographics of those who self-select to enter into a life of service rather than business and profit? It seems that if a person is called to enter the teaching and research professions, then a condition of this is the freedom of opinion and expression.

If there is indeed a tilt to the left in academia, this much is self-evident: the tilt is the result of numerous highly intelligent and strong-willed people, the best of a generation, freely choosing to support and express left-wing political points of view. Efforts to redress this by legislation rather than reason reveal, if anything, the intellectual paucity of the conservative position, a belated recognition that force must be used where reason has failed.

But, in fact, I sincerely doubt that there is such a tilt. As I said, political opinion runs in streaks, and the carefully chosen samples of the surveys can show the opposite if their methodology is applied to a different sample.

Moreover, what constitutes ‘left’ and ‘right’ is very much in the eyes of the beholder. From my perspective, American academia is almost unrelentingly right wing, with strong streaks of militarism, patriotism and capitalism pervasive. The positions that for me characterize left-wing thought — global justice, demilitarization, social service and infrastructure — are in my experience minority views in American academic thought.

The sort of ‘right wing’ thought being touted as under-represented by Horowitz and his ilk is to me a dangerously extreme form of conservative thought, one that is rare in its expression elsewhere in the world, and subject to only a small minority of popular support anywhere save some deeply conservative regions in the U.S.

Even were one to disagree with my characterization of what constitutes ‘left’ versus ‘right’, the question remains, who decides? How does one establish a balance when the parameters of that balance are themselves open to debate? How does one respond to a left-winger who depicts a ‘balanced’ academia as equally divided between Marxists and Leninists?

And it is here, I think, that the poverty of Horowitz-style arguments becomes evident. For what such arguments amount to is not a genuine appeal to diversity, but rather, a reframing of the academic agenda to recognize a particular sort of political philosophy to be regarded as definitive in the definition of academic schools of thought and culture. Such an argument ought to be rejected, for it denies the very diversity it seeks to espouse.

A rhetoric consistent with diversity would call, not for an artificial and politically motivated ‘balancing’ of political views, but rather, a fostering of the means and conditions known to encourage diversity. Foremost among these is freedom of thought and freedom of expression, the very conditions the Horowitz approach would first undermine.

The existence of a Ward Churchill in any branch of academia should serve of proof of the capacity of the educational system to embrace diversity rather than as a clarion call to arms in an effort to silence such voices. Diversity requires, needs, is defined by the existence of voices that are uncomfortable, not only to a minority, but to the majority. Freedom of thought essentially requires the capacity to be the only person in the world who holds a certain set of beliefs, and to be able express those beliefs.

The inevitable result of a legislated form of political diversity in academic will be a form of intellectual monoculture, where voices such as Churchill’s are silenced, on the grounds that they are ‘not representative’. This would be the death of the educational system, and the birth of a system of propaganda and indoctrination.

Stephen Downes, at 8:38 am EDT on August 5, 2005

In response to Diversity and Freedom

Stephen Downs let’s not forget that Ward Churchill gained his position by “checking the box”, therefore making it “okay” for CU Boulder to hire him, when he wasn’t qualified in the first place. This is not how affirmative action policies should work. There were better suited, legitimately qualified candidates for that position that were ignored. The only proof it serves is that Ward Churchill is a “box checker” and made a fool of a “flagship university” and the whole tenure process.

Here’s something to think about, had he not had the title of “professor or American Indian coinciding with his name” do you think his work would be considered legitimate? I highly doubt it, unless he had a PhD following his name, which he doesn’t.

I agree with you that diversity should be embraced in the educational system, and I agree that Churchill should not be silenced, but let’s allow legitimate scholars in our educational systems. Not rapists and pedophiles that prey on the naïve educational systems.

L J Hall, at 11:11 am EDT on August 5, 2005

Uh, ORU is a private school ..

“From my perspective, it would be healthy to have substantial representation from the Muslim community teaching at Oral Roberts University.”

.. except that (1) ORU is a private school and CU was built, and is operated on, public funds and (2) that is the first time many have ever heard of such a concept. Good luck, trying to sell it.

