PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Ward Churchill wins court case...


Pages : [1] 2

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 08:03 AM
Jury didn't award him any money ($1.00), but he did not ask for any other than reinstatement and back pay. He will get that.

The judge will now decide the particulars.

While I disagree with Ward's statements vehemently, as a college prof I was very interested in the jury's decision. It seems academic freedom is still alive and well. I am quite pleased with that. (So are my conservative collegues, by the way).

CU fired him after a witch hunt, imo. After going through 44,000 page of text they found 7 footnotes that contained mistakes. Every prolific author on the face of the planet will have that many mistakes in their end notes.

stevieray
04-08-2009, 08:05 AM
Jury didn't award him any money ($1.00), but he did not ask for any other than reinstatement and back pay. He will get that.

The judge will now decide the particulars.

While I disagree with Ward's statements vehemently, as a college prof I was very interested in the jury's decision. It seems academic freedom is still alive and well. I am quite pleased with that. (So are my conservative collegues, by the way).

CU fired him after a witch hunt, imo. After going through 44,000 page of text they found 7 footnotes that contained mistakes. Every prolific author on the face of the planet will have that many mistakes in their end notes.

academic freedom? as long as you are on the Evolution train..

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 08:06 AM
academic freedom? Unless you question Darwin.

Not true...Many profs question Darwin. Evolution on the other hand, not so much.

How many do you know that question gravity?

Radar Chief
04-08-2009, 08:27 AM
So the guy lies on his resume and you’re happy that he gets away with it because he shares a job, that he shouldn’t have had to begin with, with you?
That’s a real shame, if I were in your position he’d be an embarrassment.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 08:29 AM
So the guy lies on his resume, plagiarizes others work, and youíre happy that he gets away with it because he shares a job, that he shouldnít have had to begin with, with you?
Thatís a real shame, if I were in your position heíd be an embarrassment.

The jury decided he did not plagiarize. I tend to agree. What did he lie on his resume about???

Radar Chief
04-08-2009, 08:41 AM
The jury decided he did not plagiarize. I tend to agree.

I removed that accusation from my post.

What did he lie on his resume about???

About being Cherokee and Creek, which was why he was hired as a chairman for CU’s Department Ethnic Studies.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 08:44 AM
About being Cherokee and Creek, which was why he was hired for CUís Department of Native American Studies.

Really? He claimed he was Cherokee and Creek on his Vita (resume)?

I would have to see that before I believed it. No one puts their ethnicity on their Vita when applying for a job. I have acted as chair of a department for 10 years, hired and fired many folks, and never once have I seen ethnicity listed on any hiring document.

RaiderH8r
04-08-2009, 08:53 AM
Not true...Many profs question Darwin. Evolution on the other hand, not so much.

How many do you know that question gravity?

Well, Einstein for starters. After that there's Hawking and some others who question the true nature of gravity all the time.

Now anthropogenically caused Global Warming, that will get you pilloried if you demonstrate even the slightest skepticism. Mmmmm that's good science, scratch that, that's good religion right there.

BucEyedPea
04-08-2009, 08:57 AM
(So are my conservative collegues, by the way).

CU fired him after a witch hunt, imo. After going through 44,000 page of text they found 7 footnotes that contained mistakes. Every prolific author on the face of the planet will have that many mistakes in their end notes.

This conservative agrees. I said the same when the controversy was on fire too.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 08:59 AM
Well, Einstein for starters. After that there's Hawking and some others who question the true nature of gravity all the time.

Now anthropogenically caused Global Warming, that will get you pilloried if you demonstrate even the slightest skepticism. Mmmmm that's good science, scratch that, that's good religion right there.

No it won't. A minority of profs argue against human-caused global warming. You can buy their books anywhere. Not one has been fired due to that. We certainly haven't had a governor of a state call for the firing of a climatologist simply because he/she went against the norm of thought about global warming.

petegz28
04-08-2009, 09:01 AM
Really? He claimed he was Cherokee and Creek on his Vita (resume)?

I would have to see that before I believed it. No one puts their ethnicity on their Vita when applying for a job. I have acted as chair of a department for 10 years, hired and fired many folks, and never once have I seen ethnicity listed on any hiring document.

Well then you didn't pay much attention back when all the hoopla was going on. Obviously.

petegz28
04-08-2009, 09:03 AM
The guy is a piece of shit. He incited violence acts as far as I am concerned. Some of you can pretend this is some sort of freedom all the **** you want. Your head is up your ass. When a man goes around telling people to pop off grendades at others or whatever then he has crossed the line. I don't give a **** if he is a teacher or not.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 09:04 AM
Well then you didn't pay much attention back when all the hoopla was going on. Obviously.

Have you read his resume? I know people claim that he put that on it. I just don't believe it to be true.

petegz28
04-08-2009, 09:05 AM
Have you read his resume? I know people claim that he put that on it. I just don't believe it to be true.

Have you read it? No. So people just made it up then I guess. The guy is a fucking scumbag, PERIOD.

Mr. Kotter
04-08-2009, 09:08 AM
Jury didn't award him any money ($1.00), but he did not ask for any other than reinstatement and back pay. He will get that.

The judge will now decide the particulars.

While I disagree with Ward's statements vehemently, as a college prof I was very interested in the jury's decision. It seems academic freedom is still alive and well. I am quite pleased with that. (So are my conservative collegues, by the way).

CU fired him after a witch hunt, imo. After going through 44,000 page of text they found 7 footnotes that contained mistakes. Every prolific author on the face of the planet will have that many mistakes in their end notes.

I'd be surprised if a SD judge and court would reach the same verdict, though. :hmmm:

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 09:10 AM
Have you read it? No. So people just made it up then I guess. The guy is a ****ing scumbag, PERIOD.

I never said that I had. I am arguing that the folks saying he put that on his resume are incorrect.

Radar Chief
04-08-2009, 09:14 AM
Really? He claimed he was Cherokee and Creek on his Vita (resume)?

I would have to see that before I believed it. No one puts their ethnicity on their Vita when applying for a job. I have acted as chair of a department for 10 years, hired and fired many folks, and never once have I seen ethnicity listed on any hiring document.

Do you hire for the Ethnic Studies Department? Donít you think ethnicity is relevant to Ethnic Studies so placing ones ethnicity, particularly when claiming to be a minority, wouldnít be out of the ordinary?
Iíve never put my ethnicity down on a resume either, but itís been a question that required a response on every employment application Iíve ever filed or seen filled out. And lying on either is justification for immediate dismissal.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 09:14 AM
I'd be surprised if a SD judge and court would reach the same verdict, though. :hmmm:

Why? Did you read the charges brought by CU? You should. They were petty. And a jury recognized it. Wrong date was one, leaving out one author's name (of a co-authored piece) was another, etc. etc.

We are talking about 44,000 pages of written text and thousands of footnotes. They found 7 irregularities. That were quite minor.

I think most juries would have went the same way.

Radar Chief
04-08-2009, 09:16 AM
This conservative agrees. I said the same when the controversy was on fire too.

Oh, I agree. Had he not been so vocal in his twisted rhetoric regarding the deaths of around 3K Americans heíd have been able to ride his scam to retirement. That doesnít mean he was wrongfully terminated or that he is right in scamming the university and anyone that took his class seriously.

Mr. Kotter
04-08-2009, 09:16 AM
Why? Did you read the charges brought by CU? You should. They were petty. And a jury recognized it. Wrong date was one, leaving out one author's name (of a co-authored piece) was another, etc. etc.

We are talking about 44,000 pages of written text and thousands of footnotes. They found 7 irregularities. That were quite minor.

I think most juries would have went the same way.

Jury nullification in this case could be justified... ;)

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 09:17 AM
Do you hire for the Ethnic Studies Department? Donít you think ethnicity is relevant to Ethnic Studies so placing ones ethnicity, particularly when claiming to be a minority, wouldnít be out of the ordinary?
Iíve never put my ethnicity down on a resume either, but itís been a question that required a response on every employment application Iíve ever filed or seen filled out. And lying on either is justification for immediate dismissal.

Ethnicity is NOT a part of an employment application. Find me one. You may have fill out another card for HR to make sure that they have a pool of mixed ethnicity or women or whatever, but those are seperate from the application and are confidential.

petegz28
04-08-2009, 09:19 AM
Ethnicity is NOT a part of an employment application. Find me one. You may have fill out another card for HR to make sure that they have a pool of mixed ethnicity or women or whatever, but those are seperate from the application and are confidential.

Bull......shit. EVERY application I have ever filled out has had a section that required me to identify my race\ethnicity.

KC native
04-08-2009, 09:19 AM
Ethnicity is NOT a part of an employment application. Find me one. You may have fill out another card for HR to make sure that they have a pool of mixed ethnicity or women or whatever, but those are seperate from the application and are confidential.

And voluntary. You can choose to not self identify.

petegz28
04-08-2009, 09:21 AM
And voluntary. You can choose to not self identify.

It may be voluntary but it IS on the application.

Brock
04-08-2009, 09:22 AM
He's a scumbag either way.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 09:22 AM
And voluntary. You can choose to not self identify.

Exactly...No one asks for race on the application form. They do on the HR pool form, but it seems folks here don't understand that.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 09:23 AM
He's a scumbag either way.

Granted. I think that was what Kotter was saying as well.

BucEyedPea
04-08-2009, 09:25 AM
Jury nullification in this case could be justified... ;)

LMAO I'm actually a believer in that— but for checking govt tyranny.
I wouldn't overturn this though because the U was not basing their decision on facts but on their dislike of his views.
That's hardly tyranny. There's plenty of other Ward Churchills teaching in our schools lower and upper.

Radar Chief
04-08-2009, 09:26 AM
It may be voluntary but it IS on the application.

Looking over some generic applications on the interwebs, Iím not finding it, but my memory is just like yours.
If present, it may be voluntary but any blanks left on the application will draw questions from the interviewer.

Radar Chief
04-08-2009, 09:27 AM
Do you hire for the Ethnic Studies Department? Donít you think ethnicity is relevant to Ethnic Studies so placing ones ethnicity, particularly when claiming to be a minority, wouldnít be out of the ordinary?

No answers here?

BucEyedPea
04-08-2009, 09:28 AM
Oh and scumbags have rights!

Mr. Kotter
04-08-2009, 09:29 AM
LMAO I'm actually a believer in that— but for checking govt tyranny.
I wouldn't overturn this though because the U was not basing their decision on facts but on their dislike of his views.
There's plenty of other Ward Churchills teaching in our schools lower and upper.

There may be others, but few are as arrogant, wreckless, and misguided. He's in an "elite" class.

BucEyedPea
04-08-2009, 09:30 AM
There may be others, but few are as arrogant, wreckless, and misguided.

I'd have to hear what all of them have to say to give Churchill that honor in a fair manner. How'd he wind up with Churchill for his last name is far more intriguing to me though. :D

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 09:30 AM
No answers here?

No I don't. But all departments use the same application form. There is no ethnicity box. I just looked up CU's. There is none there either.

petegz28
04-08-2009, 09:31 AM
Exactly...No one asks for race on the application form. They do on the HR pool form, but it seems folks here don't understand that.

Dude, you are wrong. Sorry, but that is just how it is. Since I started working 20 some-odd years ago, I ahve never been presented with an application that did not have a "race" section.

Radar Chief
04-08-2009, 09:38 AM
Oh and scumbags have rights!

So do employers, uh, well they used to.

dirk digler
04-08-2009, 09:45 AM
Dude, you are wrong. Sorry, but that is just how it is. Since I started working 20 some-odd years ago, I ahve never been presented with an application that did not have a "race" section.

No you are wrong. Not all places ask this and it is completely mandatory.

I just went and looked up our application where I work and they don't ask.

BucEyedPea
04-08-2009, 09:45 AM
So do employers, uh, well they used to.
I believe that U of Col is a public university though.

Radar Chief
04-08-2009, 09:46 AM
Here you go.
A copy of Ward Churchillís 1980 Resume claiming Cherokee and Creek ethnicity.

http://www.aimovement.org/csi/Churchill/churchill_resume_80.jpg

BucEyedPea
04-08-2009, 09:47 AM
Radar is going to try to claim he knows more than the jury now.

Radar Chief
04-08-2009, 09:48 AM
Radar is going to try to claim he knows more than the jury now.

