Reason Writers Around Town: Katherine Mangu-Ward on Ward Churchill and Diminutive Nazis in The Wall Street Journal

Remember Ward Churchill?

He was the University of Colorado Native American studies professor who won national notoriety for calling some of the 9/11 dead "little Eichmanns." In Denver this week, he's suing to get his job back. Get the scoop, plus learn what Churchill ate for breakfast, in an article by Associate Editor Katherine Mangu-Ward in The Wall Street Journal today.

Read the whole thing here.

Comments

[Actual Native American]

He's a goddam self-important lying piece of horse shit.

[J sub D]

Ward Churchill -
Hey everybody look at me! I'm screaming at the top of my lungs to get attention.

Oh shit, somebody really looked at me, my credentials and my work. That's a violation of my free speech rights.
________________________________________________

Kiss my ass Ward. You and your wife's discipline (ethnic studies) is largely unacademic crap. In a just world you'd both be teaching remedial English at a lower tier community college.

[bruce]

he's a phony indian trading off the heritage of real indians in a racial game of divide and conquer. as an authentic, certifiable white man, i hate phonies.

[NAL]

What a jackass! That is all.

[spambot]

"When you bring your skills to bear for profit, you are the moral equivalent of Adolf Eichmann."

So I guess that means if he gets his job back he is working for free?

[Federal Dog]

"In a just world you'd both be teaching remedial English at a lower tier community college."

Like hell they would. In any reasonable world, they would be taking that class.

[Tim Barrus]

Katherine Mangu-Ward is a lady-in-waiting for the American Taliban. This article is objective? Please. "Chickens coming home to roost? What a tired cliche. Mangu-Ward has an agenda. It is to punish. When did it become compelling for journalists to punish anyone. When did the American Taliban give her this authority. Churchill may have been politically incorrect, but he was right. This patently absurd article is simply another cog in the wheel of the witch-hunt. But America just looooooove its witch-hunts. This so-called article (it is badly-written rhetoric) should be burned in hell. Jornalists have to give us their opinion. Why should I CARE what this irrelevant woman thinks. In fact, I could care less. Churchill spoke the truth. The American Taliban does not tolerate the truth. At this point, freedom of speech in America isn't even an idea. It's a sad joke which is what this article is. More finger-waving yadayadayada on the part of yet another intellectual midget whose thinking is done by, who else, the American Taliban. There is always a price for truth. http://le-too.blogspot.com -- Tim Barrus, Amsterdam

[Tony]

Churchill may or may not be a fraud, but he was terminated for expressing an inflammatory and unpopular opinion about 9/11.

The conventional wisdom is not to be questioned. 9/11 was perpetrated by evil people who had no motive other than hating our freedom. America never does wrong. Even when we do, our hearts are in the right place.

I recommend the infamous essay if you haven't read it. Kind of improvisational and not necessarily entirely factual, but an interesting polemic from one if this country's few actual radical leftists.

[Kolohe]

I saw the pic before I read the headline, and thought at first this was going to be about Gloria Steinem.

[Xeones]

Yo, fuck Ward Churchill. Also, Tim Barrus, you're an idiot.

[JW]

This article is objective?

No, you moron, it's her opinion.

I know that this must come as a h-u-g-e surprise, as she posted this on the website of a opinion magazine.

[TofuSushi]

Ward Churchill is yet another visionary being tarred and feathered by the Right Wing Noise Machine.

Free Ward Churchill!

[R C Dean]

Churchill may or may not be a fraud, but he was terminated for expressing an inflammatory and unpopular opinion about 9/11.

I would disagree with that. His inflammatory statements about 9/11 brought him into the public eye. The subsequent scrutiny revealed academic and employment fraud that made it impossible for him to keep his job.

So I would say that the proximate cause of his firing wasn't his public idiocy, although it was a contributing or "but-for" cause.

Nonetheless, I don't see how anyone could argue that his firing wasn't justified. You wouldn't want to be in a position where anyone who expresses an inflammatory and unpopular opinion can't be fired for any reason.

[Stagman]

he was terminated for expressing an inflammatory and unpopular opinion about 9/11.

While all of us were paying him to do so. While inflammatory, it's also really stupid opinion.

Free speech is not the freedom to say what ever you want with out any sort of repercussions. He has a right to say what he wants, we have a right to exercise our free speech and fire his ass.

[Art-P.O.G.]

Why should I CARE what this irrelevant woman thinks.

Um, yeah...why should anyone care what you think?

