Tuesday, March 29, 2005
On the path to being fired
Ward Churchill is scary, isn't he. Res Ipsa coverage and Patriot coverage (here and here).
Overall, it sounds like he was self-righteous and refused to really address the complaints against him. "I'm a victim! I'm a victim!" and the like.
"The rubric of the First Amendment says all citizens are imbued with the prerogative to express their views how and when they'd like," he said.
He said that, but that really seems like a pretty ridiculous way to say "the First Ammendment gives free speech rights." Rubric? Imbued? Prerogative? This is why people don't respect academics.
In any case, the First Ammendment doesn't say anything about not getting fired for expressing your views.
"And finally, on to the really dangerous question—am I really an Indian?" he joked. "The question of my identity is being put in terms of research integrity."
Well, yeah, your integrity includes things like "not lying about your identity."
The other panelists, including Dean of Arts and Humanities Ralph Hexter and ethnic studies professor Carlos Munoz, supported Churchill. The third panelist, Natsu Saito, an international law professor at Georgia State University, also spoke in his defense. Saito and Churchill are dating.
Two of the panelists supported Churchill. The third panelist also supported Churchill. And if you have to bring your girlfriend to defend you...
Andrew Quino gets the best quote, though:
"Ward Churchill said he's been violated, yet... the media’s drooling all over him."
Still, the panelists said all opinions, including controversial ones, deserve to be heard.
"Academic freedom is essential for arguments and counterarguments to be heard," Munoz said. "It leads to informed decisions."
See above note about how all three panelists shared the exact same opinion.
. . .
|
. . .
|