Do you know a friend that told you that?

blaise
04-08-2009, 09:52 AM
Applications can ask for ethnicity, but there's usually a note that says it's voluntary if you answer. It also says that the race isn't used in any way to determine qualifications for the job, but rather for statistical reasons (like how many applications they get for different races). I would assume it's more about showing you're Equal Opportunity.
I don't think checking a wrong ethnicity box could be construed as lying on an application because it's not technically part of the application itself, but rather a fact finding question included on the application.

dirk digler
04-08-2009, 09:53 AM
Applications can ask for ethnicity, but there's usually a note that says it's voluntary if you answer. It also says that the race isn't used in any way to determine qualifications for the job, but rather for statistical reasons (like how many applications they get for different races). I would assume it's more about showing you're Equal Opportunity.
I don't think checking a wrong ethnicity box could be construed as lying on an application because it's not technically part of the application itself, but rather a fact finding question included on the application.

Yep. It is used only for EEOC reporting purposes.

blaise
04-08-2009, 09:55 AM
The guy is still a piece of shit though.

petegz28
04-08-2009, 09:59 AM
No you are wrong. Not all places ask this and it is completely mandatory.

I just went and looked up our application where I work and they don't ask.

No I am not wrong. Every application I have filled out had a section for race.

Obviously I do not work for your company.

dirk digler
04-08-2009, 10:02 AM
No I am not wrong. Every application I have filled out had a section for race.

Obviously I do not work for your company.

You made it sound like this was happening at all business when it is not.

Anyway Churchill is a douchebag and I could care less if he got run off a cliff tomorrow.

orange
04-08-2009, 10:07 AM
Ethnic background

In 2003, Churchill stated, "I am myself of Muscogee and Creek descent on my father's side, Cherokee on my mother's, and am an enrolled member of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians." In 1992, Churchill wrote elsewhere that he is one-eighth Creek and one-sixteenth Cherokee. In 1993, Churchill told the Colorado Daily that, "he was one-sixteenth Creek and Cherokee." Churchill told the Denver Post in February 2005 that he is three-sixteenths Cherokee.

The United Keetoowah Band clarified that Churchill was never an enrolled member, but was awarded an honorary associate membership in May 1994, as were Bill Clinton and others; honorary associate membership recognizes assistance to the tribe, but does not indicate Indian ancestry or enrollment. The Keetoowah Band states that Churchill still holds the honorary associate membership, that it hasn't been rescinded, and that the Keetoowah Band stopped recognizing such "honorary" memberships in 1994.

The Rocky Mountain News, in 2005, published a genealogy of Churchill, and reported "no evidence of a single Indian ancestor" [of Churchill's]. The News reports that both of Churchill's birth parents are listed as white on the 1930 census, as are all of his other known ancestors on previous censuses and other official documents. The Denver Post's genealogical investigation resulted in the same conclusion.

Documents in Churchill's university personnel file show that he was granted tenure in a "special opportunity position." Such positions were later described as a program designed to help "recruit and hire a more diverse faculty." In 1994, then CU-Boulder Chancellor James Corbridge refused to take action on allegations that Churchill was fraudulently claiming to be an Indian, saying "it has always been university policy that a person's race or ethnicity is self-proving."

Churchill's critics argue that his assertion of Native American ancestry without the ability to prove it might constitute misrepresentation and grounds for termination. The University, however, has stated in response that they do not hire on the basis of ethnicity. The University of Colorado's Research Misconduct Committee conducted a preliminary investigation into whether Churchill misrepresented his ethnicity in order to "add credibility and public acceptance to his scholarship"; they concluded that the allegation was not "appropriate for further investigation under the definition of research misconduct."

In an interview in The Rocky Mountain News, Churchill stated: "I have never been confirmed as having one-quarter blood, and never said I was. And even if [the critics] are absolutely right, what does that have to do with this issue? I have never claimed to be goddamned Sitting Bull".

Churchill has countered requests for verification of his Indian heritage in various ways including attacking the basis on which some Native American tribes establish their membership requirements. Churchill argues that the United States instituted "blood quantum" laws based upon rules of descendency in order to further goals of personal enrichment and political expediency.

Simplex3
04-08-2009, 10:36 AM
He's a scumbag either way.

He's the poster child for why tenure is dumb.

Simplex3
04-08-2009, 10:38 AM
No I don't. But all departments use the same application form. There is no ethnicity box. I just looked up CU's. There is none there either.

Yes, and that would preclude him from listing his Native American heritage as a qualification for the job.

Garcia Bronco
04-08-2009, 10:42 AM
Really? He claimed he was Cherokee and Creek on his Vita (resume)?

I would have to see that before I believed it. No one puts their ethnicity on their Vita when applying for a job. I have acted as chair of a department for 10 years, hired and fired many folks, and never once have I seen ethnicity listed on any hiring document.

You do when you apply for that job, and most likely it wasn't on his resume, but in his application. Either way its fraud and illegal.

***SPRAYER
04-08-2009, 10:50 AM
And voluntary. You can choose to not self identify.

Choose not to self identify and they (rightly) assume you are a white male.

Rain Man
04-08-2009, 10:53 AM
To me this was less a trial of one idiot and more a trial of an absolutely insane and counterproductive tenure system that doesn't allow universities to rid themselves of freeloaders and freaks. The concept of tenure being necessary to protect professors is ludicrous.

Radar Chief
04-08-2009, 11:02 AM
Here it is on an application for Colorado State Government, though it is listed as “Voluntary”.

http://www.gssa.state.co.us/announce/Job+Announcements.nsf/Web+Pages/WelcomeAppl?OpenDocument

Rain Man
04-08-2009, 11:05 AM
There's no way that race (as stated) wasn't a factor in this moron's hiring. A white male would never get hired for his position, which is why he "became" an Indian.

I don't remember the details, but I remember reading that his "I'm an Indian" argument was proven to be incredibly lame and misleading.

KC native
04-08-2009, 11:23 AM
Here it is on an application for Colorado State Government, though it is listed as ďVoluntaryĒ.

http://www.gssa.state.co.us/announce/Job%20Announcements.nsf/c0b293ba0c7d5a98872564dc005c90cf/f9be58f3ad5314eb87256c7e005a6882/$FILE/Job_Application.doc

Yes it is voluntary and employers are required by law to ask. It's not binding on anything and companies comply because it helps them defend against discrimination in hiring lawsuits when they can point and say we interviewed X number of minorities (white women are considered minorities for this as well). It's usually a separate sheet of paper or web page at most places I've applied to.

mlyonsd
04-08-2009, 11:28 AM
Yes it is voluntary and employers are required by law to ask. It's not binding on anything and companies comply because it helps them defend against discrimination in hiring lawsuits when they can point and say we interviewed X number of minorities (white women are considered minorities for this as well). It's usually a separate sheet of paper or web page at most places I've applied to.

Same here.

Radar Chief
04-08-2009, 11:33 AM
Yes it is voluntary and employers are required by law to ask. It's not binding on anything and companies comply because it helps them defend against discrimination in hiring lawsuits when they can point and say we interviewed X number of minorities (white women are considered minorities for this as well). It's usually a separate sheet of paper or web page at most places I've applied to.

This is to satisfy my memory and O&S's request.

Ethnicity is NOT a part of an employment application. Find me one. You may have fill out another card for HR to make sure that they have a pool of mixed ethnicity or women or whatever, but those are seperate from the application and are confidential.

Donger
04-08-2009, 11:52 AM
Of course Churchill is an Indigenous Person. Look at his hair: it's long and stuff.

vailpass
04-08-2009, 11:58 AM
Scumbag piece of sh*t. Boulderites will embrace his dishonest schtick with open arms.

Rain Man
04-08-2009, 12:00 PM
I've got some Dan Fogelburg song on my Ipod, and while I like his music, he says something before the song that makes me laugh. He says, "I'd like to dedicate this song to all of our Native American brothers and sisters out there..."

Yeah, that fixes everything.

Radar Chief
04-08-2009, 12:03 PM
Of course Churchill is an Indigenous Person. Look at his hair: it's long and stuff.

Hereís the true test, throw a piece of garbage at his feet and see if he cries. ;)

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 12:13 PM
Here you go.
A copy of Ward Churchillís 1980 Resume claiming Cherokee and Creek ethnicity.

http://www.aimovement.org/csi/Churchill/churchill_resume_80.jpg

So he claimed to have Indian genetics, but did not claim to be enrolled in a tribe.

Good God, that description fits half the people on this board. I guarantee you most have been told that their "grandmother" or whatever was Cherokee or something.

One certainly could not presume that he doesn't have Indian genetics. He doesn't say he was enrolled.

Look, I do not defend many of his statements. His books about Indian genocide, however, are certainly scholarly and deserve to be read.

Donger
04-08-2009, 12:22 PM
So he claimed to have Indian genetics, but did not claim to be enrolled in a tribe.

He did, IIRC.

Donger
04-08-2009, 12:24 PM
He also claimed to have served on LRRPs in Vietnam. The POS is a certifiable liar.

Radar Chief
04-08-2009, 12:33 PM
Good God, that description fits half the people on this board.

And if they padded their resume hoping to favorably influence the chances of getting a job as Chairman for the Department of Ethnic Studies it would be just as much of a lie.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 12:41 PM
He did, IIRC.

No he didn't. Look on the Vita. He says he is unenrolled.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 12:42 PM
And if they padded their resume hoping to favorably influence the chances of getting a job as Chairman for the Department of Ethnic Studies it would be just as much of a lie.

How do you know he doesn't have an Indian ancester? He does not claim to be an enrolled tribal member.

Donger
04-08-2009, 12:44 PM
No he didn't. Look on the Vita. He says he is unenrolled.

Okay, so which is it?

In 2003, Churchill stated, "I am myself of Muscogee and Creek[16] descent on my father's side, Cherokee on my mother's, and am an enrolled member of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians."

http://www.sdonline.org/33/ward_churchill.htm

Donger
04-08-2009, 12:45 PM
http://www.colorado.edu/EthnicStudies/faculty/churchill.html

Radar Chief
04-08-2009, 12:46 PM
How do you know he doesn't have an Indian ancester? He does not claim to be an enrolled tribal member.

You really didn’t know anything about this guy before defending him, did you?
He’s applied with several tribes, none of which could find any Native American heritage.
One tribe, I’d have to look it up again to remember which, gave him “honorary” tribe member status but that’s as close as he can get.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 12:49 PM
You really didnít know anything about this guy before defending him, did you?
Heís applied with several tribes, none of which could find any Native American heritage.

Radar:

I know he is not someone I appreciate as a person. That doesn't change the fact that he was fired because he made statements that the Gov. didn't appreciate. Period.

Radar Chief
04-08-2009, 12:54 PM
Radar:

I know he is not someone I appreciate as a person. That doesn't change the fact that he was fired because he made statements that the Gov. didn't appreciate. Period.

Period? No, not quite. It's reasonable to assume that's what started the investigation. It's also reasonable to assume he was fired for the reasons his employer stated, whether or not that was deemed a wrongful termination by a jury.
But Iíve provided plenty of evidence for my claims, how about you back this one up?

blaise
04-08-2009, 01:00 PM
Radar:

I know he is not someone I appreciate as a person. That doesn't change the fact that he was fired because he made statements that the Gov. didn't appreciate. Period.

There's injustices done to people all the time. It just seems odd to go out of your way to defend a piece of crap like this guy, rather than anyone else.
He's a douche.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 01:02 PM
Period? No, not quite. It's reasonable to assume that's what started the investigation. It's also reasonable to assume he was fired for the reasons his employer stated, whether or not that was deemed a wrongful termination by a jury.
But Iíve provided plenty of evidence for my claims, how about you back this one up?

What evidence? All you have shown is that he DID NOT claim to be an enrolled tribal member on his Vita.

A jury then decided he did not plagiarize.

Why then, would he be fired?

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 01:03 PM
There's injustices done to people all the time. It just seems odd to go out of your way to defend a piece of crap like this guy, rather than anyone else.
He's a douche.

I agree. I am defending academic freedom - not Ward Churchill.

Radar Chief
04-08-2009, 01:06 PM
What evidence? All you have shown is that he DID NOT claim to be an enrolled tribal member on his Vita.

