Amid all the controversy over the observations of University of Colorado professor and leftist Indian political activist Ward Churchill concerning the military justifiability of the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center, it's easy to overlook the fact that freedom of academic expression on American university campuses is already virtually dead.

Churchill, who holds a tenured position at his university, is actually in an unusually strong position. With his tenure, the only way that the lynch mob out to fire him can get rid of him without facing a huge damage suit in court for breach of contract would be to prove a case of moral turpitude or dereliction of teaching duties or something equally heinous.

But for many teachers on American campuses--indeed for most teachers on some campuses and all at some--tenure is a thing of the past. Increasingly, universities large and small, famous and unknown, are turning to contract hires to do the teaching. These virtual professors are only offered "folding chairs" that carry a contract--one year, two years, three years, or maybe five years. At that point, they have to be renewed. They cannot be considered for tenure. Many other teachers are simply adjuncts, hired on a year-to-year or semester-to-semester basis to teach one or two classes. They have no contract at all to protect them.

Clearly, a person who has no job security has no freedom of expression. Such professors and adjuncts are no better off than the worker in a Wal-Mart or a General Electric factory--which means they have no more freedom of speech than a 12th century serf. They speak out at their own risk. If any adjunct or contract-hire teachers spoke out politically the way Churchill did and roused the wrath of the unwashed masses and the loofahed and lathered Bill O’Reilly, they'd be gone in a flash--if not the next day, then certainly at the end of the term.

At Temple University, a unionized urban institution here in Philadelphia, for instance (where teachers have been working almost a year without a contract because of management intransigence and demands for givebacks in the area of faculty governance), increasing numbers of professors are working on a contract basis. At Alfred University, where I taught journalism for a year, tenure is a bad joke. Although awarded after a typically exacting process of peer review, it has to be renewed every five years following a new peer review, thus providing as much academic freedom protection as a felt body-armor vest.

There is no question that the lack of tenure makes for less outspokenness, iconoclasm and strength of conviction. I remember when I was working as an adjunct journalism instructor at Cornell University back in 1989, going to an assistant professor colleague who was on the tenure track, looking for support for a proposal I wanted to make regarding the department's minority students, whom I had found were having trouble with my and other teachers' coursework and were then being asked to leave the school, instead of being offered remedial or preparatory assistance. He said, "Oh, that's a controversy I can't get involved in until I get my tenure."

With the bloodhounds of the right getting into full McCarthy lynching mode these days, including organized groups of student yahoos who monitor their teachers' lectures and backed by a phalanx of right-wing media mouths ready to amplify any complaint about non-mainstream viewpoints expressed by teachers in or outside the classroom, the fight for academic freedom has become more than academic. Yet instead of working to strengthen this important and historic tradition not just of tenure but of the very culture of free expression on campus, administrators are caving in to political pressure and undermining both.

For the rest of this column, please go (at no charge) to This Can't Be Happening! .

No one has threatened Churchill's "acedemic freedom". He has the right to say any offensive thing he can think up.

And parents have a right not to send their children to the University of Colorado.

And the University of Colorado has a right to terminate Churchill for becoming an economic liability for them.

Mayb Churchill can get hired at U.C. Berkeley? They like America haters out there............

Old Ironpants Jack has made clear what his views are on academic freedom - he doesn't think there should be any. In fact, he probably doesn't believe in freedom at all, except the right to make money, beat your wife and children, discriminate against minority groups, and carry a gun. Then again, maybe he's just miffed that UC Berkeley didn't accent his offer to serve as chair of the philosphy department.

Ward Churchill is God. Finally, an American, and a NATIVE AMERICAN at that, unlike all you fake ass pasty eurotrash neo-cocks, who has the balls to tell it like it is. Did you losers really think you could get away with murdering thousands of civilians, torturing innocent people, and stealing elections without the Lord passing judgement on your sorry ass.

Fuck 9-11, the whining is over, beyatches.

hey bush admirer, I had your momma and your

daughter last night, they sucked!!!

What's really moronic is how late these critics were to even notice the article. 2001, kids, was over three years ago.

If Ward Churchill is so important to you, such an important person, then why the hell didn't you cheetos know about him before?

That's not a real question, by the way. It's strictly rhetorical. The answer is: because you trolls are all are a pack of sheep. You're robots for the big-shot right wing whiners who can't handle criticism.