[TofuSushi]

They were not inflammatory statements, they were the truth and you know it.

[kevrob]

I don't think the man should have been fired from Colorado State University....

....alone.

The whole staff should be fired.

It's Colorado State University, for Mises' sake.

Arguing about how governement "educational" institutions ought to be governed is a sideshow. Divorcing education from the state is the ball we should keep our eyes on.

Kevin

[Lamar]

Ward Churchill is proof that being an asshole and correct is worse than being nice but wrong. The Sept. 11 attacks weren't just predictable. They had precedent. Even Ron Paul acknowledged blow back.

[kevrob]

Correction:

I don't think the man should have been fired from the University of Colorado....

....alone.

The whole staff should be fired.

It's a State University, for Mises' sake.

Arguing about how governement "educational" institutions ought to be governed is a sideshow. Divorcing education from the state is the ball we should keep our eyes on.,

Sorry, Buffs. Even sorrier, Rams

Kevin

[Lamar]

"Free speech is not the freedom to say what ever you want with out any sort of repercussions. He has a right to say what he wants, we have a right to exercise our free speech and fire his ass."

That's right. And then he has the right to exercise his free speech and kick your ass. Oh wait, at some point things went from speech to actions.....

[TofuSushi]

Lamar,

Ron Paul is the one who thought buying slaves would have prevented the Civil War, right?

What was his big WWII solution? Buying Jews?

[Stagman]

Oh wait, at some point things went from speech to actions.....

Speech is an action, and an action can be speech. Think flag burning.

[Jesse Walker]

Chickens coming home to roost? What a tired cliche.

Take it up with Churchill.

[Michael P.]

I recommend the infamous essay if you haven't read it. Kind of improvisational and not necessarily entirely factual, but an interesting polemic from one if this country's few actual radical leftists.

So what you're basically saying is that he half-assed it and peppered it with phony supporting evidence, yet I should totally read it because he's a rare bird and interesting and shit, right?

[jtuf]

From the WJS article:

Mr. Churchill, for his part, remains unrepentant. On the stand this week, he repeated his position that the attack on the World Trade Center was "perfectly predictable," saying: "When you bring your skills to bear for profit, you are the moral equivalent of Adolf Eichmann." And he refused to acknowledge that the objections to his scholarship had merit, explaining that history written by white men is full of lies and that he is simply trying to correct for that historical imbalance. The "technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire," dead in the World Trade Center, were legitimate targets, Mr. Churchill insisted, while he is an innocent victim. Perhaps, instead, it was simply that Mr. Churchill's own chickens finally came home to roost.

Fine. Now that he's fired, he can write and post video logs on the web for free like the rest of us. The only change in his condition is the loss of salary (aka profit).

[Lamar]

"Ron Paul is the one who thought buying slaves would have prevented the Civil War, right? What was his big WWII solution? Buying Jews?"

Well, since the European powers ended slavery by buying up slaves, there is historical precedent for such a conclusion. As for WWII and Jews, I don't have a clue what you're talking about, but if you see a parallel, then by all means, savor your sweet, if cryptic, victory!!!

[AMD]

Gee - it's not like Tim Barrus has any special reason to be standing up for fake Indians, is it.... oh, wait.

Never mind.

[Lamar]

"Speech is an action, and an action can be speech. Think flag burning."

LOL! You missed my point. Firing somebody is certainly a right enjoyed by a private employer. I'm just not sure its a free speech issue. If it were, why couldn't you (not you personally) fire all the blacks working for you as a statement that you don't think blacks are capable of responsibility? Free speech?

[TofuSushi]

Lamar,

He was saying that we could have avoided WWII during the campaign. I do not remember what sort of magic market toy he would have used for that, but he said it could have been avoided.

Maybe he just wanted us to stay out so the Germans could slaughter Soviets and is sad at the outcome.

[Brandybuck]

No buying slaves, FREEING THEM! Then compensating their prior owners.

[Stagman]

Gee - it's not like Tim Barrus has any special reason to be standing up for fake Indians, is it.... oh, wait.

That has got to be one of the greatest Wikipedia articles I've ever read. Barrus, if nothing else, you've got some real stones.

[Michael P.]

Holy crap. I don't know what possessed me to click on that Tim Barrus blog link, but it is astounding. So very idiotically astounding.

[Stagman]

LOL! You missed my point. Firing somebody is certainly a right enjoyed by a private employer. I'm just not sure its a free speech issue. If it were, why couldn't you (not you personally) fire all the blacks working for you as a statement that you don't think blacks are capable of responsibility? Free speech?