A jury then decided he did not plagiarize.

Why then, would he be fired?

Now youíre being ridiculous.
You asked to see where he stated on his resume that he has Native American heritage and Iíve done that. You asked to see where the question was on any job application and Iíve done that.
Why donít you now provide proof as to your claims of why he was fired?

Simplex3
04-08-2009, 01:21 PM
I agree. I am defending academic freedom - not Ward Churchill.

So professors should be free to be lying sacks of shit? No wonder I hate colleges so much.

***SPRAYER
04-08-2009, 01:30 PM
Jury didn't award him any money ($1.00), but he did not ask for any other than reinstatement and back pay. He will get that.

The judge will now decide the particulars.

While I disagree with Ward's statements vehemently, as a college prof I was very interested in the jury's decision. It seems academic freedom is still alive and well. I am quite pleased with that. (So are my conservative collegues, by the way).

CU fired him after a witch hunt, imo. After going through 44,000 page of text they found 7 footnotes that contained mistakes. Every prolific author on the face of the planet will have that many mistakes in their end notes.

Wait, you're a college professor? I was always under the impression based on what you have shared about yourself that you live solely off the fat o' the land.

ROFL

Rain Man
04-08-2009, 01:35 PM
I agree. I am defending academic freedom - not Ward Churchill.


I fail to see why someone is immune to firing just because they're a professor. I hear the arguments that professors should be free to "do controversial research", and offer a big shrug in return. If their employer thinks the work is garbage, they should be able to fire them. In this day and age, any credible professor can walk down the street and get a job at another college. The academic world isn't special in that regard.

I've been involved in more controversial work than 99 percent of professors, and I do just fine.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 01:38 PM
Now youíre being ridiculous.
You asked to see where he stated on his resume that he has Native American heritage and Iíve done that. You asked to see where the question was on any job application and Iíve done that.
Why donít you now provide proof as to your claims of why he was fired?

I will grant you he stated he had NA heritage on his Vita (resume). He did not say he was enrolled, however.

You have yet to show me where it was on a job application.

The jury sided with me, not you. That says something.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 01:40 PM
Wait, you're a college professor? I was always under the impression based on what you have shared about yourself that you live solely off the fat o' the land.

ROFL

Never said that.

We do grow nearly everything we eat. Chickens, cows, garden, grind wheat, churn butter, the whole bit. I don't see the contradiction.

Donger
04-08-2009, 01:40 PM
I will grant you he stated he had NA heritage on his Vita (resume). He did not say he was enrolled, however.

You have yet to show me where it was on a job application.

The jury sided with me, not you. That says something.

Does it matter to you that Churchill now states he is enrolled, or not?

Brock
04-08-2009, 01:41 PM
Meh. College professors aren't really important enough to get upset about.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 01:42 PM
Does it matter to you that Churchill now states he is enrolled, or not?

Yes, it does. I think he lies. I think he is not a very good human being.

Still, he did not do it on his Vita, nor his application and he did not plagiarize.

Hence, there was no reason to fire him.

Radar Chief
04-08-2009, 01:42 PM
You have yet to show me where it was on a job application.

:rolleyes:

Here it is on an application for Colorado State Government, though it is listed as ďVoluntaryĒ.

http://www.gssa.state.co.us/announce/Job+Announcements.nsf/Web+Pages/WelcomeAppl?OpenDocument

Mr. Kotter
04-08-2009, 01:43 PM
I fail to see why someone is immune to firing just because they're a professor. I hear the arguments that professors should be free to "do controversial research", and offer a big shrug in return. If their employer thinks the work is garbage, they should be able to fire them. In this day and age, any credible professor can walk down the street and get a job at another college. The academic world isn't special in that regard.

I've been involved in more controversial work than 99 percent of professors, and I do just fine.

As an educator, I agree with you. Academic freedom is too often a excuse for educators to thumb their noses at administration and the public. OTOH, oldandslow's defense of academic freedom stems from a very real threat that, unchecked, administrators can stifle free speech and public discussion of controversial issues. There should be a way to balance these competing rights though, without jeopardizing either or both.

Simplex3
04-08-2009, 01:46 PM
What makes a college professor so damned special? If was running around saying dumb controversial stuff and stirring crap up to the point it embarrassed my employer I'd get canned. So should he.

Donger
04-08-2009, 01:47 PM
Yes, it does. I think he lies. I think he is not a very good human being.

Still, he did not do it on his Vita, nor his application and he did not plagiarize.

Hence, there was no reason to fire him.

So, you are okay with an acknowledged, publicly-paid, lying college "professor" continuing to enjoy his job of teaching eager, young minds?

Donger
04-08-2009, 01:49 PM
What makes a college professor so damned special? If was running around saying dumb controversial stuff and stirring crap up to the point it embarrassed my employer I'd get canned. So should he.

It's as bad, if not worse, that unions, IMO.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 01:49 PM
What makes a college professor so damned special? If was running around saying dumb controversial stuff and stirring crap up to the point it embarrassed my employer I'd get canned. So should he.

Nope.

Not the same. Sorry. Our entire realm of existence is based upon the right to challenge thought, be it on the right or the left.

For government (or a governor in this case) to intrude in a college classroom destroys what the University is all about.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 01:51 PM
So, you are okay with an acknowledged, publicly-paid, lying college "professor" continuing to enjoy his job of teaching eager, young minds?

He is teaching adults. There are no minors in his class room. And you are correct that his teaching concerning the plight of American Indians ought to be taught.

Simplex3
04-08-2009, 01:52 PM
Nope.

Not the same. Sorry. Our entire realm of existence is based upon the right to challenge thought, be it on the right or the left.

For government (or a governor in this case) to intrude in a college classroom destroys what the University is all about.

ROFL

Name one fucking group of Americans who doesn't believe they deserve special treatment because of some past wrong or some lofty goal.

Oh, and by the way, your job is to educate people with the things they'll need to succeed in a given career. Nothing more.

mlyonsd
04-08-2009, 01:52 PM
Nope.

Not the same. Sorry. Our entire realm of existence is based upon the right to challenge thought, be it on the right or the left.

For government (or a governor in this case) to intrude in a college classroom destroys what the University is all about.

Then the University shouldn't accept any tax dollars.

Simplex3
04-08-2009, 01:53 PM
He is teaching adults. There are no minors in his class room. And you are correct that his teaching concerning the plight of American Indians ought to be taught.

Possibly by someone who knows what the hell they're talking about.

Simplex3
04-08-2009, 01:54 PM
Then the University shouldn't accept any tax dollars.

No no, professors are totally better than bankers and CEOs.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 01:54 PM
ROFL

Name one ****ing group of Americans who doesn't believe they deserve special treatment because of some past wrong or some lofty goal.

Oh, and by the way, your job is to educate people with the things they'll need to succeed in a given career. Nothing more.

Your first point - and that too should be taught and discussed.

Your second poiont -

horse shit. Our job is to educate the citizenry. Jefferson and all that.

You want a career, go to a tech school.

Radar Chief
04-08-2009, 01:55 PM
I will grant you he stated he had NA heritage on his Vita (resume).

A distinction with no relevent difference. Congrats.

The jury sided with me, not you. That says something.

Did they? Got a copy of the jury findings?
What Iím reading seems to indicate they didnít find that he plagiarized his work and was therefore wrongfully terminated. If youíve been following along, Iím not claiming he plagiarized his work.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 01:55 PM
Then the University shouldn't accept any tax dollars.

You don't want thoughtful citizens? You don't want Lawyers? Doctors? Etc.

Certainly we should accept tax dollars. It is in the interest of the nation.

Donger
04-08-2009, 01:55 PM
He is teaching adults. There are no minors in his class room

I didn't state that there are.

And you are correct that his teaching concerning the plight of American Indians ought to be taught.

Indeed, it should be. I question if it should be done by Churchill, however. If you're okay with his penchant for lying, that's your problem.

I help pay this prick's salary.

Simplex3
04-08-2009, 01:56 PM
...Our job is to educate the citizenry. Jefferson and all that.

You want a career, go to a tech school.

So every American should hand over $100k and four years of their life for a proper college indoctrination. That's your story?

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 01:57 PM
A distinction with no relevent difference. Congrats.

Oh, good lord...It means everything. Ask any Indian. Hell.

Did they? Got a copy of the jury findings?
What Iím reading seems to indicate they didnít find that he plagiarized his work and was therefore wrongfully terminated. If youíve been following along, Iím not claiming he plagiarized his work.

Then he should not have been fired. That was the reason they fired him.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 01:57 PM
So every American should hand over $100k and four years of their life for a proper college indoctrination. That's your story?

It's up to you. No one forces you to go to college.

Rain Man
04-08-2009, 01:57 PM
Nope.

Not the same. Sorry. Our entire realm of existence is based upon the right to challenge thought, be it on the right or the left.

For government (or a governor in this case) to intrude in a college classroom destroys what the University is all about.


I know you're not defending Churchill personally, but he's a perfect example of what's wrong with the system. From what I've read, his work is not neutral scholarly research, but rather advocating his own extreme opinions using facts loosely where convenient. Should that really be protected?

I personally don't think any individual should have tenure in any position. If your positions are so unpopular that you can't find a single one of the thousands of U.S. colleges that's willing to support or tolerate it, then perhaps you should either re-think your thesis or pursue it on your own time or find a rich sponsor to support it.

Simplex3
04-08-2009, 01:57 PM
...If youíve been following along, Iím not claiming he plagiarized his work.

Thankfully college professors don't teach things like reading comprehension. Apparently it would take away from time spent teaching young adults important things like how to vote, who to feel sorry for, etc.

Simplex3
04-08-2009, 01:59 PM
You don't want thoughtful citizens?

Couldn't care less.

You don't want Lawyers? Doctors? Etc.

Wait, didn't you just say you aren't there to teach people to do jobs?

blaise
04-08-2009, 01:59 PM
You don't want thoughtful citizens? You don't want Lawyers? Doctors? Etc.

Certainly we should accept tax dollars. It is in the interest of the nation.

How do you know it's not in the best interest of the school to fire him? Maybe they're specifically losing donations or enrollments because of this turd. If I was an alum I wouldn't be giving any money to that school.

petegz28
04-08-2009, 02:02 PM
Your first point - and that too should be taught and discussed.

Your second poiont -

horse shit. Our job is to educate the citizenry. Jefferson and all that.

You want a career, go to a tech school.

Educate or indoctrinate?

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 02:02 PM
I know you're not defending Churchill personally, but he's a perfect example of what's wrong with the system. From what I've read, his work is not neutral scholarly research, but rather advocating his own extreme opinions using facts loosely where convenient. Should that really be protected?

I personally don't think any individual should have tenure in any position. If your positions are so unpopular that you can't find a single one of the thousands of U.S. colleges that's willing to support or tolerate it, then perhaps you should either re-think your thesis or pursue it on your own time or find a rich sponsor to support it.

RM-

Look, I detest Churchill. I think he is a lousy human being.

But, I personally know of people who have taken unpopular positions (say against a war) who would have been fired in the heat of patriotic flag waving right after the event started.

We need folks who ask the tough questions. We need people to be able to present opposing views.

petegz28
04-08-2009, 02:04 PM
I agree. I am defending academic freedom - not Ward Churchill.

What you call "acedemic freedom" others call telling lies and inciting violence. Neither of which are ethical for a college professor.

petegz28
04-08-2009, 02:05 PM
RM-

Look, I detest Churchill. I think he is a lousy human being.

But, I personally know of people who have taken unpopular positions (say against a war) who would have been fired in the heat of patriotic flag waving right after the event started.

We need folks who ask the tough questions. We need people to be able to present opposing views.


Taking an unpopular position is not what the issue is here. Telling flat out lies and inciting violence is what this man did\does.

That is not taking an unpopular position. That is well beyond that.

Radar Chief
04-08-2009, 02:05 PM
Oh, good lord...It means everything. Ask any Indian. Hell.

I am part Indian, Cherokee tribe in Miami, OK to be specific, and no it has no relevance to what weíve been discussing.

Then he should not have been fired. That was the reason they fired him.

Wait, you just posted he was fired because of government intervention. Now youíre admitting he was fired for plagiarism? Which is it and provide some proof this time instead of stating your opinion as fact.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 02:06 PM
What you call "acedemic freedom" others call telling lies and inciting violence. Neither of which are ethical for a college professor.

