BS: Fire Ward Churchill

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: GUEST,Diogenes
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 06:20 PM

He just gets better!

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: Once Famous
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 06:05 PM

I know I'm brilliant.

Go lick your dog dick, Dog Genes.

Case closed, moron.

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: GUEST,Diogenes
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 05:32 PM

Brilliant! I rest my case.

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 05:09 PM

So, Gaia, did you have something useful to say, or are you prowling in this numbers game? You lose credibility if you haven't read the thread you just fingered.

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: Scooby Doo
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 05:05 PM

100 and thanks

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: Once Famous
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 04:45 PM

Worse. You are fucked.

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: GUEST,Diogenes
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 04:44 PM

Oh, woe is me!! He hath withered me with the power and acuteness of his ready wit!! I am shamed! I am devastated! Oh, woe!! Oh, woe!!

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: Once Famous
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 03:57 PM

Dog genes

it's not about me feeling superior. It's about how you deal with your own inferiority complex and how you have to debbbbbbbate and disssssscuss everything that is complete bullshit so you can feel like a SOODOH intellectual.

It's about wasting my time. Debating what is obviously bullshit will still end you up with bullshit. However, I love to put up some good topics about bullshit.

Of course in your case, it's Dog shit.

apparently you have way too much on your hands, Dog Genes.

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 01:42 PM

trolling. . . trolling. . . trolling. . .

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 01:37 PM

One comment regarding Martin Gibson's starting this thread, and then I'm gone. It precipitated a good, informative discussion, despite what MG's intent might have been. So, amazingly enough, he is good for something every now and then.

Of course he won't debate. He is incapable of that because it requires thought. He just crows that he managed to "sucker" people into this thread. Well, fine. Let him enjoy his moment in the sun. It allows him to delude himself into feeling superior.

Let us not begrudge him that. After all, he has so little to feel superior about.

(Now, take note of the highly revealing intellectual content of his response to this comment.)

Diogenes

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: GUEST,Stilly River Sage
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 01:20 PM

Oops. That was me.

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 01:10 PM

Bill D, Martin may have brought it up for the worst of reasons, but why waste the thread to start another one when he'll just poop there, too. There are 31 "Re: Ward Churchill" posts still in my email from one scholarly discussion list that I haven't gotten around to reading yet. The intellectual maturity of the various writers has been interesting to note, and a few of them have strayed into areas that really are too much like the Republican "Swift Boat" attack on Kerry to be credible.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: GUEST,Burke
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 11:36 AM

If you put the quotes where they belong, Wolfgang's sentence makes perfect sense. Lots of us use titles in links counting on the link color itself to make the quote marks unnecessary.

'Truth Tricky for Churchill' alleges that part of his academic career is based on fraud.

My amplified version: In 'Truth Tricky for Churchill' Paul Campos alleges that part of his [Churchill's] academic career is based on fraud.

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 08:59 AM

No reason to say sorry, Ebbie, I did appreciate your post.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: LadyJean
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 01:32 AM

Ward Churchill sounds like a twit. The first amendment protects twits too. I have worked in offices. Most office workers are focussed on finishing the day, getting the check, and wondering whether their job will be there next week. Churchill calling file clerks, data entry clerks, word processors and mail room staff "Little Eichmans" suggests he needs to get away from the University a little more often.

Lord Geoffrey Amherst wrote to Colonel Henri Bouquet, the Swiss mercenary in command of Fort Pitt, and reccomended that he use infected blankets and other objects to spread smallpox among the Native American population near the fort. There is some evidence that the experiment was tried. But I'm not sure it worked. Native Americans were much more suseptible to European diseases. Smallpox, measles, chickenpox, etc. spread with no help, and killed.

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 06:12 PM

I understood, Wolfgang. But 'Truth Tricky for Churchill alleges that part of his academic career is based on fraud'? That's why I called it clumsy. Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: Once Famous
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 04:44 PM

But I suckered you into it Bill D. Don't want to respond? Then don't.

I'm not here to debate.

I've said this before.

I posted this to throw out my opinion. Doesn't mean I need or want to debate anyone about it.

You want a debate, bill D. go find Amos or some other SOODOH intellectual that hangs out here. I could give a crap.

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 03:48 PM

does anyone besides me think it's becoming silly to go thru the motions of debating Martin with involved reasoning and research, when HIS response is to ignore the details and simply make claims and toss obscenities?