“Business faculties worldwide could do with more thought representative of Singer’s deep ecology or Freire’s liberation theology.”

How many times does this have to be posted on IHE before anyone notices?

http://www.hbs.edu/socialenterprise/

“Indeed, one wonders why the calls for diversity end at the ivory tower walls. Where is the representation from the left on the New York Stock Exchange ..”

Again .. all those groups are private, not public entities.

Also, Communism collapsed and France is a third-rate performer. How many Russians do you find, crossing a desert in summer, to get to France? Not many.

“If we are to embrace diversity of political opinion, moreover, what will we then do regarding the demographics of those who self-select to enter into a life of service ..”

This makes David Horowitz’s point. As it has been empirically proven (and tacitly accepted by academic administrators) that some faculties tilt 99% to one political party, hiring should be done from the other side. If it is being argued that no such persons exist, I am certain Mr. Horowitz could find some qualified candidates in a few days. Especially, when at MLA, there are dozens of qualified candidates for one position.

“..the tilt is the result of numerous highly intelligent and strong-willed people, the best of a generation ..”

That argument was used by whites to keep certain minorities out of academia. That’s why Nixon backed affirmative action.

“The existence of a Ward Churchill in any branch of academia should serve of proof of the capacity of the educational system to embrace diversity ..”

Yes .. let’s all deceive ourselves into taking unlawful advantage of government benefits, such as affirmative action. That would make a better society.

Art, at 5:00 pm EDT on August 5, 2005

Fatal flaw in anti-Horowitz crowd?

In discussions about ABOR, this is a typical comment, along the lines of “why no socialists in the business college, law school, engineering college, et al ..”

“Where is the representation from the left on the New York Stock Exchange ..”

IMHO, the flaw is that business, law, and engineering are typically for UPPER-classpersons — who are there, of their own free accord.

This is as opposed to UNDER-classpersons who are *forced* to take the core curriculum, where so many politically one-sided diatribes and rants eminate.

Force people to pay for one-sided B.S. they don’t believe in, and you get ABOR. ‘Nuff said.

P.S.: if the commie’s in the crowd wonder why I don’t use my real name — it is because I work in politically-biased unit that can’t tolerate anyone who isn’t for Big Education & Big Government. My mistake — los$$e$ for me and the taxpayers.

Zefram Cochrane, Founder & Owner at Warp-Drive Mfg., Inc., at 5:37 pm EDT on August 6, 2005

The attack on academic freedom.

This essay repeatedly invokes Ward Churchill as a bogeyman of the academic left, yet the ostensible subject of the essay is the suppression of dissent within academia. Ward Churchill, however, has been pilloried for his incendiary political writings, not for suppressing anyone else’s viewpoints, including his students’. Thus, it is base hypocrisy for the writer to pretend she is defending freedom of expression and to proclaim that the problem is Ward Churchill, who doesn’t attack free expression, but excercises it.

In addition, all the claims that Ward Churchill is an unqualified affirmative action hire ignore the fact that he is the single most-cited author in his field. His academic writings are routinely assigned in ethnic studies courses in universities around the country. He is, in short, highly-accomplished by the standards by which professors are routinely evaluated.

It is ironic that so many posters here decry affirmative action for ethnic minorities who have traditionally been marginalized or excluded from academia, and then turn around to endorse an affirmative action program for right-wingers. If liberals have come to dominate academia (and the evidence cited is very poor), it came about through their own efforts, not by legislative coercion. Why should conservatives (who claim to advocate individual responsibility and the rejection of governmental social engineering) get a free pass?

The above mention of carbon-dating was quite germane to this discussion. A congressman who introduced Florida’s version of the Academic Bill of Rights has stated explicitly that it would prevent professors of evolutionary biology from leaving “intelligent design” out of their classes. Someone who seriously believes in this sort of thinking would have to require Holocaust denial to be taught in courses about WWII and Flat Earth theory in geology classes. To do otherwise would be to stifle intellectual diversity by disallowing certain points of view.