Peter, I truly want people to take opposing views to mine. I even want my students to challenge me in class. It's called critical thinking.

If we don't allow that on campus then we are just Simplex's tech schools. Which is fine. But don't expect a college experience there.

Simplex3
04-08-2009, 02:06 PM
It's up to you. No one forces you to go to college.

No, but you force me to pay for it with tax dollars.

Brock
04-08-2009, 02:07 PM
Couldn't care less.



Wait, didn't you just say you aren't there to teach people to do jobs?

Doctors have to know about "the plight of the noble savage" too.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 02:07 PM
I am part Indian, Cherokee tribe in Miami, OK to be specific, and no it has no relevance to what weíve been discussing.



Wait, you just posted he was fired because of government intervention. Now youíre admitting he was fired for plagiarism? Which is it and provide some proof this time instead of stating your opinion as fact.

He was fired after the governor pushed for a special committee to go over every bit of his work. It was a witch hunt.

The jury said the committee found nothing that would lead to firing.

Rain Man
04-08-2009, 02:08 PM
The truth of the matter is that, everyone knows that Churchill's insults to an American catastrophe were what fomented the whole process. He's an embarrassment, but under the tenure system being an embarrassment is not sufficient to fire him.

But that lifted the stone to see what was underneath, and the subsequent investigation revealed that he's a liar and a thief and frankly, not very bright, which should be sufficient for firing him. Was it politically motivated? Yeah. Were his indiscretions worse than those of most academics? Probably, but with the tenure system he wouldn't have been fired for them if he wasn't an embarrassment in other ways. (Remember his "Vandalize public property if you get a traffic ticket" statement?) It would've been easier to just let him spew bile on students and draw a big paycheck and look the other way.

It's obvious that this person does not possess the integrity to hold his former position, and it's a shame that he's going to get it back. The only good part is that no reasonable student will ever sign up for his courses, so at least he'll only be preaching to other clueless people who aren't bright enough to recognize him for what he is.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 02:08 PM
No, but you force me to pay for it with tax dollars.

Because, we, as a society, have come to the conclusion that this is something we should support.

Donger
04-08-2009, 02:08 PM
RM-

Look, I detest Churchill. I think he is a lousy human being.

But, I personally know of people who have taken unpopular positions (say against a war) who would have been fired in the heat of patriotic flag waving right after the event started.

We need folks who ask the tough questions. We need people to be able to present opposing views.

A lousy, lying human being who you want to have back in academia? Sorry, but it seems your judgment is clouded by your profession.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 02:10 PM
The truth of the matter is that, everyone knows that Churchill's insults to an American catastrophe were what fomented the whole process. He's an embarrassment, but under the tenure system being an embarrassment is not sufficient to fire him.

But that lifted the stone to see what was underneath, and the subsequent investigation revealed that he's a liar and a thief and frankly, not very bright, which should be sufficient for firing him. Was it politically motivated? Yeah. Were his indiscretions worse than those of most academics? Probably, but with the tenure system he wouldn't have been fired for them if he wasn't an embarrassment in other ways. (Remember his "Vandalize public property if you get a traffic ticket" statement?) It would've been easier to just let him spew bile on students and draw a big paycheck and look the other way.

It's obvious that this person does not possess the integrity to hold his former position, and it's a shame that he's going to get it back. The only good part is that no reasonable student will ever sign up for his courses, so at least he'll only be preaching to other clueless people who aren't bright enough to recognize him for what he is.

Since it was politically motivated, the rest is, unfortunately, irrelevant

Radar Chief
04-08-2009, 02:10 PM
You don't want thoughtful citizens? You don't want Lawyers? Doctors? Etc.

Certainly we should accept tax dollars. It is in the interest of the nation.

Wait, Lawyers?! Thatís one thing we donít need more of. :cuss:


;)

petegz28
04-08-2009, 02:10 PM
Peter, I truly want people to take opposing views to mine. I even want my students to challenge me in class. It's called critical thinking.

If we don't allow that on campus then we are just Simplex's tech schools. Which is fine. But don't expect a college experience there.

Ok, that's all great but off topic. This man told lies and incited violence. Why do you wish to keep ignoring that fact? He should have been thrown out on his ass for a clear lack of ethics.

Or do they not have ethics at the university level anymore?

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 02:11 PM
Wait, Lawyers?! Thatís one thing we donít need more of. :cuss:


;)

Wait, I agree with that:D

Simplex3
04-08-2009, 02:11 PM
Peter, I truly want people to take opposing views to mine. I even want my students to challenge me in class. It's called critical thinking.

If we don't allow that on campus then we are just Simplex's tech schools. Which is fine. But don't expect a college experience there.

Yeah, you can't do a keg stand or bang a sorority chick without critical thinking.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 02:12 PM
Ok, that's all great but off topic. This man told lies and incited violence. Why do you wish to keep ignoring that fact? He should have been thrown out on his ass for a clear lack of ethics.

Or do they not have ethics at the university level anymore?

Then fire him for that. Make the case and do so.

But don't fire him on a political, plagiarism witchhunt. Which is what the university did.

Rain Man
04-08-2009, 02:13 PM
RM-

Look, I detest Churchill. I think he is a lousy human being.

But, I personally know of people who have taken unpopular positions (say against a war) who would have been fired in the heat of patriotic flag waving right after the event started.

We need folks who ask the tough questions. We need people to be able to present opposing views.


So would you support hiring a KKK member who wanted to present opposing views of racial equality?

Churchill is a nutcase. He's beyond thoughtful challenge. He made a presentation a while back where he said, "If you get a speeding ticket, go vandalize public property. Cause them more damage than the cost of the ticket."

I like the noble concept of thoughtful challenge. But I think 'thoughtful' is the key word. Churchill isn't that.

Rain Man
04-08-2009, 02:14 PM
Then fire him for that. Make the case and do so.

But don't fire him on a political, plagiarism witchhunt. Which is what the university did.

My impression is that the tenure system won't let them do that. They can only fire him for the plagiarism stuff. Am I wrong?

Rain Man
04-08-2009, 02:15 PM
Oh, and we're not meaning to gang up on you, oldandslow. You're just the only person with your opinion, I guess. I appreciate the discourse.

petegz28
04-08-2009, 02:15 PM
Then fire him for that. Make the case and do so.

But don't fire him on a political, plagiarism witchhunt. Which is what the university did.

WTF does it matter? See, this tenure crap is just that, crap. It's worse than any Union there is. There is no reason a teacher should be guaranteed a job when they lie and incite violence. It's all bullshit. The guy is scum..

An educated person like he so claims to be, should be able to make their case ethically and without resorting to violence in anyway.

This is what happens when college professors attend "pass\fail" colleges to ge their degree.

Simplex3
04-08-2009, 02:15 PM
Oh, and we're not meaning to gang up on you, oldandslow. You're just the only person with your opinion, I guess. I appreciate the discourse.

I still say we fire his ass.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 02:16 PM
My impression is that the tenure system won't let them do that. They can only fire him for the plagiarism stuff. Am I wrong?

You are wrong. W/o getting into specifics (mylonsd lives to close to me) I fired a tenured professor last year for ethical violations that had nothing to do with plagiarism.

petegz28
04-08-2009, 02:17 PM
You are wrong. W/o getting into specifics (mylonsd lives to close to me) I fired a tenured professor last year for ethical violations that had nothing to do with plagiarism.

Obviously CU doesn't feel inciting violence and knowingly telling lies is unethical.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 02:18 PM
WTF does it matter? See, this tenure crap is just that, crap. It's worse than any Union there is. There is no reason a teacher should be guaranteed a job when they lie and incite violence. It's all bullshit. The guy is scum..

An educated person like he so claims to be, should be able to make their case ethically and without resorting to violence in anyway.

This is what happens when college professors attend "pass\fail" colleges to ge their degree.

No one I know attended a pass/fail college.

So if all you say is true...the university should make the case and fire him. Instead they were just as unethical as he.

Simplex3
04-08-2009, 02:18 PM
Obviously CU doesn't feel inciting violence and knowingly telling lies is unethical.

It's cool, Churchill was critically thinking about it while he did it.

Rain Man
04-08-2009, 02:18 PM
Since it was politically motivated, the rest is, unfortunately, irrelevant

I would disagree. If it was politically motivated and still found strong evidence, that should stand. If he wants to be inflammatory, it's his professional responsibility to ensure that his work and his behavior are beyond reproach.

At one point, he copied an artist's paintings and signed his name to them and sold them as his own. Come on.

Sometimes a witch hunt really does find a witch.

(Okay, maybe that's not true, but I really like the way it sounds.)

petegz28
04-08-2009, 02:19 PM
No one I know attended a pass/fail college.

So if all you say is true...the university should make the case and fire him. Instead they were just as unethical as he.

He did attend a pass\fail college.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 02:21 PM
He did attend a pass\fail college.

Really? I did not know that.

Jenson71
04-08-2009, 02:21 PM
Oh, and by the way, your job is to educate people with the things they'll need to succeed in a given career. Nothing more.

LMAO That's one of the more ridiculous things I've read in a while.

Rain Man
04-08-2009, 02:22 PM
You are wrong. W/o getting into specifics (mylonsd lives to close to me) I fired a tenured professor last year for ethical violations that had nothing to do with plagiarism.

Really? Is that common?

Stepping out of the discussion for a moment, what are the grounds for something like that? Was it ethics unrelated to his/her research? Can you fire a professor for something outside pure academic pursuits, like being convicted of burglary? I could see problems related to ethics in teaching, like selling grades, but I would think that would fall under the basic job description.

Donger
04-08-2009, 02:23 PM
I think he should be fired because he looks like the creepy Indian from Body Double.

petegz28
04-08-2009, 02:24 PM
Really? I did not know that.

To the best of my knowledge he did. I remember reading that back when all this was going on.

Simplex3
04-08-2009, 02:25 PM
LMAO That's one of the more ridiculous things I've read in a while.

At 18 you should have the rest of that shit figured out. Sorry if your parents fell short.

Radar Chief
04-08-2009, 02:26 PM
Sometimes a witch hunt really does find a witch.

True.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yp_l5ntikaU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yp_l5ntikaU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 02:26 PM
Really? Is that common?

Stepping out of the discussion for a moment, what are the grounds for something like that? Was it ethics unrelated to his/her research? Can you fire a professor for something outside pure academic pursuits, like being convicted of burglary? I could see problems related to ethics in teaching, like selling grades, but I would think that would fall under the basic job description.

I am about done with this discussion anyway...I am not changing anyone's mind...

Firing tenured profs is more common than percieved. I don't have numbers, nationwide, but at our university I have known 3 to be fired over the past few years. I don't know the specifics on any except one.

I will only say that it had something to do with stealing.

petegz28
04-08-2009, 02:26 PM
LMAO That's one of the more ridiculous things I've read in a while.

Well that is my problem with college in general. People are there to get educated to be able to function in the work place. If people want to sit around and discuss things on a meaningless level like this guy did, then join a bookclub or go hang out at each other's house.

Donger
04-08-2009, 02:28 PM
I will only say that it had something to do with stealing.

Yes, because spreading hatred on the taxpayers' dime doesn't quite reach the threshold, eh?

petegz28
04-08-2009, 02:29 PM
I am about done with this discussion anyway...I am not changing anyone's mind...

Firing tenured profs is more common than percieved. I don't have numbers, nationwide, but at our university I have known 3 to be fired over the past few years. I don't know the specifics on any except one.

I will only say that it had something to do with stealing.

Not to pick at you but you said you fired that person for ethical reasons. Stealing is illegal. I agree unethical as well but that goes back to the question that was presented to you by another poster.

Rain Man
04-08-2009, 02:30 PM
Boy, I'd have to disagree with the concept of college just being a career training institute. The greater purpose of college should be to create a well-rounded individual capable of critical thought, and that's far more than simply learning subject matter.

In the modern world, we do have a lot of "vocational degrees", in part due to the increasing specialization of careers. However, a person should be learning history and psychology and Russian civilization alongside learning their future chosen vocation.