(I say this only because **Martin** started the thread.)

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: Burke
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 12:13 PM

Here are links to stuff about Churchill written before this year.

Speak Out is his speaking agency.
John LeVelle has a couple of critiques of Churchill's writing. Look at "The General Allotment Act "Eligibility" Hoax: Distortions of Law, Policy, and History in Derogation of Indian Tribes" (It's a large PDF)
and the review of "Indians R Us."

I found some of this by searching the Rocky Mountain News for Ward Chuchill. See earlier links.

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: GUEST,Stilly River Sage
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 10:26 AM

Ward Churchill seems to be the hot topic on my academic discussion lists this week. My email is filling with posts. I dropped to the most recent and see that the speculation now is that if Churchill were to be fired, "no one would believe that it was for plagiarism" or other academic misbehavior, because of the political climate (ala Bush people going after critics). The view of this most recent post writer is that Churchill, should he be fired, will be able to sue and win handily.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 07:37 AM

Ebbie,

actually, 'alleges' was the word I was seeking, but you may be right pointing out that the sentence is clumsy. I had meant that line to be read together with the link above as a single sentence: "(The article linked here) alleges....".

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 11:38 PM

I'm sure he'd have a similar sentiment to share with you, MG. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: Once Famous
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 11:13 PM

Hey, if he wants to hate America, it's my pleasure to tell him to get fucked.

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 07:16 PM

This is a really slippery slope, once you start evaluating how much of something makes a thing "real." And there are all of the nature vs nurture elements to layer over the top of it. While I have mentioned it several times, I must tell you that debating blood quantum issues is a monster that will come around and bite you in the ass every time. With the Jimake Highwater example, though he continued to claim Indian blood, it was pretty easily demonstrated that he had none, and furthermore, that he vascillated in his claims over the years. Churchill has been consistent, and having watched various mixedblood scholars get the "not Indian enough" treatment (from others who may have more blood but know less about their own cultures, or those who are not Indian at all but are such afficianados that they claim to be able to tell who is who) it's a limb I'm not willing to climb out on and start sawing.

The thoughtfully applied knowledge of any subject is something to be respected. In social debates, if the quality of the "use" of knowledge is going to be seen through a political lens, then there will always be some who disagree with the conclusions. Your best bet in this debate is to look at the facts that can be easily evaluated.

Ward Churchill holds the unpopular opinion that the behavior of those in charge of money and trade and power in the U.S. are responsible for angering the rest of the world enough to make themselves the targets they became on Sept. 11, 2001. A lot of people don't want to hear that. They want to see the U.S. as a victim. Churchill is not alone in thinking that the U.S. has done too many offensive things over the years to allow that popular opinion go without remark. The position that he has done much of his work from is one of an ethnic outsider, as one who can speak from the unique position of having felt the full wrath and deceit that the U.S. (politicans and military) are capable of as nations were crushed and relocated and betrayed during the western expansion (and still today, if you look at the mess of all of the money and resources supposedly held "in trust" for Indian peoples). Ward Churchill can hold that opinion as an Indian or not. So like I said, his fate appears to rest on the credibility of his sources and his ability to give accurate citations.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 07:04 PM

well..IF he is proven to have faked his research and otherwise mis-stated his credentials, I would not be very sympathetic. He has obviously gained a lot of knowlege AS a tenured professor, and may be qualified to teach now...but if he faked bunch of stuff to get the job, he might oughta be called to task for it.

This does NOT mean he should be fired for being strongly opinionated and careless use of words, like many were hollering for.

I have known a few teachers who were utter asses, but who were also qualified asses....and I have know some who were politically correct and would not have ruffled any feathers, but who were travesties as scholars and teachers. You MUST be clear what you are judging.

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: Amos
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 06:48 PM

The Thomas Brown paper makes a good case that Ward Churchill showed little or no respect for the truth in promoting the legend of the US Army using smallpox in a campaign against the Mandan people. His assertions are baldly contradicted by eyewitness accounts. And he must have been aware of it; so if he gets suspended for generating excessive disbelief, by lying, it will be an appropriate action.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 06:47 PM

Does anyone have a citation or site one can go to in order to learn what Churchill's claims actually are as to his Indian status?

