Stones Cry Out

i would submit that his faculty has a right to decide whether he should be a member. if he is not upholding the goals and mission of the faculty, then I believe they can sanction him anyway they choose.

notice that he isn't gaining a roar of support from his collegues. maybe this just gave them the opportunity to remove an a**h*** from their midst when previously the grounds didn't exist. we are hearing little about the internal politics of his college and department (note I said college, not university).

just some speculation for what it's worth.

When I was at Colorado State, we called Boulder "17 square miles surrounded by reality"

by the way...the students are there to learn, and hopefully learn to critique, evaluate, and hear many points of view. the governor should keep his hands out of it, and nobody else should determine his speech in the classroom apart from his peers and direct supervisor.

in my opinion, this is how to best foster a collegial environment. the day we tell a professor (not a public school teacher...a university professor) what to say and not to say is a sad day for not only free speech, but centuries of tradition dating to European monastaries. freedom to pontificate from the lecturn has served us well and I see no need to change it. What I disagree with is being graded down because one's views differ with the instructor.

(By the way, I was a victim of that in a composition class taught by a total feminazi from Middlebury in Vermont. She would not reschedule a required conference around my baseball schedule but made accomodations for others. We HAD to write every paper on gender equity issues, and my final paper on Title IX stipulated that the law is fair as it is, and men's sports would stop disappearing if they reduced the number of football scholarships allowed via NCAA rules. I received a D...a PoliSci professor said it was probably B work.)

So, believe me, I can't stand pontificating professors, but if they allow scholarly interaction and debate, it does make one think. And better thinkers make better decisions and make better leaders.

And that is why you are there...not to be indoctrinated by the taxpayer point of view (which is advocated by Michael Savage on the radio...you don't teach philosophy if you are being paid to teach physics...himself a PhD from Berkley, I don't get that stance...but so be it.)

Thanks Brian, I definitely see where you are coming from. I guess I think that there is a line that cannot be crossed, but I too would be a bit uncomfortable defining that line. Kind of like identifying obscenity: I'll know it when I see it.

The problem I have I guess is that faculty are already self-selecting. I don't know how it works at UoC, but I had a Poli Sci professor at UCSD explain to me how the recruiting and hiring works. They invite a select group of prospects to a coctail party hosted by the Department. The prospects smooze (suck up) to the existing faculty. Existing faculty read up on the prospects and poke and prod them about their beliefs/views. Then they submit their "opinions" (unofficially) to the Department Chair and decisionmakers. Finally, if you make the cut (won't be a threat to the other faculty), you are offered an assistant professorship. After proving yourself to not be a threat to other tenured professors in the Department, you may gain tenure yourself.

That process itself quashes freedom of speech and expression of ideas. I guess I don't know the solution, but the current system is not serving our nation as well as I think you are suggesting.

Oh... BTW... I am pretty much an in-the-closet Christian and conservative at school. I have a 4.0 through my last 100 units of school (UCSD And SDSU), with an A+ in 35 of those units. I can guarantee you that I would not have made those marks if I had outed myself and challenged my professors directly on their ideas and agenda.

I have outed myself to a couple of professors and several fellow students, but I'm very selective and I try to let the Lord lead me in those decisions. I don't feel called to take on the academic world as a student. Maybe later though... :-)

For now, I'll earn my credentials with integrity (I don't advocate ideas that I don't agree with just to win grades). I spend a lot of time trying to find things to write about that convey my understanding of what the prof is trying to communicate, without necessarily embracing their ideas. Actually, I think it's making me a stronger student and abler analyst.

This is a tough issue anyway you slice it, but the most important fact remains he has the right to say what he wants. The intent of University is to teach people to THINK. Often during my education, professors would take the "devil's advocate" position on matters to challenge us to think. The positions they took were often uncomfortable, but necessary to challenge our thoughts and to gain ownership over them.

I don't agree with Churchill's remarks by any stretch of the imagination, but this matter is a university matter. If the students, many are claiming to be protecting, felt brow beat by his liberalism they should be the ones speaking up, not the govenor of Colorado. Remember most of those students that many are trying to protect can: drive, vote, enter legal contracts, join the military and die for us. Paradoxically, for someone so unable to protect their own minds, we sure allow them the a bunch of responsibities that can DESTROY their lives.

Even though a crime was not committed, socially one has. Right now, speaking ones mind isn't popular. If one decides to speak their mind and it differs from the current societal norm they get pounced upon. Although the courts are never involved, lives do get ruined because they were declared "guilty" by the media and the society.

The fact remains that MANY (some in my family line) people have died to allow him to say such a thing. I personally would die defending the freedom of speech, because I believe it is that important. If we truely believe in it, then we shouldn't hold the "if I agree with it" addendum.

Undoubtably, Churchill will be held responsible by his peers as it should be.

Thanks SM. You wrote: "The fact remains that MANY (some in my family line) people have died to allow him to say such a thing. I personally would die defending the freedom of speech, because I believe it is that important. If we truely believe in it, then we shouldn't hold the "if I agree with it" addendum."

I too have relatives who have fought and died in war (including two direct anscestors who fought in the Revolutionary War). I'm not advocating that his free speech be taken away. He can speak freely. But I don't think the taxpayers should be forced to support his tripe. If Colorado residents want to pay his salary - fine. If they don't want to pay his salary - fine. He could always get a job a privately funded university. He could also try another state who might be more tolerant of his trash. Finally, he can stand in a park and rally his troops all he wants. If he wants to speak - he can speak. No one will stop him; but they may stop paying him to do it. Big difference.

To me, the whole point of the 1st Amendment is that the Government will not censor political speech from the press or inhibit the right for people to peaceably assemble. It does not mean that if you hold a government job you can say anything you want without being held accountable by the public, from which the government derives its power.

But hey, I'm still learning here. I may change my mind on this one :-)

Churchill may be a low life and a scumbag, but the only people who should have any say over his hiring or firing are the staff and administration of CU. No one else. Not me or the governor or any talking head on the radio. His peers should decide his fate, not a mob-induced public.

Free speech has become a re herring in this case. There is evidence that Churchill misrepresented his credentials, misrepresented sources in his writings, and plagiarized. Those are not free speech issues. Fraud is always grounds for termination. Link

If he had been honest in his credentials, honest in his representations of his sources, and honest about citing his sources, then I would be with Voltaire here.

The link in my previous post didn't seem to get through: Try again