I missed no point. I was pointing out that it's a gray area and always has been. I happen to think this is a free speech issue. The university responded to an action by Ward Churchill by saying "we don't want you educating our students since you believe nonsense like this".If Churchill has the free speech right to say whatever he thinks, but the university has no right to express their opinion on what he said, then free speech loses some meaning.

That aside, I think that a private employer should be able to fire all his black employees and that the appropriate response is to run the asshole out of town and/or tar and feather them in the media.

[Lamar]

"He was saying that we could have avoided WWII during the campaign."

IIRC, Ron Paul said that our intervention in WWI lead to WWII. Please correct me.

[Lamar]

"I missed no point."

Well, except the point that the university didn't rely on free speech grounds, nor did it need to. Other than that, you nailed it!

[Stagman]

Well, except the point that the university didn't rely on free speech grounds, nor did it need to. Other than that, you nailed it!

Would he have been fired without saying what he did? No. What he said brought a lot of negative attention to the school right around the same time it came to light that their football team had several rapists with the coach sweeping it under the rug. UC didn't want him around to say more crap that might further dissuade potential students from going elsewhere for an education.

It's unimportant what grounds the university technically relied in rendering their administrative decision to fire him. They went for the path of least resistance that offered the least chance of a successful appeal.

[Lamar]

"It's unimportant what grounds the university technically relied in rendering their administrative decision to fire him."

I tend to think it is relevant that the university had multiple grounds.

[Tony]

Free speech is not the freedom to say what ever you want with out any sort of repercussions. He has a right to say what he wants, we have a right to exercise our free speech and fire his ass.

Ever heard of tenure?

[jtuf]

Tenure has limits. It depends on the contract at each university.

[Stagman]

Did I say it wasn't relevant? A murder trial can last a year. All the evidence heard is relevant, but only a small minority of it is important.

[Stagman]

Tenure has outlived it's usefulness.

[Tony]

Why is it that you guys are starkly ideologically rigid when it comes to economic policy, but you get all wishy-washy when it comes to free speech?

No professor should ever be fired for expressing an opinion, no matter how inflammatory.

His ideas are simply that America isn't the great force for good we've all been propagandized into believing in. The only entity threatened by his writing is the U.S. government, which you guys are perfectly willing to trash when they interfere with anything else.

[SugarFree]

Tenure is a union for well-educated idiots.

But I don't blame the tenured for their actions: It is perfectly rational to not do a single goddamn useful thing all fucking day long if you can't be fired for it.

[Tonio]

Barrus, you're an idiot on many levels. You really expect to make a difference by showing up on a libertarian website and slamming a article written by one of the editors of that website? If, so, you're deluded. Nothing has changed except you've gotten the ration of abuse which you were obviously seeking.

FWIW, most of us here have better sense and manners than to show up on Huffington Post or Feministing and bait the liberals.

Although I've been one of KM-W's harshest critics, and with good reason, the WSJ article was the best piece I've ever read by her and a quite respectable little piece of actual journalism.

Why should I CARE what this irrelevant woman thinks. In fact, I could care less.

Bullshit, dutch-boy. The opposite of caring is total indifference, ie ignoring. You obviously cared enough to send a frothy little rant. Hope this makes you feel better. Loser.

[T]

Tenure has outlived it's usefulness.

Well, to you, maybe. I know one or two tenured professors that might disagree. Me, I'm libertarian enough not to want to get into other people's employment terms.

[Stagman]

No professor should ever be fired for expressing an opinion, no matter how inflammatory.

That is the important word. "Should" is very different than "cannot".

Also, free speech is a right guaranteed against the government, not private citizens or organizations. And to answer your next question, I think public Universities should be treated as private entities.

[T]

No professor should ever be fired for expressing an opinion, no matter how inflammatory.

What about expressing his opinion that, say, his department head is an incompetent moron who isn't fit to teach pre-schoolers to tie their shoes? If I expressed that opinion to my boss, I'd sure as hell get fired. Why is he special? Because he's a professor?

[Stagman]

Well, to you, maybe. I know one or two tenured professors that might disagree. Me, I'm libertarian enough not to want to get into other people's employment terms.

Fair enough. But I was only expressing an opinion about what I think about tenure. I did not propose that the government do something about it.

If we're going to use anecdotal evidence, by the way, I know one or two professors that wish they could get the hack out of their department that hasn't done anything important in 20 years and replace him with someone who'll actually contribute something.