I know I just read he claims 1/16 Indian blood. That should mean (if my arithmetic is correct) that he had a great-grandparent who was full Indian. Does he anywhere substantiate that, or try to? "My great-grandfather Joe Jones was Kiowa, lived from 18__ until about 19__, and died in Yankton, South Dakota," or something like that?

Or does he just make the bald claim?

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 06:12 PM

"alleges that part of his academic career is based on fraud."

Wolfgang, please note that that line is clumsy and jars my sensibilities- 'alleges' is not the word you were seeking. 'Allegations' may be.

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 05:21 PM

This remark was posted on one of my scholarly lists by a professor I've worked with in the past and whose opinion I respect. I've set up the links that were scattered through an email he posted.

Busby: This discussion of Ward Churchill raises series issues of academic
freedom on one side and on issues of identity, scholarship, and
plagiarism on the other. The charges of plagiarism and
misrepresentation of sources are the most serious ones. The Western
History list has had a number of messages about it. This one provides
some other important links:

From:   Larry xxxxxx
Date:   2/12/2005 9:31:58 AM
Subject:       Re: Ward Churchill redux


Of course academic freedom and tenure should protect Ward Churchill,
and of course in the present political climate they will not. But
even as a free speech absolutist, I have trouble summoning any
sympathy.
Ward Churchill has gotten tremendous mileage out of a career that
combines polemics, invective, and a Joseph Ellis level of
self-invention. He is a wonderfully entertaining writer, but his
actual scholarship has been slight. If the new accusations of
research fraud
and plagiarism prove true, and if it comes out that he has only been
pretending to be Indian for all these years, the CU regents will seize
on these items to fire him. And quite rightly so.

Ward Churchill has spent two decades sowing the wind. Now he reaps
the whirlwind. Roosting chickens indeed.

Link on research fraud:

Assessing Ward Churchill's Version of the 1837 Smallpox Epidemic
http://hal.lamar.edu/~browntf/Churchill1.htm

American Indian Movement (AIM--and I'll note that this group is really famous for it's infighting)
http://www.aimovement.org/moipr/churchill05.html

Another friend sent two sources regarding Churchill's identity:

Prof's Indian Roots Disputed
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3519179,00.html

Reporter's Notebook: Controversial CU professor stretches truth
http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?display=rednews/2005/02/06/build/nation/67-reporters-notebook.inc

These links are provided by people who are more active in the field than I've been for a while, so it's looking like Churchill's chicken is cooked, but from the academic end of things and not from the tribal end of things. Plagiarism will knock an academic down faster than just about anything else in academia.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: Once Famous
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 05:00 PM

You're right, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 02:27 PM

Kim C said:

I ask again: if Churchill thinks that 9/11 was retaliation for crimes against Iraq, does he therefore believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11; and consequently, that the war against Iraq is just?

Of course I can't answer for Churchill, what he might believe, and his logic in doing so.

But it's important to remember that the concept of the nation-state (such as Iraq, Egypt, etc.) is not nearly as important in the mind of many of these people as it is in Western thinking. These nation-states are artificial creations, by and large arbitrarily created by the English after WW-1, without regard to anything like natural geographic boundaries, variations in culture, or the like. Many, many Arabs think rather in terms of Pan-Arabism, that all of the Arabic-speaking Muslims are the relevant nation. Thus, by their thinking, an attack on Iraq is an attack on "us", whether they are Egyptians, Afghans, Qataaris, or whatever.

As an aside, Iran is a different matter. The Iranians are neither Arabs nor Arabic speaking. Iran has a real cultural and historical nationhood going back to ancient times, as Persia, and speak their own historical language, Farsi, so it is a true nation-state.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 02:10 PM

LOL!!!!!!! Kim C!

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: Kim C
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 01:53 PM

I ask again: if Churchill thinks that 9/11 was retaliation for crimes against Iraq, does he therefore believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11; and consequently, that the war against Iraq is just?

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: Amos
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 01:41 PM

Funny, Martin -- yours appeals to the SOODOH anti-intellectual, but you are nowhere near the bluecollar fart you pretend to be. Your too smart, fpr one thing.

Blah, blah, blah.

What WAS that guy Churchill talking about anyway?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: DougR
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 01:18 PM

Anyone interested in a column on this subject written by a respected writer of color might want to check out Thomas Sowell's February 15th column. You can find it on the Drudge Report.

I agree wholly with Sowell's assessment.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: Once Famous
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 12:45 PM

"flaming and screaming rhetorically"

Your style sucks completely, Amos.

