We touched just briefly on the story of the wacko University of Colorado professor the other day, but Belmont Club now has "The Ward Churchill Story" up for your perusal, supplemented now by Part Two, focusing on the U. of C.'s reaction to the controversy.
Wretchard suggests that Churchill's apparent exposure as a fraud (or worse) may not impact on the school's decision on whether or not the content of his speech has First Amendment protections. They should take one thing at a time. The right side of the blogosphere doesn't seem to be calling for Churchill's dismisal over his reprehensible rhetoric, as Glenn Reynolds notes. (Another great link-rich update from Glenn here.)
The best possible result is to have the man's words, credentials and background exposed to the light of day, even if the publicity that it gives him results in undeserved celebrity. Then let the parents of UC students decide if they want to spend their hard-earned money to have their kids fed this line of crap in Ethnic Studies class. Let the school's financial contributors, administrators and alumni decide if they want to put forth Ward Churchill as a representative of their university.
If it can be proven that he lied about being an American Indian in the first place, as seems quite plausible now, they would likely be justified in firing him on the basis of fraud. But his freedom to speak his little mind without losing his job should be defended staunchly by all conservatives on principle. Right now he serves our cause wonderfully as an example of the academic Left.
UPDATE 2/6: Roger Kimball weighs in eloquently (as always).
Posted by dan at February 4, 2005 11:14 PMManufacturing a weak integrity argument to justify free speech violations...
It started in a federal Court in Pittsburgh and has moved quickly to Colorado Universtity and Iraq. It's a stretch, but political hacks have besieged first amendment free speech protections.
They attempt to combine a provacative essay comparing victims of 911 with Nazi criminals and an emotionally charged General's comments on war, questioning whether such is permissible when the comments may cause damaged to an institution's integrity.
Why?
Because in a Pittsburgh federal court a well connected corporate crony has suggested the novice argument, and the legal question is waddling without any legal precedent in need of an activist court.
Thus the current unexplained campaign against “free speech” appears to be little more than a Madison Avenue scheme to control any discussion of the President’s desire to privatize higher education.
That is, a number of for-profit colleges have faced inquiries, lawsuits and other actions calling into question the way they inflate enrollment to mislead/increase the value of their parent company’s stock.
In the last year, the Career Education Corporation of Hoffman Estates, Ill., has faced lawsuits, from shareholders and students, contending that, among other things, its colleges have inflated enrollment numbers. In addition, F.B.I. agents raided 10 campuses run by ITT Educational Services of Carmel, Ind., looking for similar problems.
But in a Pittsburgh federal court there is a bigger can of worms.
Kaplan, Inc., is wholly own by the Washington Post Company. For-profit postsecondary education has turned the company around and individuals far more powerful than Martha Steward have made millions. However, there is a nominal “Watergate” styled federal court proceeding (scandal) involving campus “free speech,” that could expose the administration’s violation of public trust
In short, I provided the S.E.C., Department of Education, and federal courts information that appears to prove Kaplan inflated the Concord School of Law enrollment, telling investors that the “flagship” of its higher education division has as many as 600 to 1000 or more students.
I also provided evidence to prove apparent violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
However, in an attempt to protect important icons of the Washington and New York financial/political circle, hacks have been hired to stir a free speech controversy.
But even Stan Chess (En Passant http://lawtv.typepad.com/en_passant/2004/a_question_of_l.html) innocently questioned the obvious - a clear violation of the federal securities laws.
“Kaplan’s Concord School of Law says it’s one of the largest law schools in the country, yet for each administration only about 25 of its graduates sit for the bar exam. What happens to the hundreds of other students in each class?”
What are you willing to do?
Posted by: kstreetfriend at February 6, 2005 05:25 AMAs a supplement, please note the following.
Introduction: In a Pittsburgh federal court a well connected corporate crony has suggested a novice "free speech" argument and the legal question is waddling without any legal precedent in need of an activist court.
Creating the free speech crisis is a "red herring" to draw attention away from the plain and clear evidence of the Pittsburgh Federal Court proceeding (best example of the corruption).
Ward Churchill was a relatively unknown professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, until Bill O'Reilly reported a piece about him and requested his audience to make a fuss. His provacative essay was written more than three years ago.
The connection:
Ms. ElizaBETH Hoffman is the President of Colorado University. Go to http://www.hss.caltech.edu/Photos/Alumni/HoffmanElizabeth.jpg and/or http://www.colorado.edu/Carillon/volume47/images/1.jpg to view her picture.
Ms. BETH (Rue) Kotcella Buchanan is the U.S. Attorney for Western Pennsylvania. Go to http://www.pittsburghlive.com/photos/2002-02-26/PH_2002-02-26_iattorney-b.jpg to view her picture.
Background: I attended undergraduate school with Ms. Buchanan. At the Pennsylvania University I succesfully re-established (and served as president) the pre-law society and graduated in 1983. Here Ms. Buchanan would become interested in the law. She graduated after me in 1984.
In addition, I was listed in Whose Who Among American Colleges and Universities, and given the 1983 Progressive Leadership Award, and 1983 Distinguished Honor Award.
Before joining the U.S. Attorney's Office in 1988 Ms. Buchanan secured a clerkship with U.S. District Judge Maurice B. Cohill, Jr.
Judge Cohill is the Western District Judge responsible for enforcing a consent decree governing United States of America v. Port Authority of Allegheny County, Docket No. 91-CV-1694. However, he turned a blind eye to my case Docket No. 95-CV-00339. I had organized (secure a union) a political sub-division.
During that same year members of the state judiciary were charged and convicted for violating my civil right (fixing cases against me in retaliation of Docket No. 95-CV-00339).
In a case related to Docket No. 95-CV-00339, an alleged EEOC investigative file was prematurely purged and the U.S. Department of Labor refused deliver its copy despite a subpoena, FOIA Request and Motion to Compel. See Docket No. 98-CV-230. That is, the Department of Labor closed its investigation based on the alleged EEOC decision. But, I had proffered to the court EEOC's writings that demonstrated no investigation was conducted.
Discussion: At issue is the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. The Bush administration is attempting to change the 50 percent rule. That is, financial aid is available for postsecondary education provided at a college or university that has at least 50 percent of its students campus-based.
Corporations have paid Senators and Congress men and women well, attempting to change the 50 percent rule. The rule is necessary to prevent fraud (absentee students and/or diploma mills).
It appears at least three corporations have abused the administration's Distance Education Demonstration that wavied the 50 percent rule.
The Career Education Corporation of Hoffman Estates, Ill., has faced lawsuits, from shareholders and students, contending that, among other things, its colleges have inflated enrollment numbers. In addition, F.B.I. agents raided 10 campuses run by ITT Educational Services of Carmel, Ind., looking for similar problems.
Nonetheless, the S.E.C. and FBI investigation is just spin to make it appear the administration is doing its job.
The Pittsburgh case involves Kaplan, Inc., who is wholly own by the Washington Post Company. For-profit postsecondary education has turned the company around. Individuals far more powerful than Martha Steward have made millions.
Thus the current unexplained campaign against “free speech” appears to be little more than another Madison Avenue scheme to control any discussion.
Posted by: kstreetfriend at February 12, 2005 03:39 AM