A year ago, you hated Michael Moore. Before that, who was it? I don't remember. Al Gore? Ted Kennedy? Ann Richards? Molly Ivins? Al Franken? Today, it's Ward Churchill you're going after -- a person most liberals don't even know of. His glory days were in the 1960s!

Jeez, who next? Tom Hayden? Why not go all the way back to the 60s and attack George McGovern and Martin Luther King? Sheeeit. You might as well criticize Dick Nixon and John Dean. They were both more liberal than some of the current crop of Democrats.

He's a good researcher and writer. He often goes pretty far with his opinions, but he mostly toes the academic line: research and cite everything.

He was also an activist in AIM, which helped reshape the country's policy toward Native Americans, by directly challenging the BIA. If he can't get a job in an American college (which is unlikely), he can get a job in another country.

As for the "little Eichmanns" comment, here's an interview excerpt that uses the phrase in context. The excerpt is from Satya, a peace magazine. The topic of the article is the use of violence to liberate animals (or people for that matter).



Q: "Some people feel that those who abuse animals or people negate their right to consideration and open themselves up to physical violence. What’s your response to this?"

A: "The individuals who are perpetrators in one way or another, the “little Eichmanns”* in the background—the technocrats, bureaucrats, technicians—who make the matrix of atrocity that we are opposing possible are used to operating with impunity. If you’re designing thermonuclear weapons, you’re subject to neutralization, in the same sense that somebody who is engaged in homicide would be, in terms of their capacity to perpetrate that offense. One or two steps removed should not have the effect of immunizing. Otherwise, only those who are in the frontline—usually the most expendable in the systemic sense—are subject to intervention. None of the decision-makers, the people who make it possible, would be subject to intervention that would prevent their action in any way at all."

Later... he states:

"The predominating absurdity in American oppositional circles for the past 30 years is the notion that if one intervenes to halt a rape or a murder in progress, if you actually use physical force as necessary to prevent that act, somehow or other you’ve become morally the same as the perpetrator. "

So, he basically pushes personal responsibility beyond the person, into society, and says we act as parts of systems. It's social responsibility to use violence in some situations. (I suspect he's pro-life.)

When people are able to take on this level of responsibility toward each other, the state can be dissolved. (He's anarchic.)

...peelin' spuds is jaggoff's idea of serving his country....

...all it ever did in the military was waste my tax dollars....

He probably spent most of his time in the brig or the stockade, if he really was in the service at all (highly doubtful). Ward Churchill was, as a combat soldier, which is one reason why he is against US military violence around the world. Jack the Rat's glorification of military service sounds like that of some SS veteran of World War II; a few of them are still around defending the invasions of Poland, France and the Soviet Union. Going even further back, it looks like he lifted some of his lines from the World War I novel All Quiet on the Western Front, in which people like him are mercilessly ridiculed - by a combat veteran.

jaggoff: "Meyer London nor KPC (two personalities, one person) "



...actually, we're Siamese twins...

Jack, why don't you go up to Ward Churchill, particularly after he's had a bad day fielding insults form right-wing imbeciles and being threatened with firing for exercising his free speech rights, and dare him to prove that he is a combat veteran?

...whatever fantasy floats your diminutive boat, sailorboy....if you don't tell we won't ask...



...not that there is anything WRONG with it....

One can see why US students score so well compared to students from other nations on standardized tests by examining the lofty nature of Jack's prose, his razor-sharp reasoning powers, his deep understanding of the human condition, and his vast knowledge of literature, history, science and political theory. In that sense he is a truly representative American; shame on those French bastards and other foreigners for implying that this is a nation made up of ignorant louts, mindless fascists, empty-headed television addicts, and beer-swilling semi-literates. How could they even suggest something like that after reading Jack's prose?

If Bat's Ass and Jack the Rat could go far enough back in history with a time machine, they would terminate Thomas Paine, William LLoyd Garrison, Federick Douglass, Walt Whitman and Abraham Lincoln.