At the University of Texas when I was there, they had some program that was essentially a throwback 100 years. Students read the classics, learned Latin, examined history, took physics, etc. I was envious of the students in that program, because that's what a college degree should really be about: coming out on the other end as a Renaissance Man.

mlyonsd
04-08-2009, 02:30 PM
You are wrong. W/o getting into specifics (mylonsd lives to close to me) I fired a tenured professor last year for ethical violations that had nothing to do with plagiarism.

Heh, and my wife works for the University.

petegz28
04-08-2009, 02:30 PM
Yes, because spreading hatred on the taxpayers' dime doesn't quite reach the threshold, eh?

What is funny is that had this been a high school teacher they would have been fired in a heartbeat.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 02:31 PM
Well that is my problem with college in general. People are there to get educated to be able to function in the work place. If people want to sit around and discuss things on a meaningless level like this guy did, then join a bookclub or go hang out at each other's house.

Pete:

That really is not the goal of college and universities. It is of tech schools.

While we do have some professional training, most of what we do has little to do with job training.

Teaching history, or what happened to American Indians won't prepare you for any job.

I do think it is important to know though.

Simplex3
04-08-2009, 02:32 PM
Yes, because spreading hatred on the taxpayers' dime doesn't quite reach the threshold, eh?

That's not stealing.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 02:32 PM
What is funny is that had this been a high school teacher they would have been fired in a heartbeat.

High schools and colleges are totally different animals.

petegz28
04-08-2009, 02:34 PM
Pete:

That really is not the goal of college and universities. It is of tech schools.

While we do have some professional training, most of what we do has little to do with job training.

Teaching history, or what happened to American Indians won't prepare you for any job.

I do think it is important to know though.


Um when tax payer $'s are involved it SHOULD be the role. If someone wants to get indoctrinated they can do it on their own dime.

Yeah cause we never learned about the Inidians in elementary, jr. high or sr. high. And really knowing about the history if Indians offers little in return to the tax payer. That is just how it is.

petegz28
04-08-2009, 02:34 PM
High schools and colleges are totally different animals.

Funded by tax $'s is just that. And like I said, it is sad when our universities feel they are above and beyond everyone else.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 02:36 PM
Um when tax payer $'s are involved it SHOULD be the role. If someone wants to get indoctrinated they can do it on their own dime.

Yeah cause we never learned about the Inidians in elementary, jr. high or sr. high. And really knowing about the history if Indians offers little in return to the tax payer. That is just how it is.

No, I would argue that you didn't.

Again, we, as a society have deemed it important that we have venues of critical thought. Most agree that it is important. You do not, but that is not going to change what we do.

Rain Man
04-08-2009, 02:36 PM
And while I'm here, public universities shouldn't start "institutes" to compete with hard-working private sector consulting firms. Man, that annoys me.

Simplex3
04-08-2009, 02:38 PM
Funded by tax $'s is just that. And like I said, it is sad when our universities feel they are above and beyond everyone else.

Just about everyone thinks their job is uniquely indispensable. And just about everyone is wrong.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 02:38 PM
And while I'm here, public universities shouldn't start "institutes" to compete with hard-working private sector consulting firms. Man, that annoys me.

You are so right. Especially public universities. Ring one up for the rain man...

This is simply profs and universities getting greedy.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 02:39 PM
Just about everyone thinks their job is uniquely indispensable. And just about everyone is wrong.

With this, I also agree.

petegz28
04-08-2009, 02:39 PM
No, I would argue that you didn't.

Again, we, as a society have deemed it important that we have venues of critical thought. Most agree that it is important. You do not, but that is not going to change what we do.

Well you are wrong about 1 thing and I will disagree with you on another.

We do learn about the history of Native Americans in all levels of school. Secondly if you want Churchill did was not "critical thought". It was a rant of hatred and an incite of violence. Thridly if that is what you want out of college do it on your own dime.

Rain Man
04-08-2009, 02:40 PM
Um when tax payer $'s are involved it SHOULD be the role. If someone wants to get indoctrinated they can do it on their own dime.


I think the challenge is that many professors don't understand their roles in education. As opposed to presenting the pros and cons of different arguments and discussing them, there's a significant population that only teaches what they themselves believe. I suspect (hope) it's a minority, but those are the ones that typically get more notoreity, and apparently this teaching failure isn't grounds for dismissal.

No one is going to get a reasonable discussion in a class taught by Churchill, and that's the real problem that's not being addressed.

Rain Man
04-08-2009, 02:41 PM
You are so right. Especially public universities. Ring one up for the rain man...

This is simply profs and universities getting greedy.


As a reward for that, I'm going to be on your side for the next 10 posts.

petegz28
04-08-2009, 02:42 PM
I think the challenge is that many professors don't understand their roles in education. As opposed to presenting the pros and cons of different arguments and discussing them, there's a significant population that only teaches what they themselves believe. I suspect (hope) it's a minority, but those are the ones that typically get more notoreity, and apparently this teaching failure isn't grounds for dismissal.

No one is going to get a reasonable discussion in a class taught by Churchill, and that's the real problem that's not being addressed.


And that is my point. He is there to indoctrinate, not educate.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 02:49 PM
Ok...I am going to get way too personal...

I care about Indian issues so much because of this.

These are my kids (I know I am too old to have kids this young, but too bad).

You can tell much more about me now...

petegz28
04-08-2009, 02:53 PM
Ok...I am going to get way too personal...

I care about Indian issues so much because of this.

These are my kids (I know I am too old to have kids this young, but too bad).

You can tell much more about me now...

Oh brother. You know, if I were you I would start with learning how to teach teachers not to tell lies. Then we can discuss what subjects should be taught.

Radar Chief
04-08-2009, 02:58 PM
Ok...I am going to get way too personal...

I care about Indian issues so much because of this.

These are my kids (I know I am too old to have kids this young, but too bad).

You can tell much more about me now...

Good for you, really. But what does that have to do with Churchill? Itís been pretty thoroughly proven he lied about his heritage. In fact, Iíd think that would piss you straight off.

Rain Man
04-08-2009, 03:00 PM
Ok...I am going to get way too personal...

I care about Indian issues so much because of this.

These are my kids (I know I am too old to have kids this young, but too bad).

You can tell much more about me now...



Wow, you're so interested in Indian issues that you made your kids have plastic surgery to look Native American?

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 03:02 PM
Wow, you're so interested in Indian issues that you made your kids have plastic surgery to look Native American?

Exactly...and I made my little boy grow his hair long for the same reason. With the girl its already cool.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 03:04 PM
Oh brother. You know, if I were you I would start with learning how to teach teachers not to tell lies. Then we can discuss what subjects should be taught.

I hate lies. Where do you want to start? I'd like to start with Richard Nixon forcing sterilization on the reservation and telling folks giving to planned parenthood that "we" wanted it. I will bet that you never learned that in any history class you took in high school.

http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/6242/Forced-Sterilization-of-Native-Americans.html

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 03:05 PM
Good for you, really. But what does that have to do with Churchill? Itís been pretty thoroughly proven he lied about his heritage. In fact, Iíd think that would piss you straight off.

It does. I still want academic freedom tho.

Donger
04-08-2009, 03:15 PM
I hate lies. Where do you want to start? I'd like to start with Richard Nixon forcing sterilization on the reservation and telling folks giving to planned parenthood that "we" wanted it. I will bet that you never learned that in any history class you took in high school.

http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/6242/Forced-Sterilization-of-Native-Americans.html

No one forced them to be sterilized.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 03:17 PM
No one forced them to be sterilized.

right. Did you even read the article?

petegz28
04-08-2009, 03:19 PM
I hate lies. Where do you want to start? I'd like to start with Richard Nixon forcing sterilization on the reservation and telling folks giving to planned parenthood that "we" wanted it. I will bet that you never learned that in any history class you took in high school.

http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/6242/Forced-Sterilization-of-Native-Americans.html

You mean I never was taught the White Man did the Native Americans wrong? Yeah, they peacfully gave us the land we have now cause they were tired of it.

Radar Chief
04-08-2009, 03:20 PM
It does. I still want academic freedom tho.

Which seems more important to you than the integrity of the position.

Donger
04-08-2009, 03:20 PM
right. Did you even read the article?

Yes.

***SPRAYER
04-08-2009, 03:25 PM
I'd like to know what happened to all the Indian tribes of the plains that didn't have horses, after the Sioux got through with them.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 03:27 PM
I appreciate the spirited debate. This discussion was well worth having, even though I suspect we still disagree (except the part where RM has to agree with me).

I have a class to teach (nothing about Indians, academic freedom, or kids) in 30 minutes, so I better start thinking about that. Pretty straight forward research methods class. T-tests tonight.

Again, I really do appreciate the insights from everyone. Maybe I am wrong about Mr. Churchhill. Maybe he is a special case that deserves to be terminated.

But I worry, if we censor him, who do we censor next?

Donger
04-08-2009, 03:29 PM
I appreciate the spirited debate. This discussion was well worth having, even though I suspect we still disagree (except the part where RM has to agree with me).

I have a class to teach (nothing about Indians, academic freedom, or kids) in 30 minutes, so I better start thinking about that. Pretty straight forward research methods class. T-tests tonight.

Again, I really do appreciate the insights from everyone. Maybe I am wrong about Mr. Churchhill. Maybe he is a special case that deserves to be terminated.

But I worry, if we censor him, who do we censor next?

Hamas Jenkins/John Matrix would be a good start.

Jenson71
04-08-2009, 03:36 PM
Boy, I'd have to disagree with the concept of college just being a career training institute. The greater purpose of college should be to create a well-rounded individual capable of critical thought, and that's far more than simply learning subject matter.

In the modern world, we do have a lot of "vocational degrees", in part due to the increasing specialization of careers. However, a person should be learning history and psychology and Russian civilization alongside learning their future chosen vocation.

At the University of Texas when I was there, they had some program that was essentially a throwback 100 years. Students read the classics, learned Latin, examined history, took physics, etc. I was envious of the students in that program, because that's what a college degree should really be about: coming out on the other end as a Renaissance Man.

Your parents failed you.

***SPRAYER
04-08-2009, 03:37 PM
When did the Sioux get horses? Where did they get them? How many other nations did they slaughter?

Jenson71
04-08-2009, 03:40 PM
Well that is my problem with college in general. People are there to get educated to be able to function in the work place. If people want to sit around and discuss things on a meaningless level like this guy did, then join a bookclub or go hang out at each other's house.

"function in the work place" -- what's that mean? Learn how to staple correctly? (The staple should be horizontal: True or False)

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 03:42 PM
When did the Sioux get horses? Where did they get them? How many other nations did they slaughter?

The Sioux (actually Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota) were pushed out of Minnesota by the Ojibwa. They did not get horses until late - 1600 or so. They slaughtered no other tribes on the plains - they had war parties, but really no wars of annihilation and total conquest. The Crow were natural enemies and fought each other for hundreds of years w/o settling the issue. Neither really tried.

Baby Lee
04-08-2009, 03:50 PM
Boy, I'd have to disagree with the concept of college just being a career training institute. The greater purpose of college should be to create a well-rounded individual capable of critical thought, and that's far more than simply learning subject matter.

In the modern world, we do have a lot of "vocational degrees", in part due to the increasing specialization of careers. However, a person should be learning history and psychology and Russian civilization alongside learning their future chosen vocation.

At the University of Texas when I was there, they had some program that was essentially a throwback 100 years. Students read the classics, learned Latin, examined history, took physics, etc. I was envious of the students in that program, because that's what a college degree should really be about: coming out on the other end as a Renaissance Man.

Difficulty being, there's learning a little about everything, and then there's mastering a few things.

Take a physics course, THEN take the same physics course except it's based in vector calculus.

Take a class in political science, THEN take a class in political thought where political philosophies are systematically broken down by metaphysical position, epistemology, rationality, and view of human nature.

BucEyedPea
04-08-2009, 04:24 PM
"function in the work place" -- what's that mean? Learn how to staple correctly? (The staple should be horizontal: True or False)

False. It should be on a diagonal.

Baby Lee
04-08-2009, 04:33 PM
I've got some Dan Fogelburg song on my Ipod, and while I like his music, he says something before the song that makes me laugh. He says, "I'd like to dedicate this song to all of our Native American brothers and sisters out there..."