Similarly, another poster suggested that it’s entirely appropriate to institute affirmative action for right-wingers within English departments, but not for left-wingers on corporate boards simply because the latter are private. This would suggest, then, that the military should institute a program to counter the conservative Christian bias within its officer corps, in which Republican voters outnumber Democrats 8 to 1. There are many clear indications of bias against non-Christian soldiers, sailors and airmen and women (see http://maaf.info), yet this doesn’t seem to incense Horowitz & co. whose mantra in other contexts is “Support our troops.”

But of course proponents of ABOR are not really interested in the logical conclusions of their rhetoric because it is merely a smokescreen for the actual agenda of imposing conservative doctrines on academia. This essay implicitly advocates the suppression of Ward Churchill’s free speech, and we may be sure that he has been singled out with the intention of intimidating all academics on the left.

Edward Burns, at 3:50 pm EDT on August 8, 2005

Dang lib-burr-al newspapers ...

“This would suggest, then, that the military should institute a program to counter the conservative Christian bias within its officer corps, in which Republican voters outnumber Democrats 8 to 1.”

Dang .. then what are them dang lib-burr-al newspapers printing?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation...rce_general_cut_from_promotion_list/

AIR FORCE ACADEMY, Colo. — The number two officer at the Air Force Academy, a born-again Christian accused of proselytizing at the school in memos and speeches, was dropped from a promotions list before it was approved by the Senate ..

Also, a special USAF report:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-...icle/2005/05/03/AR2005050301499.html

No one is preventing Mr. Churchill — who has shouted down respectful student-dissenters in his classroom — from leaving and starting his own private college of hate-speech and “America is always wrong.”

If Mr. Churchill so dang accomplished, why doesn’t he leave and go onto his overdue, greater success, somewhere else? And avoid the CU investigations into plagiarism and copyright infringement? And let CU find a replacement from among dozens of well-qualified, unemployed PhDs? Some of whom actually grew up as American Indians?

Yet, this fall, tens of thousands of freshmen will be forced to pay (e.g., student loans) for lectures about one-sided political dreck that they do not believe in.

Wouldn’t it be far easier (and less expensive) for them and their financially-suffering parents for them to read the English-language version of Le Monde. Then, use the Le Monde material as the basis for an AP exam as a waiver to the (alleged) “Why America Is Always Wrong” critical-thinking requirement that is so en-vogue today, in Berkeley, Cambridge, Paris, etc.

Zefram, at 6:48 pm EDT on August 8, 2005

Much ado

Come on. Ward Churchill is a mope who’d probably have difficulty retaining employment without the sanctity and privileges provided in higher education

Mike, at 12:36 pm EDT on August 9, 2005

Where’s the refutation?

Zefram’s links to articles about Christian bias at the Air Force Academy demonstrate precisely what I said: there is Christian bias in the military. I suppose the implication is that because it’s being investigated and a general who’s responsible is not being considered for promotion, that the problem is solved. Not yet. Not by far. In any case the AFA investigation didn’t come about with any help from ACTA, David Horowitz or other proponents of “academic freedom".

Further, this AFA investigation isn’t even related to the more relevant point: if right-wingers deserve affirmative action in humanities departments of public universities, then why not a similar program for left-wingers in the military officer corps?

Zefram also declares that Churchill shouts down respectful student dissenters. Says who? I’ve read the university report on the misconduct investigation, and this accusation is not included there. His record includes consistently positive student evaluations. Churchill has obviously been targetted for his political writings, plain and simple.

Also, the question ‘If Churchill is so prominent in his field, why doesn’t he cave in to those who are trying to hound him from his job?’ is so disingenuous as to be laughable. Look, even if we suppose, for the sake of argument, that Ward Churchill is a bad guy and is wrong about lots of stuff, it is nonetheless a fact that he is prolifically published and heavily cited. His works are, in fact, routinely assigned in ethnic studies courses all over the place. Whether you like him or hate him, he is distinguished in his field, even if you think he shouldn’t be.