It's the epitome of blah, blah, blah.

Your posts generally appeal to the SOODOH intellectual, many who just talk a lot and get very little accomplished.

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 12:16 PM

Jim, I know and I agree.
I just thought it was an interesting point in itself to mention.

His main thesis can be discussed completely independent of whether he has committed fraud. But when it comes to decide whether he has to lose tenure the fraud issue will play a role.

AIM (American Indian Movement) statement on Churchill

He has deceitfully and treacherously fooled innocent and naïve Indian community members in Denver, Colorado, as well as many other people worldwide.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: Amos
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 10:26 AM

The issue was never about "the best interests of America"; Ward was talking about the sources of the events of 9-11.

In characterizing them as "chickens coming home to roost" he is making a point that any intelligent and responsible person would want to review -- namely, what is the scope of my own responsibility for this catastrophe?

It would be pure hog-stupid not to at least examine the question.

It would be nice if instead of flaming and screaming rhetorically, as Martin chooses to do, because of the phrasing of Ward's remarks, someone tried to examine exactly what the fuck he was talking about. His generalization, evenw ith the clarifications of who he meant, are still to wide to generate any light.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: GUEST,Stilly River Sage
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 10:16 AM

Campos, the author of that article, has quite a nice platform from which to trash his colleague. Let's guess which side of this issue he is on, and let's speculate at just how powerful the court of public opinion is.

The saddest aspect of Churchill's case is that, in regard to his identity, he might not be guilty of fraud in the narrowest legal sense. According to the News, Churchill has been claiming to be a Native American since his high school days in Illinois. It may well be that by this point he has genuinely convinced himself that he actually is an Indian.

Of course some people believe they're Napoleon. But that's not a good reason for giving them professorships in French history.

Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado. He can be reached at [e-mail].

Unlike Highwater, who kept changing his story and was all over the board, Churchill has a consistent position, but in the world of blood quantem, it is very hard to prove or disprove. High school sounds like a good time to make the decision that you're going to explore a particular aspect of your ethnic heritage. Prior to that, can we expect him to have shown such resolve? (Few people know that I'm 1/4 Danish, but that doesn't mean I couldn't decide to learn a lot more about the Hansen branch of the family. . . ) Churchill has taken the activist, aggressive position that has ruffled a lot of feathers over the years. And now that the feathers are flying, why not have a law professor wade into the fray via a widely-read editorial. The line "might not be guilty of fraud in the narrowest legal sense" is a good working definition of "damning with faint praise." Along the lines of "when did you stop beating your wife." To answer "I didn't. . ." you won't get past those two words. Didn't you stop beating your wife? That you never beat your wife so never needed to quit is beside the point, isn't it? First words out of your mouth are all anyone will hear.

Chances are the law professor is one of those snobs who is insulted taht someone without a terminal degree is on the faculty. I've seen that one before, and the snobbery is hidden behind all sorts of petty acts that seem unrelated until you look at the bigger picture.

I'll sit down when I have time and read carefully through this thread then revisit some of my scholarly materials about Churchill. Maybe there's something useful to add. But right now, what this "discussion" needs is a referee with a whistle.

By the way--there are all sorts of ways to learn later on of Indian heritage that was suppressed by family members who were ashamed of the linkage. Many Cherokees who resisted "Removal" blended into the surrounding community, and simply never spoke of being Indian to their children. Yet one day you'll see one of those predominantly Indian family surnames pop up in the family tree and answers to nagging questions become clear. I was reading an article just yesterday about an African American doctor in the Dallas area who was a well-known activist. When I read that his mother's maiden name was "Linthicum," commonly found I think in Cherokee? areas, I realized that he was probably mixedblood Indian and African American. Maybe not, but it sends up a little geneological flag.

The question then arises--if you are Indian and didn't know it for a while, but you live a life following your family traditions, aren't you still "Indian?" And how many of your family's practices or traditions might stem from the long-forgotten culture? There's just too much grey area there for Dr. Campos to make any definitive statements, so of course, he damns with faint praise and makes his derogatory statements in such a way that he makes lots of unsavory suggestions without actually saying them so he can't be sued for libel.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 09:44 AM

Wolfgang,

I think the point of Churchill's defenders here is that, even if he were a neo-nazi, his speech should be protected -- he should not be fired.