Yeah, that fixes everything.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NdNV9JX-Xi8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NdNV9JX-Xi8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

BucEyedPea
04-08-2009, 04:36 PM
So he claimed to have Indian genetics, but did not claim to be enrolled in a tribe.

Good God, that description fits half the people on this board. I guarantee you most have been told that their "grandmother" or whatever was Cherokee or something.

One certainly could not presume that he doesn't have Indian genetics. He doesn't say he was enrolled.

Look, I do not defend many of his statements. His books about Indian genocide, however, are certainly scholarly and deserve to be read.
Yeah my maternal grandma claims we have a little bit of everything in us...including Cherokee. LOL! That's just on the Dutch side.

Baby Lee
04-08-2009, 04:36 PM
It's as bad, if not worse, that unions, IMO.

that Unions what?

BucEyedPea
04-08-2009, 04:38 PM
Of course Churchill is an Indigenous Person. Look at his hair: it's long and stuff.

Maybe he was indian in a past life. :D

petegz28
04-08-2009, 04:42 PM
"function in the work place" -- what's that mean? Learn how to staple correctly? (The staple should be horizontal: True or False)

Jenson, you would be surprised how many "college educated" idiots are out there. And it is because they were never taught shit in school that serves them in the business world.

petegz28
04-08-2009, 04:43 PM
The Sioux (actually Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota) were pushed out of Minnesota by the Ojibwa. They did not get horses until late - 1600 or so. They slaughtered no other tribes on the plains - they had war parties, but really no wars of annihilation and total conquest. The Crow were natural enemies and fought each other for hundreds of years w/o settling the issue. Neither really tried.


Now I am prepared to rescue the economy..single handedly!!!

***SPRAYER
04-08-2009, 04:44 PM
The Sioux (actually Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota) were pushed out of Minnesota by the Ojibwa. They did not get horses until late - 1600 or so. They slaughtered no other tribes on the plains - they had war parties, but really no wars of annihilation and total conquest. The Crow were natural enemies and fought each other for hundreds of years w/o settling the issue. Neither really tried.


The fact is, American Indians had wars of aggression and conquest long before Europeans showed up. And from 1600 up, the tribes that had horses were the dominant nations.

They were not civil or kind to those that didn't.

petegz28
04-08-2009, 04:46 PM
The fact is, American Indians had wars of aggression and conquest long before Europeans showed up. And from 1600 up, the tribes that had horses were the dominant nations.

They were not civil or kind to those that didn't.

Shit, now not only can I rescue the economy...I can smash out poverty as well with this wealth of knowledge!!!!

Rain Man
04-08-2009, 07:36 PM
old and slow, I have a question for you if you're a scholar on Native American issues. (Obviously, anyone else is welcome to weigh in as well.)

Ahem. [Unfolding sheet of paper with formal question written on it.] Do you think there's any scenario where Native American tribes could have survived as nation-states or something equivalent? My initial thought is that they were so far behind Europe technologically that they were doomed, because European contact was inevitable and there was too much power differential. Perhaps in some scenario where they recognized the threat more quickly, they could've played off European powers against each other and survived, but still under the shadow of one of them.

Obviously, they could've delayed Europe's entry into the Americas by some amount of time if they'd started killing settlers and explorers on sight, which might've bought them fifty years or so, tops. Would that have been enough time to put together some sort of cohesive resistance? I would suspect the tribes were too decentralized for something like that.

I guess my hypothesis is that they were doomed as a culture whether the Europeans and later Americans were dishonest or not. There was too much of a disparity in technology and governmental coordination.

KC native
04-08-2009, 08:19 PM
old and slow, I have a question for you if you're a scholar on Native American issues. (Obviously, anyone else is welcome to weigh in as well.)

Ahem. [Unfolding sheet of paper with formal question written on it.] Do you think there's any scenario where Native American tribes could have survived as nation-states or something equivalent? My initial thought is that they were so far behind Europe technologically that they were doomed, because European contact was inevitable and there was too much power differential. Perhaps in some scenario where they recognized the threat more quickly, they could've played off European powers against each other and survived, but still under the shadow of one of them.

Obviously, they could've delayed Europe's entry into the Americas by some amount of time if they'd started killing settlers and explorers on sight, which might've bought them fifty years or so, tops. Would that have been enough time to put together some sort of cohesive resistance? I would suspect the tribes were too decentralized for something like that.

I guess my hypothesis is that they were doomed as a culture whether the Europeans and later Americans were dishonest or not. There was too much of a disparity in technology and governmental coordination.

Read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel. It talks about how European cultures became a dominant force.

***SPRAYER
04-09-2009, 05:33 AM
American Indians can go to college for free, they don't pay taxes and they have billion dollar money makers like casinos.

If they are too lazy and stupid to get up off their asses and put down the Colt 45, then too bad.

This article sums up Mental Ward:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2009/04/09/ward_churchill/index.html?source=rss&aim=/opinion/kamiya

BucEyedPea
04-09-2009, 05:59 AM
So he claimed to have Indian genetics, but did not claim to be enrolled in a tribe.

Good God, that description fits half the people on this board. I guarantee you most have been told that their "grandmother" or whatever was Cherokee or something.

One certainly could not presume that he doesn't have Indian genetics. He doesn't say he was enrolled.

Look, I do not defend many of his statements. His books about Indian genocide, however, are certainly scholarly and deserve to be read.

Here's where the logic is missing on saying this should be grounds for firing: the date. If that was 1980 then how was he employed for so long? If that was acceptable then, why all of a sudden post 9/11 and his offensive statements is it the cause now? That's what I mean by ALL the facts. His firing is date coincident to what he said. That shows motivation. And that is the real motivation of those who still think Ward should be fired.That would be a bad precedent in this country for a public institution when our govt grants freedom of expression no matter how offensive the expression. That's why the bar is higher for a public university.

blaise
04-09-2009, 07:01 AM
Here's where the logic is missing on saying this should be grounds for firing: the date. If that was 1980 then how was he employed for so long? If that was acceptable then, why all of a sudden post 9/11 and his offensive statements is it the cause now? That's what I mean by ALL the facts. His firing is date coincident to what he said. That shows motivation. And that is the real motivation of those who still think Ward should be fired.That would be a bad precedent in this country for a public institution when our govt grants freedom of expression no matter how offensive the expression. That's why the bar is higher for a public university.

I just don't see why they should be obligated to employ him. Like someone else said- should universities be forced to retain a professor if he starts spouting racist teachings, or anti-semetic teachings? So they're obligated to keep him employed even if they think his behavior and teachings are causing quality students to choose other schools, or causing donors to withhold donations? I'm not saying that students are staying away, or that people are withholding money, but I don't see why a professor should have carte blanche to say whatever he wants and not lose his job. If the university thinks he's reflecting poorly on the institution they have a right to protect their image.
Freedom of expression should keep you out of jail, but it doesn't mean you can't be fired due to certain statements.

Radar Chief
04-09-2009, 07:12 AM
Ahem. [Unfolding sheet of paper with formal question written on it.] Do you think there's any scenario where Native American tribes could have survived as nation-states or something equivalent?

No. No matter what they did, you blue eyed devils werenít going to just let them be.
See hereís the problem, most have been taught a history that says Europeans came over here and found mindless savages and thatís just not the case. Of course there were some very savage tribes but they were actually the minority.
Just as an example because it hits close to home, tobacco becomes popular in Europe but who had the prime farming land? Cherokees, who not only lived in permanent villages but also had their own written language, printed in their own news papers, some even owned plantations and slaves. They tried to assimilate to European culture but you Pale Faces couldnít just work with them you had to take it from them. Thatís why the Cherokees, along with as many Natives as could be forced into a death march, were moved on the Trail of Tears to the Indian Nations where they were, for the time, out of the way. Thatís how the majority of my family ended up in Oklahoma, and my Irish side is currently squirting crocodile tears in his Guinness over it. ;)

Radar Chief
04-09-2009, 07:25 AM
I just don't see why they should be obligated to employ him. Like someone else said- should universities be forced to retain a professor if he starts spouting racist teachings, or anti-semetic teachings? So they're obligated to keep him employed even if they think his behavior and teachings are causing quality students to choose other schools, or causing donors to withhold donations? I'm not saying that students are staying away, or that people are withholding money, but I don't see why a professor should have carte blanche to say whatever he wants and not lose his job. If the university thinks he's reflecting poorly on the institution they have a right to protect their image.
Freedom of expression should keep you out of jail, but it doesn't mean you can't be fired due to certain statements.

Agreed. I think he should be fired because heís proven to be a lying loon and damages the integrity of a supposed place of higher learning.

oldandslow
04-09-2009, 07:41 AM
old and slow, I have a question for you if you're a scholar on Native American issues. (Obviously, anyone else is welcome to weigh in as well.)

Ahem. [Unfolding sheet of paper with formal question written on it.] Do you think there's any scenario where Native American tribes could have survived as nation-states or something equivalent? My initial thought is that they were so far behind Europe technologically that they were doomed, because European contact was inevitable and there was too much power differential. Perhaps in some scenario where they recognized the threat more quickly, they could've played off European powers against each other and survived, but still under the shadow of one of them.

Obviously, they could've delayed Europe's entry into the Americas by some amount of time if they'd started killing settlers and explorers on sight, which might've bought them fifty years or so, tops. Would that have been enough time to put together some sort of cohesive resistance? I would suspect the tribes were too decentralized for something like that.

I guess my hypothesis is that they were doomed as a culture whether the Europeans and later Americans were dishonest or not. There was too much of a disparity in technology and governmental coordination.

RainMan:

Good question that doesn't have an easy answer, but here goes.

What seperates Indians from Europeans more than anything else are domesticated animals. Really.

You see, in 1300, Cahokia, IL, for example, had the same population as London or Paris. But London and Paris had something Cahokia did not - domesticated cows, pigs, and chickens. The western hemisphere evolved with few animals fit for domestication (there are 5 or 6 reasons for this, but I won't go into that now). The Llama were domesticated in South America, and dogs and perhaps turkeys in North America, but nothing else. Pigs, cows, and chickens did a couple of things for the Europeans - 1) a ready food supply so they were not as nomadic as Indians and 2) brought them plagues. Small pox is a mutation of a viris that comes from cows, for example. The saying "pretty as a milkmaid," for example, comes from the fact that milkmaids often caught cow pox when young and this made them immune to small pox (so there were no scars on their faces). Still, over the years, Europeans grew some immunity to small pox and other animal born diseases. Once they came into contact with Indians, it was all over. Other than STD's Indians seemed to have few "plague-like" diseases. So no immunity. 90 to 100% of many tribes were wiped out before major waves of colonization arrived.

Two things tho...

1) Had the 5 "civilized" (cherokee, choctaw, chickasaw, seminole, creek) tribes actually joined Tecumsah and fought against the America's with the British (war of 1812), the world would have been changed. At least our world would have. This joint action was stopped by one war leader in the choctaw tribe who had promised to never attack Andrew Jackson. Jackson repayed him, of course, with the Trail of Tears.

2) Had the Lakota, Nakota, Dakota, joined into a loose confederation with the western tribes during the civil war, it is altogether possible that the US would be divided into 2 halves East/west, rather than north/south.

Rain Man
04-09-2009, 07:53 AM
Okay, this I did not know at all. I knew that horses came with the Europeans, but pigs, chickens, and cows didn't exist in the New World before then? How have I missed that over the years?

Question: how big were the western tribes you reference? It sounds like you think they were big enough to have a strong impact. I would've guessed the real turning point was early on, before the European presence reached that far. Kind of like the Germans and D-Day, I would've guessed that the pivotal point would've been the eastern tribes stopping the Europeans at the beachheads. I would've figured that by the time there was a real European presence west of the Mississippi (setting aside Spain for the moment), the war was lost.

RaiderH8r
04-09-2009, 08:09 AM
Nope.

Not the same. Sorry. Our entire realm of existence is based upon the right to challenge thought, be it on the right or the left.

For government (or a governor in this case) to intrude in a college classroom destroys what the University is all about.

No, most professors, particularly of Churchill's social sciences ilk, sit around and engage in mental masturbation while pondering the effects of a subsystems mechanics on the whole system. Mostly jerking off to Kesey and "having mind blowing experiences".