[Tony]

Stagman,

Of course you do. Anyway the "cannot" comes with tenure, in theory. I happen to think it's a very good idea to insulate professors from punishment for their opinions.

Does freedom only exist for employers and other monied interests to you guys? I suppose everyone else has the theoretical freedom to go get rich and oppress their own underlings. Although not with your policies!

IMO, freedom of speech isn't just an arbitrary restriction on government. It is guaranteed because it serves a higher purpose, namely pragmatic advancement of ideas. That means it's a good idea, and should be expanded into as many areas of life as possible.

You're supposed to be freedom lovers, yet you go straight to the lowest form of totalitarianism when Churchill is brought up (and I suspect other radical liberals). "I don't like his ideas, so fuck 'im!"

[Tony]

Why is he special? Because he's a professor?

Yup. There is a whole other world out there beyond the paper pushing, profit-centric economic world, you know.

[T]

Yup. There is a whole other world out there beyond the paper pushing, profit-centric economic world, you know.

Then I suggest you and the good professor go find it without taking a salary for doing so, since taking that filthy, filthy lucre would be participating in the profit-centric world.

[Tonio]

Oops, take back the "dutch-boy" taunt, with sincere apologies to any Nederlanders - that jerkoff Barrus is one of ours.

And thanks, AMD, for the link to the blistering expose and takedown. Brilliant.

Katherine Mangu-Ward is a lady-in-waiting for the American Taliban.

And she looks so hot w/o her Burqa on !

[Tonio]

Churchill was ultimately fired because his work turned out to be fraudulent. It's quite possible that this would have gone unnoticed or unchallenged had he not been publicly controversial, but he was clearly and finally fired on the merits.

[Stagman]

I happen to think it's a very good idea to insulate professors from punishment for their opinions.

But see that's not the problem with tenure. Tenure always insulates professors from getting fired for doing shitty work. Churchill is a great example. His comments were inflammatory and stupid at the same time. I don't care how inflammatory he was. I do care that he's putting out and teaching a bunch of crap.

[Tony]

T,

Surely you understand the difference between getting paid for work and making a profit?

Universities are meant to be oases of free thought and intellectual and scientific advancement. Sure a lot of crap comes from them, but you owe more than you think to universities. They manage to advance civilization without the magic of the unfettered marketplace! Imagine.

[Stagman]

I meant "Tenure *also* insulates.."

Although I've been one of KM-W's harshest critics, and with good reason, the WSJ article was the best piece I've ever read by her and a quite respectable little piece of actual journalism.

Gillespie/Welch:

KM-W is both an incendiary controversalist to, yet well respected by the second tier of liberal trolls.
What more do you want? The time for promotion is NOW!

SENIOR EDITOR!

SENIOR EDITOR!

SENIOR EDITOR!

SENIOR EDITOR!

SENIOR EDITOR!

SENIOR EDITOR!

[Michael P.]

I happen to think it's a very good idea to insulate professors from punishment for their opinions.

Where did you get the idea that Churchill was somehow punished for his ideas? His "ideas" only brought attention to him and he was subsequently exposed as a fraud and plagiarist - hardly a matter that falls into the parameter of protected free speech.

[Stagman]

Universities are meant to be oases of free thought and intellectual and scientific advancement. Sure a lot of crap comes from them, but you owe more than you think to universities. They manage to advance civilization without the magic of the unfettered marketplace!

Universities are marketplaces of ideas. The problem with our university system now is that it overvalues bad ideas.

[Tony]

Michael P.,

They wouldn't have gone line by line through all of his scholarship looking for reasons to fire him if not for his opinions.

Whatever academic malfeasance he is guilty of (and shoddy scholarship isn't malfeasance--neither is "disrespecting Indian oral traditions"), the investigation took place in a poisoned atmosphere and was drenched in political considerations. To conclude that it was all just a big coincidence is naive.

[J sub D]

Churchill was ultimately fired because his work turned out to be fraudulent. It's quite possible that this would have gone unnoticed or unchallenged had he not been publicly controversial, but he was clearly and finally fired on the merits.

Exactly. The idiot went screaming at the top of his lungs. People unsurprisingly looked. He's an idiot if he hadn't figured that's gonna happen.

[Lady Libertarian]

Why is it that you guys are starkly ideologically rigid when it comes to economic policy... which you guys are perfectly willing to trash when they interfere with anything else.

Why are you liberals such sexist pigs?

[My Ass Can Singh]

"Tim Barrus, Amsterdam"

I took a shit in Amsterdam once. Apparently they trained it to write gibberish. Damn them Duch is smart!