It’s perfectly true that if he left Colorado he could find lucrative employment elsewhere. The fact that he hasn’t done so is no proof that he’s incompetent. Actually, being fired from Colorado would probably benefit his career by making him a free speech martyr, plus he’d be able to sue the state for millions. The school would suffer, though, by sending the message to potential teachers that they can be fired—even if tenured—for transparently political reasons.

Edward, at 4:23 pm EDT on August 9, 2005

Churchills must go, to prevent more damage

Last night, the new CU president was interviewed about Mr. Churchill. He conceded he was stunned by the amount of criticism of Mr. Churchill by state legislators and residents. He also called Mr. Churchill’s words and actions “misguided” and strongly disavowed them.

Deceivers and ranters like Mr. Churchill tax the patience of average parents, students, and taxpayers. They ask, “what are we getting for our money? The most-investigated academic trickster in America? Who lords his rights over others, as opposed to MLK, Ghandhi?”

This is not good. This faux-Indian might win a long-winded tenure battle — but CU students might lose the funding war. And for what? An affirmative action deceiver, repeatedly accused of academic and personal fraud. What a great victory!

Bob, at 9:20 am EDT on August 10, 2005

Opinion

The idea of allowing dissenting opinions is not akin to affirmative action. There is a distinct difference between saying that those whose opinions are different from their professors should be allowed to still receive grades based on the quality of their work (still determined by the professor) and saying that the professors must choose between either call everything equal or grading based on the degree agreement with his or her own opinion.

Some things, such as radioactive dating or the correct interpretation of literature can be said to be established facts, no longer in contention by neither the relevant experts nor the general public. Statements like “Republicans are evil,” on the other hand, are statements of personal opinion. Statements like “affirmative action works” depends on what goal “working” is said to be achieving – and thus able to be opposed. It is reasonable to expect dissention that is not without merit.

The bottom line essentially is that reasonable people can disagree on issues like political stance and university policies. Taking opposite sides does not mean that someone is “ignorant” and needs to be punished with a poor grade (either from the more conservative or more liberal professor) or a lecture, but simply that their beliefs on an issue that is not established as having a “right” answer – contrary to the attempts of some to say that no other side has any leg to stand on.

Kevin, Undergraduate, at 12:57 pm EDT on August 17, 2005

Bias

Also, as for the Airforce complaint, the government has called several investigations into this matter, and Congress has started holding some hearings that touched on this bias. The Airforce Academy is making an attempt to correct their bias.

I wonder where the committee that is investigating the excessive leftism on liberal campuses is meeting.

Kevin, Undergraduate, at 5:11 pm EDT on August 27, 2005

Jobs Related to Don't Worry -- Ward Churchill Will Solve the Problem

or search for jobs directly.

Open Rank
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

The Department of Radiation Oncology in the School of Medicine at UNC-Chapel Hill invites applications for a tenure-track ... see job

Research Fellow
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job

Professor or Associate Professor
East Carolina University

East Carolina University, a constituent institution of the University of North Carolina, is a doctoral institution with an ... see job

Open Rank Professor — Policy Unit
University of California, Los Angeles

The Policy Unit of the UCLA Anderson School of Management is seeking to fill one position in the general field of Strategy see job

Radiologic Technology Chair
Sinclair Community College

Sinclair is a comprehensive community college with an enrollment of over 24,000 students that offers career and transfer ... see job

Associate Dean, College of Education
Troy University

Troy University is seeking applicants for the position of Associate Dean of the College of Education — Montgomery campus. The ... see job

One-Year Faculty Position in Creative Writing
Northwestern College — IA

NORTHWESTERN COLLEGE (IOWA) has a one-year visiting position in Creative Writing (Fiction or Poetry) Fall 2009, with possible ... see job

Director of Human Resources
University of Texas, Brownsville

Position Number: FY 09-6 Reports to: Associate Vice President for Business Affairs/Compliance Scope: The University of Texas ... see job

Adjunct Faculty
Western Carolina University

Working Title: Adjunct Faculty — History

Posting Information: Western Carolina University is always ... see job

Chef and Kitchen Manager
Southern Oregon University

Faculty and staff make an educated choice to work at Southern Oregon University. They contribute to the education of students ... see job