Free speech does not mean free from consequences. Churchill's "little Eichmans" speech was not about challenging thought it was about him getting a lather all up and letting slip his hatreds and his statements were laden with malice, contempt, and glee at the suffering of innocents. If anyone were to say the Jews deserved the Holocaust they would be rightly fired. So give this threat to free speech and thought line of defense a rest, it does not apply to this f'ing guy. His speech was hateful and malicious with no educational value whatsoever and, as such, he was rightly shitcanned for not doing his freaking job. And as far as I can tell being a college professor is about is difficult as falling out of a boat and hitting water.

oldandslow
04-09-2009, 08:39 AM
Okay, this I did not know at all. I knew that horses came with the Europeans, but pigs, chickens, and cows didn't exist in the New World before then? How have I missed that over the years?

Question: how big were the western tribes you reference? It sounds like you think they were big enough to have a strong impact. I would've guessed the real turning point was early on, before the European presence reached that far. Kind of like the Germans and D-Day, I would've guessed that the pivotal point would've been the eastern tribes stopping the Europeans at the beachheads. I would've figured that by the time there was a real European presence west of the Mississippi (setting aside Spain for the moment), the war was lost.

I really do have a problem with how history is taught (I do not teach history, btw)...Don't take this badly, because I love your inquisitiveness but you are a great example of how most Americans believe the world began in 1621 - or perhaps 1492.

Buffalo, bears, wolves, deer, Elk - lots of wild things here that cannot really be domesticated, but no pigs, or cows. Not even chickens. Didn't arrive until the Europeans came. We did have corn (maize) at that time but it was more like grass. The cob was on top. Indians did eat that, but it didn't have the sugar content corn has now. Honestly, many archeologists argue that the life expectency (about 50) for male Indians living on pine ridge today is shorter than it was for Lakota living pre-1492.

The total numbers of members in tribes weren't that large, however, everyone was a warrior. From the youngest boy 12-13 to old men. Women could choose to fight in many tribes. If you added in Kiowa, comanche, shoshone, apache, not to mention the CA tribes life could have been hell for Europeans living past the western MO border.

Didn't happen because of thousands of years of tribal custom. It would have been interesting tho.

oldandslow
04-09-2009, 08:48 AM
And as far as I can tell being a college professor is about is difficult as falling out of a boat and hitting water.

You're right. Anyone can do it.

Amazing how those same college professors taught the folks doing all the research for medicine, tech, advancements in engineering, etc.

In fact, many of those advancements are made on college campuses - in science labs.

But it's easy to do. I'll bet even you can tell me how the uncertainty principle works in physics. Easy. Or how about the equation that determined the splitting of the atom. All done by college or ex-college profs. Simple.

RaiderH8r
04-09-2009, 09:00 AM
You're right. Anyone can do it.

Amazing how those same college professors taught the folks doing all the research for medicine, tech, advancements in engineering, etc.

In fact, many of those advancements are made on college campuses - in science labs.

But it's easy to do. I'll bet even you can tell me how the uncertainty principle works in physics. Easy. Or how about the equation that determined the splitting of the atom. All done by college or ex-college profs. Simple.

That's the only part you wish to address?

Yes, I can tell you those things. Why? Because I know how books work. I have more respect for the science fields than the social fields but, as you dismissively pointed out earlier in the thread; if you want job training go to a tech school. Well, the sciences are just that, technical education. You never hear the theoretical math or physics departments arguing on behalf of the murder of innocent lives and terrorism as a social statement that needs to be made. My point is aimed largely at the social sciences (I should have been clearer in my statement) and, in that respect, I'm dead on.

I never let my schooling interfere with my education.
-Mark Twain

Too often people have the college degree and that's the end of learning. Education is a lifelong process and is not the exclusive right of college institutions. A degree doesn't mean shit without the mind to back it up. A degree means you were able to complete an institutions' checklist of "shit they think you should know" to go do stuff. And yes, I say this all having attended college.

oldandslow
04-09-2009, 09:18 AM
That's the only part you wish to address?

Yes, I can tell you those things. Why? Because I know how books work. I have more respect for the science fields than the social fields but, as you dismissively pointed out earlier in the thread; if you want job training go to a tech school. Well, the sciences are just that, technical education. You never hear the theoretical math or physics departments arguing on behalf of the murder of innocent lives and terrorism as a social statement that needs to be made. My point is aimed largely at the social sciences (I should have been clearer in my statement) and, in that respect, I'm dead on.

I never let my schooling interfere with my education.
-Mark Twain

Too often people have the college degree and that's the end of learning. Education is a lifelong process and is not the exclusive right of college institutions. A degree doesn't mean shit without the mind to back it up. A degree means you were able to complete an institutions' checklist of "shit they think you should know" to go do stuff. And yes, I say this all having attended college.

No, sciences aren't just technical eduction. Physics, oftentimes can be just as much about philosophy as how a lever works. Quantum Physics - which is very much the cutting edge of all new discovery - is a philosophy.

History is social science. Should we abandon that?
Psychology is a social science - we ought to kick that out the door as well, I suppose.
Geography - no need for that.


Perhaps you were talking about the humanities?

How about the study of language or writing? Don't need that. Literature or music - all overrated, I suppose.

I suspect you may dislike the way political science is taught. Well there, you and I would tend to agree.

petegz28
04-09-2009, 09:34 AM
No, sciences aren't just technical eduction. Physics, oftentimes can be just as much about philosophy as how a lever works. Quantum Physics - which is very much the cutting edge of all new discovery - is a philosophy.

History is social science. Should we abandon that?
Psychology is a social science - we ought to kick that out the door as well, I suppose.
Geography - no need for that.


Perhaps you were talking about the humanities?

How about the study of language or writing? Don't need that. Literature or music - all overrated, I suppose.

I suspect you may dislike the way political science is taught. Well there, you and I would tend to agree.

You are waffling badly now. What you referred to were mostly career based studies in which you have previously stated belong in tech schools.

Language and writing could be deemed as technical as they are needed to survive in society. Whether I read Shakespeare or study Beethoven or not has little do with whether or not I can read or write.

RaiderH8r
04-09-2009, 09:40 AM
No, sciences aren't just technical eduction. Physics, oftentimes can be just as much about philosophy as how a lever works. Quantum Physics - which is very much the cutting edge of all new discovery - is a philosophy.

History is social science. Should we abandon that?
Psychology is a social science - we ought to kick that out the door as well, I suppose.
Geography - no need for that.


Perhaps you were talking about the humanities?

How about the study of language or writing? Don't need that. Literature or music - all overrated, I suppose.

I suspect you may dislike the way political science is taught. Well there, you and I would tend to agree.

Now THAT's funny, I majored in Psychology and History. And, since I went to a LA school, had plenty in the way of humanities. And since it was a Methodist school, I did plenty in the way of philosophy and religious thought. And most of my impressions of higher education were shaped by the experiences I had there. Frankly, it all felt like a waste of time for the most part. They tossed the books at me, I read them, showed up for tests and to turn in papers and other than that it was a bunch of jerkoffs sitting around running on about half assed "ideas" "thoughts" or "notions" mostly aimed at puffing up their own self worth but ultimately hollow, shallow ideas that, if they had taken the time to actually research these "ideas" before spouting off they may have realized that they are, in fact, dipshits.

Geography...well, here...

http://www.mapsofworld.com/images/world-map-new.jpg

That should shave folks a semester of 3 hrs/week of bullshit right there.

I understand that having an appreciation for literature and music are not about a career but rather living an enriched life. However, I enjoyed literature and music long before college and I would hazard that, despite my general disdain for those courses, I have more appreciation for both than most who actually majored in either. Let's face it, there's a reason almost nobody pursues a career path in the field of their major so it should really call into question the career/job value of higher education. And if it isn't about preparing for the workplace then what is it for? Mental masturbation? Appreciation? F'ing about with notions and fanciful whims of things that might interest you? All for the low low price of $40K/year.

While plenty of valuable research and learning does go on at universities they are not the panacea of education that most have been led to believe. In fact, if you know how to work a card catalog and the internets you can do pretty well for an education if you so desire.

oldandslow
04-09-2009, 09:44 AM
You are waffling badly now. What you referred to were mostly career based studies in which you have previously stated belong in tech schools.

Language and writing could be deemed as technical as they are needed to survive in society. Whether I read Shakespeare or study Beethoven or not has little do with whether or not I can read or write.

No, I am not. History doesn't lead to a "career." Most Psych majors do not become phsychologists. Learning a different language doesn't mean you are getting a career in that language - it just changes the way you view the world. Even algebra is rarely used by most people, but we make everyone take it. It leads to a different way of thinking.

Reading = better writing.

I don't care whether you read Shakespeare or not, but society has concluded that those teaching Shakespeare to students is valuable. I would agree.

RaiderH8r
04-09-2009, 09:46 AM
No, I am not. History doesn't lead to a "career." Most Psych majors do not become phsychologists. Learning a different language doesn't mean you are getting a career in that language - it just changes the way you view the world. Even algebra is rarely used by most people, but we make everyone take it. It leads to a different way of thinking.

Reading = better writing.

I don't care whether you read Shakespeare or not, but society has concluded that those teaching Shakespeare to students is valuable. I would agree.

My point is that I didn't need a school to tell me any of that shit.

If somebody hasn't figured out by the time they leave high school that reading is important college isn't going to do jack shit for them anyway.

oldandslow
04-09-2009, 09:48 AM
Raider:

I am sorry you found your LA experience to be so debilitating. Seriously. I wish you could have taken a class with me. As colleagues. Not me being an overloard.

I am going to grant you something. Many profs are asses. They do not care about students or learning. They do care about tenure. Unfortunately, the system has made it where teaching is valued less than research for tenure, therefore students are left out in the cold.

oldandslow
04-09-2009, 09:49 AM
My point is that I didn't need a school to tell me any of that shit.

If somebody hasn't figured out by the time they leave high school that reading is important college isn't going to do jack shit for them anyway.

And yes, there are many self taught individuals out there. Unfortunately, they are the exception.

petegz28
04-09-2009, 09:53 AM
No, I am not. History doesn't lead to a "career." Most Psych majors do not become phsychologists. Learning a different language doesn't mean you are getting a career in that language - it just changes the way you view the world. Even algebra is rarely used by most people, but we make everyone take it. It leads to a different way of thinking.

Reading = better writing.

I don't care whether you read Shakespeare or not, but society has concluded that those teaching Shakespeare to students is valuable. I would agree.

No they didn't. A few arrogant people deemed that.

***SPRAYER
04-09-2009, 10:44 AM
And yes, there are many self taught individuals out there. Unfortunately, they are the exception.

Library card > college education

Heckuva lot cheaper, too.

Rain Man
04-09-2009, 10:51 AM
I really do have a problem with how history is taught (I do not teach history, btw)...Don't take this badly, because I love your inquisitiveness but you are a great example of how most Americans believe the world began in 1621 - or perhaps 1492.



I'm not gonna say that didn't hurt.

Jenson71
04-09-2009, 11:46 AM
Now THAT's funny, I majored in Psychology and History. And, since I went to a LA school, had plenty in the way of humanities. And since it was a Methodist school, I did plenty in the way of philosophy and religious thought. And most of my impressions of higher education were shaped by the experiences I had there. Frankly, it all felt like a waste of time for the most part. They tossed the books at me, I read them, showed up for tests and to turn in papers and other than that it was a bunch of jerkoffs sitting around running on about half assed "ideas" "thoughts" or "notions" mostly aimed at puffing up their own self worth but ultimately hollow, shallow ideas that, if they had taken the time to actually research these "ideas" before spouting off they may have realized that they are, in fact, dipshits.

Geography...well, here...

That should shave folks a semester of 3 hrs/week of bullshit right there.

I understand that having an appreciation for literature and music are not about a career but rather living an enriched life. However, I enjoyed literature and music long before college and I would hazard that, despite my general disdain for those courses, I have more appreciation for both than most who actually majored in either. Let's face it, there's a reason almost nobody pursues a career path in the field of their major so it should really call into question the career/job value of higher education. And if it isn't about preparing for the workplace then what is it for? Mental masturbation? Appreciation? F'ing about with notions and fanciful whims of things that might interest you? All for the low low price of $40K/year.

While plenty of valuable research and learning does go on at universities they are not the panacea of education that most have been led to believe. In fact, if you know how to work a card catalog and the internets you can do pretty well for an education if you so desire.