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 08:52 AM

In Germany, his type of argumentation is only found in Neonazi writings.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 08:33 AM

Truth tricky for Churchill

alleges that part of his academic career is based on fraud.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: number 6
Date: 14 Feb 05 - 11:20 PM

If you catogrize me (from my political, philosphical leaning) you would slot me in with the liberals.

Anyway, consertative or liberal, defense of free speach, quantim blood or whatever, put it all that aside, this guy Churchill should lose his tenure and the 90k annually that goes with it. It is his 9/11 statement, and his subsequent refusal to apologise .. I thought liberals defended the common working man, not sluffing them off (all victims of 9/11) as self absorbed Eichman's arranging power lunches and stock transactions on their cell phones, guilty of the greed and evil they wreak upon the world. What I see in Churchill is a man past middle age, who has not found his identity, angry and bitter, lashing out at an establishment that he himself is definately part of, in short a man that is past the point of being mentally competent.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: Once Famous
Date: 14 Feb 05 - 10:24 PM

And who you defend is not always in America's best interest, perhaps.

My own critical remarks are not headline news.

I never claimed they are models of reflective consideration.

But there sure is a double standard among liberals.

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Feb 05 - 10:15 PM

so, if others make errors in atribution, it makes it better if YOU do also?

and perhaps you should read carefully your own "critical" remarks....they are not exactly always models of reflective consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: Once Famous
Date: 14 Feb 05 - 09:50 PM

Yes, I can Bill D.

If I'm "critical" of gays, it's right away brandished as hate.

If I'm "critical" of Arabs, it's right away brandished as hate.

Works for Ward Churchill the same way. His "critical" is hate to me. I don't care how you interpet it or worse yet, make excuses for it.

Bye, Guest. Go crawl off on your slug belly.

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Feb 05 - 08:48 PM

piffle, Martin..his speech was not even vaguely comparable to "yelling fire in a stadium"...

you want metaphor?----if anything, it was warning people about the condition of their stadiums.

It was not a particularly good speech, but you can't equate "critical speech" with "hate speech"

damn, I get tired of lazy, shallow, knee-jerk responses!

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: Burke
Date: 14 Feb 05 - 08:09 PM

Ward Churchill wrote his article on Sept. 12, 2001. Since than he has spoken many times on many campuses without problem of any kind. This is a tempest in a teapot, born out of internal campus politics at Hamilton College.

The most thoughtful article I have read so far was in last weeks
Syracuse New Times. This is not the daily Syracuse Post-Standard which was one of the first to swing a hatchet.

I'm getting tired of hearing that Churchill has spoken 200 times since 9/11. If that count is accurate, I have to wonder when he had time to do his full-time job.

Bill O'Reilly and The Wall Street Journal, etc. have done much more to spread Churchill's thoughts than he could ever have hoped to achive from his ivory tower.

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 14 Feb 05 - 07:35 PM

I'd like to see leftist/rightist university statistcs too. I tried to be sure to say "in my experience."

Howsomever, I would suspect that however nutsy the professors and instructors are, the administrators, the men in charge, are conservative to reactionary. You don't get money from legislators & rich people by being a mad nonconformist. The profs in the school of business are higher paid than the profs in the humanities, which tells you something.

It takes time to get tenure, and you have to pretty much be a team mamber; "you have to get along to get ahead." This does not encourage radical or original thought. Very few can maintain a conformist act for years and then throw off their disguise upon getting tenure.

And there is a pretty strong caste system in a university; the faculty are the nobles and the staff are the commoners, very like the army where the Officers (who have ladies) are high above to the Men (who have wives). God help the enlisted man who pees in the Officers Latrine, and don't ask how I know. This is not a leftist social structure.

One reason people like Churchill make such a splash is they are unusual, and therefore startling.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 14 Feb 05 - 06:11 PM

Curious times we're living in. Though I doubt that he'd ever resort to the tasteless "Eichman" bit (contrary to popular opinion), nor do I think he would confuse the poor working folk who died in the towers with a justifiable enemy (the most distatsteful element in Churchill's speech), a voice that is loudly agreeing with the "home to roost" part of what Churchill's contention is is, ironically, Pat Buchanan.

I too would be interested in statistics that would point toward a conservative bent in acedemia. I've read Pugh polls that point rather emphatically the other way.

Toodles! Have a nice evening!