Support NeoGAF

[whytemyke]

heh... this is that professor who basically called everyone in the WTC little eichmans, except for the people that cleaned up after the eichmans.

a few things. first off, i'm not totally positive he's THAT off base. It is an unconfirmed fact that the FBI/CIA did have an office at the top of the WTC. Plus, there's no denying the fact that the money most of these rich business assholes made did go to support the government.

and it's true that our government seems to enjoy letting people of different colors die in vast amounts. well, that's crass. we may not 'enjoy' it, but we certainly aren't bothered by it.

but the bottom line is, this guy has a right to state his opinions. I didn't support Bill Mahrer getting fired for what he said. Pat Robertson and Billy Graham both said awful things too (~"This is what you get for accepting homosexuals and nonbelievers"), neither of them had to really do much in terms of reconciliation. So Ward Churchill, a fairly intelligent liberal professor (definitely smarter than any of these idiots that have tried to interview him and nail him to the cross, unsucessfully), should be given the same consistency. It's that old fake voltaire quote: "i don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

oh well.

 

[Mandark]

Blech. Ward Churchill is an idiot. His argument is totally specious, not to mention callous, and in violation of Godwin's Law. Defending his condemnation of other human beings to death, then bringing up random quotes from the other side of the political spectrum won't help things.

There are two main issues here: Academic freedom, and astroturf outrage.

The core of the first issue is that Churchill should be able to keep his job. He is a professor with tenure. The whole point of tenure is that once you have been deemed competent in your area of expertise, you should have freedom of speech in that area, even if it incredibly insensitive, offensive, or downright disgusting.

This is important so that universities and professors don't come under political pressure to change what they teach and how they teach it. This means that even if someone says things that you think are wrong or dangerous (in my case, let's say Sallie Baliunas), they keep their job unless their peers reach the conclusion that the person has become incompetent. And this judgment should never be reverse-engineered from a popular outcry.

The second big issue is that Ward Churchill is a nobody. He is not an elected official, nor is he running for office. He is neither an editor nor a writer for any popular magazines, and he does not have a seat at a well-funded think tank. He is not regularly sought by reporters for expert quotes. He holds no actual political power, nor any real influence.

So why have so many large, professional news organizations devoted their resources to covering this? Well, the New York Post, Bill O'Reilly, Washington Times, and Pittsburgh Tribune Review all made enough noise that the NY Times figured they had to run a story on it, and when it was in the NYT, it became a big nation-wide deal. This was an informally orchestrated bit of propaganda, seizing on an inflammatory comment by a nobody and blowing it up like a real, important scandal.

There are about 300 million people in the US. Out of that group, you can find just about any opinion you want. So if you're just looking to be outraged for the sake of it, it's easy. But there should be some perspective, especially from the media, on just what constitutes actual news.

 

[whytemyke]

Haha, completely agreed, man. But if American media suddenly had perspective on things, well, I think it's safe to say that the political structure of the country would be a might bit different.

 

[Azrael]

First of all, I don't think his clarification that he wasn't referring to janitors and children but only "technocrats" makes the "little Eichmann" comment morally defensible. I'm not of the persuasion that professionals like IT managers and financial traders are all Nazis and should be exterminated, but hey.

Second, think about the implication of his position for a moment. People who are not directly making (or necessarily even agree with) or enforcing U.S. foreign policy but are enabling it because they support the infrastructure it rests upon are Nazis deserving of death, it's not so much of a stretch to go from that point to the conclusion that anyone who pays federal taxes are "little Eichmanns," for example. That's exactly the position of Osama bin Laden, and there's a thin line (if there is a line at all) between the views of someone like Ward Chuchill and Osama bin Laden.

but the bottom line is, this guy has a right to state his opinions. I didn't support Bill Mahrer getting fired for what he said.

Completely different situations. Ward Churchill is an employee of a public university and as such firing him for his views, as loathsome as they are, would be a violation of the First Amendment. Bill Maher was working for a private company which has every right to fire him for the views he expresses on their network, whether you agree with it or not. The First Amendment is intended to prevent the government from restricting political speech. It does not obligate a private person or company to provide a soapbox for speech they don't agree with, however.

I can think of several cases in which conservatives have been fired for expressing unpopular views. Rush Limbaugh from ESPN. Michael Savage from MSNBC. etc. I don't recall many liberals making the case then that while they disagreed with their views, ESPN and MSNBC were violating their First Amendment rights.

 

[whytemyke]

Yeah, I know ABC had the right to yank Maher, but ultimately it's still a shitty deal, and in my opinion, still wrong.

as for the part about liberals in the media not defending the cons losing their job, well, you're right, haha. that's the best argument I've read against liberals in the media in a long time, and i've really got nothing i can say to it, because as far as I know, it's indefensible without being hypocritical.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

As long as his comments aren't inciting hatred and violence, he should be able to make an ass out of himslef in my book. The guy's a dumbass who IS completely off base and useless-- beyond giving conservative pundits of equally idiocy ammunition--but his right to free speech should be preserved regardless.

 

[AssMan]

The guy is scary looking. He's an old fart, hippy. I also read that he once saw the president of Libya in 1983. The guy definately is anti-american, and needs to pack his bags alongside and move to France with Johnny Depp.

 

[Willco]

He makes some valid points, but then invalidates his whole argument by being a giant douche.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

He makes some valid points, but then invalidates his whole argument by being a giant douche.

I been away from news from a while and I'm quite shocked that this is what they consider news in the states.