It has nothing to do with me. On the other hand, he would place in power Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, the founders of the KKK, Jeb Stuart, the various pirates and plunderers who invaded Mexico and stole Texas in order to promote slavery, the bastards who jailed Thoreau, Lieutenant "Rusty" Cally of My Lai fame, Joe McCarthy, the executioners of the Rosenbergs, various leaders of lynch mobs, the generals who ordered hundreds of thousands of Filipinos killed for demanding freedom after the Spanish American War, and the men who ordered hundreds of thousands of helpless, retreating Iraqi soldiers, many of them conscripted laborers, burned to death on the Highway of Death during the first Gulf War. He would also make Gonzalez Attorney General, but he already is Attorney General.

jaggoff is a flagelator...he spent 10 years peelin' spuds and otherwise spankin' his monkey from the sidelines as the world passed him by, and now he is angry 'cause he is white but still a loser with a dead end job in a dead end town...so he spends his time munchin' cheetos in his mom's basement while on a one-wingnut on-line crusade against liberal boogeymen.

...time to grow up and go out into the real world, ya shameless leech...

If by that you mean I'd fire you from your job you're probably right, Mr. Churchill.

Just a few points-

1. Churchill is not a socialist. If anything, he's a peace-oriented, anti-government, militant. He's almost like a militia guy, except on the side of the indigenous people, against the modern state, whether it's capitalist or socialist.

2. Churchill is a vet. I think he's saw combat, but I'm not sure of that. I'm sure it's out there, somewhere. What's it matter anyway?

3. Since this is such a homophoic thread, here's something with a gay theme. This guy, Jeff Gannon, has been a little right-wing cocktaster posing as "press" and tossing fawning questions to right wingers. Story here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/8/174746/7900 http://www.americablog.org/

Anyway, he's the registrant of the following domans: Hotmilitarystud.com, Militaryescorts.com, Militaryescortsm4m.com

Let's see. He's conservative, gay, and runs a prostitution site. I wonder if he might be Bush Admirer or Jack Mehoffer. I tend to think it's Jack, because he's a rich kid, and BA doesn't have the smarts to do basic bookkeeping. He's no Sgt. Bilko, but he might be able to sell cock for money.

This is "Jack Gannon" and maybe even "Guckert", of conservativeguy.com.

Rule 1 of fucking around online: be ready to be called out.

Most the shit I talk on here, I've told some of the people in my community about. The anarchy, the porn, even that I've met people from online. I'm never going to run for office, or even be some kind of "community leader."

I hope the cheeto-lickers can handle the same. Cuz that cheeto-licker up there sure wasn't.

Yeah. Right.

I also heard he was a full blooded Cherokee Indian. That turned out to be lies, too.

Oh yes. He's also a respectable member of his community, too. Right.

Next month, after he gets fired, you'll be trying to tell us he's a millionaire anyway and does not need to make a living.

Churchill is leftist scum. He should be expatriated, forcibly.

You've sure got that right, more rational. In fact, that's the only truly rational thing you've written in a long time. You should never run for office because your politics are not American. Not to mention you would be swiftly and easily thrashed in an election. The public would choose Sponge Bob Squarepants before they voted you in. It would be quite embarrassing for you.

In case you really gave a shit -- I've been told to run for office before.

And BA - yes, I collect photos of hypocrite gay conservatives who pose as reporters and throw softball questions to White House officials. I have to be able to recognize the enemy.

That guy was one of the writers of gopusa. :-) Have a nice day.

He was in Vietnam. Then he protested against it.

I've heard that one before. Sounds just like Sheepdog's "me and my comrade's sucking mud and blood" rant. And don't forget Meyer London's "little Eichmanns" comments right here on indymedia. You leftists are really birds of a feather.

Churchill has very, very limited credibility. He's already been caught in several lies. And his claim to fame is that he believes anyone who engages in capitalism is a Nazi. Got a bank account? You're a Nazi. Got a mutual fund? You're a Nazi. Purchase stocks, bonds, munnies, or T-bills? You, little Eichmann, are a Nazi.

This guy is a loser of the highest order. He's an angry low-life that spreads his disease by teaching it to college kids.

People like that ought to be castigated by society. You leftists praise him. Why? Because you hate America. You hate what this country stands for. And that ought to be a crime.

It's called thought crime. Welcome to Oceania and SOG, Winston.

It's called sedition. Inciting resistance to lawful authority and intending to cause the disruption or overthrow of the government is a crime punishable in most cases by death. Treason, a crime that undermines the offender's government and demonstrates Disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior, is also punishable by death. Providing aid and succor to the enemy should also be punished by death.