[Tony]

In other words it's okay to single him out for investigation because he was outspoken. And I'm the stalinist?

[Actual Native American]

"Would he have been fired without saying what he did? No. What he said brought a lot of negative attention to the school right around the same time it came to light that their football team had several rapists with the coach sweeping it under the rug."

Let's say I'm running around naked in my neighborhood. Not even harassing anyone, just running around naked. Well some of the neighbors are offended so they call the police.

So the police start chasing me. I run into my house. They follow me in because they have probable cause. Once inside, they find I have 23 teenage girls chained to the wall, all of them naked. So they arrest me for kidnapping. And then they convict me and sentence me to life without parole.

And I'm thinking WTF??? All I was doing was running around the neighborhood naked.

I stand by my original post:

He's a goddam self-important lying piece of horse shit.

[From Wikipedia]

"On May 16, 2006 the University released its investigative committee findings. The Investigative Committee, a five-member subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct, agreed unanimously that Churchill had engaged in "serious research misconduct," including four counts of falsifying information, two counts of fabricating information, two counts of plagiarizing the works of others, improperly reporting the results of studies, and failing to "comply with established standards regarding author names on publications." In addition, the committee found him "disrespectful of Indian oral traditions." Two members found that Churchill's actions did not warrant dismissal and that the most appropriate sanction was suspension. While the remaining three found that his conduct was grounds for dismissal, they were split as to what the most appropriate sanction was-two believed suspension was appropriate and one stated dismissal was appropriate"

[T]

Surely you understand the difference between getting paid for work and making a profit?

Yes. There isn't one. Unless, of course, you pay more in expenses than the value of your check. In which case, you're doing it wrong.

[*]

"Yup. There is a whole other world out there beyond the paper pushing, profit-centric economic world, you know."

You show me a university that isn't profit-centric and I'll show you a unicorn.

[P Brooks]

"When you bring your skills to bear for profit, you are the moral equivalent of Adolf Eichmann."

Awesome.

Tell me again; why did this paragon of selfless virtue and knowledge-for-knowledge's-sake hire attorneys and sue the school in order to get his job back?

Should we assume there is no attempt to recover back pay? Surely, he is above dirtying his hands, in that regard.

[*]

Ward Churchill, the academic poseur who would never have been hired to teach anywhere if it weren't for the nation's mania over "diversity," has been having his day in court and a Wall Street Journal piece covers the action.

Churchill's argument that, despite the findings of academic fraud and plagiarism against him, he was only investigated because of his repellant "little Eichmanns" essay on 9/11 and therefore is being punished for his exercise of free speech, is silly. On that theory, any professor who has a record of fraud and plagiarism can immunize himself from any adverse consequences by saying something outrageous. Repugnant words should not be allowed to serve as a shield for illegitimate conduct.

Churchill is sticking with his moronic analogy, by the way. He offers the view that anyone who offers his skills for profit is the moral equivalent of the Nazi killer. That's so stupid it's hardly even offensive. Why would Colorado allow such a buffoon anywhere near its students?

[P Brooks]

"It's not about the money. It's about the sweet, innocent, impressionable, suburban sorority girls. Unlike anybody who has ever spent any tinme in the real world, or actually worked for a living, they think I know what I'm talking about. Nobody who knows me will even say 'hello' to me."

[Tonio]

KM-W is both an incendiary controversalist to, yet well respected by the second tier of liberal trolls.

Grudgingly respected when her writing merits it.

"Second tier liberal troll." Heh.

[Tonio]

Plus, Churchill has falsified details of his military service in published works, though not it works published in academic journals AFAIK. However, if he also used those same falsifications in his employment app, that would be grounds for dismissal.

Apologize for this guy all you want, Tony, but he's still a liar and a fraud.

Perhaps the chickens did come home to roost, just not in the way he expected them to.

[Federal Dog]

"Tenure is a union for well-educated idiots."

No: It's a union for idiots who minimally completed a tuition for diploma transaction and, for whatever reason, convinced a bare voting majority of a hiring committee to give them jobs.

[Lamar]

I'm curious how this guy managed to not make a single enemy in Colorado strong enough to uncover all the monkey business before the Sept.11 essay.

[Hazel Meade]

His ideas are simply that America isn't the great force for good we've all been propagandized into believing in

No, his ideas are that Americans are all the moral equivalent of war criminals and deserve to be killed.

[smudge]

Is that a real poncho or a Sears poncho he is wearing?