The real controversy as to his status has to do with his international views, and whether his tenure gives him an absolutely rock-solid position as professor despite the unpopularity of his views in certain circles.

While I intensely dislike what I consider the objectionable excess of his argument (the "Little Eichmanns" bit, the "they had it coming" bit, and so forth) I regard the meat of his argument as being contained in the "chickens-coming-home-to-roost" metaphor, which has much to say for it.

Tenure is similar to the right of habeas corpus, in that it's given great honor in official pronouncements, but whenever it threatens to mean something there are strong calls to set it aside.

The "quantum blood" and "real Indian" thing is purely irrelevant to the above arguments, whatever its own merits may be (and I wouldn't presume to judge that). It's only an emotional sideshow, distracting attention from what goes on in the center ring.

Dave Oesterreich