I'm not saying Mr. Churchill is guilty of these crimes, only that he is walking a fine line, and should perhaps be tried for them. I don't want to see him executed, though. I'd prefer to see him expatriated to Cuba, China, North Korea, or some place where he'd be a happier person. I'm really thinking about what's best for him, considering how he's worn out his welcome in America.

Treason/subversive behavior/lawful authority

Treason like the involvement of our intelligence services and administration in the mass murder of 9-11.

Subversive behavior as in the mass deception of the media as it toadys up to the pentagon and its payroll to participate in the war crimes after the mass murder/treason of 9-11 ( as only one example)

Lawful authority. Where is it? Not in this gaggle of criminals in power.

"Treason like the involvement of our intelligence services and administration in the mass murder of 9-11. "

You leftists blame the mass murder of 9-11 on the government, but then claim those people were "little Eichmanns" and deserved what they got?? Insane logic to say the least. Well? Which is it?

Of course you don't.

Ward is off base at the analysis of these events in my opinion.

I've already said that.

Well, you're certainly the one to speak on people being "off base" in their analysis. Why, anyone who claims that 9-11 was carried out by the CIA with remote controlled planes, explosives and holograms is definately right on the mark. You sir, are the last bastion of academic thought.

" Got a bank account? You're a Nazi. Got a mutual fund? You're a Nazi. Purchase stocks, bonds, munnies, or T-bills? You, little Eichmann, are a Nazi. "



....well, in your case, he's obviously right....the only use you get outta books is BarBQing Burgers!

ITS ABOUT SOMEONE START ASKING QUESTIONS...LIKE WHEN THE PLANE WENT INTO THE PENTAGON WERES THE PLANE WREKAGE?



QUESTION WHY ARE SOME SCARED TO ANSWER THEM , AND WHY DO MOST WANT TO STOP THE ONES WHO ASK THEM??????

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK MR.CHURCHILL................AND MAY YOU BE PROTECTED WHILE SOME OF US LOOK FOR TRUTH... TO ALL FIRST NATIONS YOU ARE NOT GONE OR FORGOTTEN........CROSS

That was a good one by AnnCoulter, thanks.

That's a racial slur.

Just for your information, that's all.

Yeah, I know it's not the same as a real bad slur, but, it's not like there's an American Indian in the news every day. They don't go after whites in the same way.

You know... "GW Bush, Just Another Witey Ready to Rape the World."

He's not a Marxist. Just read what he writes. It's anti-modern. If you're going to attack the guy, at least have the integrity to read his works.

Painting everyone with the same brush only makes you look foolish. It's like racists who call all brown people "----ing Mexicans" or yellow people "----ing Ch-nk-". It's bad enough you're making boneheaded attacks, but that the attacks have no basis in fact only makes you look more stupid.

Right now, the main attack against Churchill amounts to: he's not a team player in our war against the Middle East.

Talk about a Hitlerian, anti-democratic rationale.

>>>And his claim to fame is that he believes anyone who engages in capitalism is a Nazi. Got a bank account? You're a Nazi. Got a mutual fund? You're a Nazi. Purchase stocks, bonds, munnies, or T-bills? You, little Eichmann, are a Nazi.<<<

I think he has a point.

"No man is an island."

I don't think he goes as far as saying owning a t-bond makes you a legitimate target of some jihad... but suppose you own $10 million dollars worth? If you own $100 million, you certainly are complicit in the system.

Somewhere you need to draw the line.

A lot of politicos, particularly rich ones, want to restrict their social responsiblity to no further than their families... and many won't even go that far. They want to be islands.

Yet, at the same time, they want financial control over people. They want to own the debts. They want to own the land. They want to control when you go to work, and what days you're paid.

Recently, Max Schmelling died. He tried to be a decent guy -- doing what he could to shelter people during the 3rd Reich, and at least publicly opposing Hitler when it wasn't popular to do so. This was a man who felt a burden or responsiblity toward his fellow man.

There is a ton of info coming out on WardChurchill, and most of it points to his fraudulent life. Even real indians are removing his fake feathers.

If hitler was alive and needed a REAL eichmann i'm sure churchill would be in the running.