Your grounds for complaint are somewhat legitimate. Obviously, professors who do little to encourage original and critical thinking are worthless. That is the entire point, and can't be achieved by total immersion into themselves.

But you also lay out some things I have to take issue with.

First, you treat the idea of readings books, understanding them (enough to do well on tests) and writings papers as something very unimportant in your college experience. This should be huge though. In college, you are usually exposed to classic works on a deeper level for the first time. Most students are anyway. It's the first time they read Crime and Punishment and Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Poetics. Understanding these books are not just mental masturbation to enrich your lives (although that's a nice thought). You are reading the books that are the foundations of our society, and in order to understand our society, we must understand the foundational ideas that make it up. Not everyone reads the classics though, and that's unfortunate, but every student should read good books, ones that contribute or say something important about who we are.

Secondly, why not challenge the professors and class with the hollow and shallow ideas they brought forth? There are ways of doing this respectfully, and I think more often than not, a professor will enjoy a new perspective, if not a direct challenge on their authority and perceived wisdom.

Thirdly, that's not geography.

Fourthly, it is one of the greatest fallacies to think that a college education has shown you the way of the world. No, absolute not. A college education should prepare you to further understand the world. It is first and foremost designed to inculcate in a person a desire and ability for further understanding and learning, which is a life long process. The fact that you can now criticize your professors for the ideas they gave means that you can still critically think for yourself (assuming your criticisms are legitimate), and in a way, that means your education somewhere along the line has served you well in some way.

Now, you've touched on something that's important though...

Lastly, and tied into the previous point, there is an idea that for $40K a year, a college should equip you with everything you need to know, and your role is to only do what is necessary, what is explicitly on the syllabus, and then you have succeeded, you are now an educated person and can take on the world. That's not how education works though. If a person is bright enough, they should be able to grab their education and use it to its full advantage, recognizing its strengths and its limits and looking to maximize the former and enhance in other methods the latter. A bright person such as yourself will make their college experience work for them in various ways. It's like that joke about the guys who were moving into town and asked the barber if the people were nice there. The barber asks if the people were nice in their former town. "No, they were pricks," says the first. "That's how they are here," said the barber. The second guy says, "They were great." And the barber says, "That's how they are here."

Adept Havelock
04-09-2009, 03:53 PM
Library card > college education

Heckuva lot cheaper, too.

I eagerly await the results of your quadruple bypass performed by a guy who read up on how to do it at the library. :)

Rain Man
04-10-2009, 10:14 AM
I eagerly await the results of your quadruple bypass performed by a guy who read up on how to do it at the library. :)


I've been reading a lot on it, but I still need to find a book that shows me what an aorta looks like. I think I'm ready to give it a shot, though.

stevieray
04-10-2009, 10:32 AM
Peter, I truly want people to take opposing views to mine. I even want my students to challenge me in class. It's called critical thinking.

If we don't allow that on campus then we are just Simplex's tech schools. Which is fine. But don't expect a college experience there.

except of course, someone is questionong evolution

Jenson71
04-10-2009, 11:41 AM
except of course, someone is questionong evolution

It's good to shut down people who deny evolution and are in favor of Biblical creationism. You have to have some sort of standard of truth, and part of a professional is to protect the integrity of their profession, which means attacking those who deviate from the standard of truth. I'm not saying when they are skeptical of evolution, but when they outright reject it in favor of Biblical creationism. Whether it's another professor or a student, it's good to set them straight and realize their claims better be top notch in order to take seriously.

If a student told his class, "There was no Holocaust," what would you prefer the professor to do?

Simplex3
04-10-2009, 11:45 AM
except of course, someone is questionong evolution

...or global warming.

stevieray
04-10-2009, 11:56 AM
...or global warming.

:clap:

Jenson71
04-10-2009, 12:01 PM
:clap:

You've always preferred cheerleading to backing up your comments and claims.

stevieray
04-10-2009, 12:16 PM
I'm sorry Simplex...my pom poms clouded my vision. I can't agree with your post, my integrity is at stake.

can you find it in your heart to forgive me?

Jenson71
04-10-2009, 12:19 PM
Any response to post 220?

stevieray
04-10-2009, 12:26 PM
Any response to post 220?

thanks for the visual aid?

Jenson71
04-10-2009, 12:28 PM
No answer to my question?

stevieray
04-10-2009, 12:37 PM
No answer to my question?

in the context we are discussing, your question is not up for debate., but it was great in the Wizard of Oz.

Jenson71
04-10-2009, 12:39 PM
in the context we are discussing, your question is not up for debate., but it was great in the Wizard of Oz.

Why does it not fit the context? In both cases, you have a student questioning, or challenging, a body of knowledge that has been established as true beyond any reasonable doubt. My question is merely "what should the proper response be?" Is it because one is a scientific question, and the other is a historical question? The nature of the topic should not be a hindrance to you answering my question.

Simplex3
04-10-2009, 12:53 PM
I'm sorry Simplex...my pom poms clouded my vision. I can't agree with your post, my integrity is at stake.

can you find it in your heart to forgive me?

I think it's well established that I don't have a heart.

stevieray
04-10-2009, 12:55 PM
Why does it not fit the context? In both cases, you have a student questioning, or challenging, a body of knowledge that has been established as true beyond any reasonable doubt. My question is merely "what should the proper response be?" Is it because one is a scientific question, and the other is a historical question? The nature of the topic should not be a hindrance to you answering my question.

the question doesn't require a response..I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of academic freedom in oas's posts...

yours is cheerleading evolution...interesting you deferred to a negative to back it up.

Simplex3
04-10-2009, 12:55 PM
Why does it not fit the context? In both cases, you have a student questioning, or challenging, a body of knowledge that has been established as true beyond any reasonable doubt. My question is merely "what should the proper response be?" Is it because one is a scientific question, and the other is a historical question? The nature of the topic should not be a hindrance to you answering my question.

Science isn't about reasonable doubt. Science is about truth and the pursuit of it. Since absolute truth can never be known, it basically boils down to the pursuit. IMO everything in life is this way.

stevieray
04-10-2009, 12:56 PM
I think it's well established that I don't have a heart.

you can use you elbow if you want ..c'mon man.. have an elbow.

Simplex3
04-10-2009, 01:04 PM
you can use you elbow if you want ..c'mon man.. have an elbow.

Let's see, I've been told I have both a butt and a d**k on or for a head, I've been told several things that I can do with various other body parts...

Why not. Let's do this elbow thing.

Jenson71
04-10-2009, 01:04 PM
the question doesn't require a response..I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of academic freedom in oas's posts... No, I'm asking for a response. You're right, it can just sit there. But that would just show you prefer to avoid the question, probably because it would interfere with your idea that professors emphasize ideas that you falsely consider to be liberal points of agenda. You're not pointing out the hypocrisy of academic freedom. You're jumping to conclusions based on little thinking.

yours is cheerleading evolution...interesting you deferred to a negative to back it up. Mine is a position of defending truth; if evolution is true, and the evidence for that is widely available, then cheerlead it. You, however, cheerlead your political agenda in disregard of the truth. You're no different than a Marxist-historian or a feminist-historian. You avoid truth to situate yourself in an easy, comfortable position that is truly one of the most dishonest and lazy acts a human can do.

I didn't defer to a negative. In both situations there is a denial of a claim widely supported by evidence.

Simplex3
04-10-2009, 01:08 PM
Mine is a position of defending truth; if evolution is true, and the evidence for that is widely available, then cheerlead it.

I believe that evolution is the most correct theory, but it has some holes that can't be filled right now. To step up and call it "truth" is a little disingenuous.

Jenson71
04-10-2009, 01:09 PM
Science isn't about reasonable doubt. Science is about truth and the pursuit of it. Since absolute truth can never be known, it basically boils down to the pursuit. IMO everything in life is this way.

Do you think that we know anything?

Simplex3
04-10-2009, 01:10 PM
Do you think that we know anything?

No.

stevieray
04-10-2009, 01:10 PM
No, I'm asking for a response. You're right, it can just sit there. But that would just show you prefer to avoid the question, probably because it would interfere with your idea that professors emphasize ideas that you falsely consider to be liberal points of agenda. You're not pointing out the hypocrisy of academic freedom. You're jumping to conclusions based on little thinking.

Mine is a position of defending truth; if evolution is true, and the evidence for that is widely available, then cheerlead it. You, however, cheerlead your political agenda in disregard of the truth. You're no different than a Marxist-historian or a feminist-historian. You avoid truth to situate yourself in an easy, comfortable position that is truly one of the most dishonest and lazy acts a human can do.

I didn't defer to a negative. In both situations there is a denial of a claim widely supported by evidence.

and there it is .. finally.

feel better?

Jenson71
04-10-2009, 01:12 PM
I believe that evolution is the most correct theory, but it has some holes that can't be filled right now. To step up and call it "truth" is a little disingenuous.

Of course it has holes. Of course we are still building on it. What in the human achievement is not constantly being built upon? Just because a theory has holes does not relegate it to us having a position of classical skepticism - that because there are holes, we can not take it as having any sense of truth or falseness. Our lives would be very chaotic and unrationale if we did so.

JohnnyV13
04-10-2009, 01:14 PM
I eagerly await the results of your quadruple bypass performed by a guy who read up on how to do it at the library. :)

That's different. Medical School is really a prestigous trade school.

Jenson71
04-10-2009, 01:14 PM
and there it is .. finally.

feel better?

What is "it?" I'd feel better if you took a reasonable, intelligent discourse on this matter, so no, I don't feel better.

Jenson71
04-10-2009, 01:17 PM
No.

How trendily post-modern of you. Unfortunately, you have to go to great lengths of intellectual anarchism to believe this. If I asked you what was stronger - hard steel or cardboard - what would your answer be?

Another words, what does the engineer know he should build his bridge out of if given the options of hard steel or cardboard?

Simplex3
04-10-2009, 01:18 PM
Of course it has holes. Of course we are still building on it. What in the human achievement is not constantly being built upon? Just because a theory has holes does not relegate it to us having a position of classical skepticism - that because there are holes, we can not take it as having any sense of truth or falseness. Our lives would be very chaotic and unrationale if we did so.

It's human nature to need to believe we know things. As a species we abhor uncertainty. We're insecure and want to be the masters of all that surrounds us. You can't be the master of something you don't understand.

Jenson71
04-10-2009, 01:23 PM
It's human nature to need to believe we know things. As a species we abhor uncertainty. We're insecure and want to be the masters of all that surrounds us. You can't be the master of something you don't understand.

Are you seriously giving absolute claims about human nature after your post which just claimed we know nothing? The complete contradiction between your claims is astounding.

Simplex3
04-10-2009, 01:27 PM
Are you seriously giving absolute claims about human nature after your post which just claimed we know nothing? The complete contradiction between your claims is astounding.

I didn't say "all people". I said as a species. As in "in general". There are people who don't fall in line with that. Your inability to get past your own preconceived notions is astounding.

Jenson71
04-10-2009, 01:30 PM
I didn't say "all people". I said as a species. As in "in general". There are people who don't fall in line with that. Your inability to get past your own preconceived notions is astounding.

You're still claiming as knowledge that "as a general species, people are [such and such]." Now you're also claiming that "this rules does not follow for everyone, there are people who don't follow this rule."

LMAO

Jenson71
04-10-2009, 01:31 PM
Simplex, do you make the bridge of steel or bubbles?

Jenson71
04-10-2009, 01:36 PM
This is a common problem, and I can help you fix it. (There are some people who deny there is such a thing as truth, but that's usually not the case). The problem is usually not with if there is truth or not, but how do we judge what is true. That is a much harder question. "Why is this true? How does that prove it?" Another thing you might want to take note of is "opinion" which is different than "knowledge." You can maintain that there is no way to truth and say "I don't know, but my opinion of human nature is this..." but it's logically impossible to maintain that there is no way to truth and make a claim that such and such is the truth of human nature.

stevieray
04-10-2009, 01:49 PM
What is "it?" I'd feel better if you took a reasonable, intelligent discourse on this matter, so no, I don't feel better.

depends on what your definition if is is...:rolleyes:

this isin't about me. or evolution being true/false.

that's all you.

it's redundant and boring.