Will the "I" Word get you arrested?

[BPSCG]

I suspect a confluence of reasons for that. Would he have been fired just for the professional misconduct if he was not so controversial? Possibly. Would he have been fired if he had maintained high standards of professional conduct and been controversial? Unlikely

I kind of wonder how much his views made people look more closely at his conduct. Of course it is likely both stem from him being a self absorbed obnoxious twit.

You may be entirely correct. But as UC's president said, "Controversy -- especially self-sought controversy -- doesn't immunize a faculty member from adhering to professional standards."

Translation: If you're going to be a plagiarist, it's better not to be loud and obnoxious to boot.

Because when you get canned for plagiarism, it doesn't help to invoke Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "Come see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"

 

[PixyMisa]

I suspect a confluence of reasons for that. Would he have been fired just for the professional misconduct if he was not so controversial? Possibly. Would he have been fired if he had maintained high standards of professional conduct and been controversial? Unlikely

Yep. If he'd been fired just for being convtroversial, (a) there'd be a whole lot more firings going on and (b) he'd have a strong case for a wrongful dismissal suit.

I kind of wonder how much his views made people look more closely at his conduct.

This was a very significant factor. After the "little Eichmans" tirade, a number of bloggers took a look at who this character was, and soon started coming up with evidence of academic misconduct, which was passed on to the university.

There were calls for him to be fired as soon as his remarks came to light; the university basically ignored that (and much as I disagree with the remarks, they were right to do so). They couldn't ignore the evidence of his plagiarism.

Of course it is likely both stem from him being a self absorbed obnoxious twit.

Yeah.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Obviously, it depends on the context. A politician may be attending a rally on a public park, the rally having obtained the proper permits. If you disrupt the rally -- without using violence -- but shouting loudly, the police can take you away, even arrest you if you refuse to leave.

If a politician is surrounded by Secret Service agents and you rush up to them intending to you yell in his face, the Secret Service is justified in restraining you and preventing you from getting close to the politician.

You have the right to speak your mind. You don't have the right to do it in proximity to any given individual. Again, this falls under "time, place and manner" limitations.

Here, the person involved acknowledged that he got close enough to Cheney that he evaded the Secret Service and managed to physically touch the Veep. Even based on the individual's own version of the facts and not having heard the Secret Service's position, it sounds like there may have been enough there to warrant him being questioned.

I'm not saying his arrest was justified or unjustified. I don't have enough facts to make a judgment in either direction. But skeptigirl certainly hasn't, by citing this example, evidence a governmental curtailment of free speech in the country.

Tell me if this guy did anything the least bit physically threatening to Cheney why he wouldn't have been tackled on the spot?

And so Cheney dropped the charges, if he did. What charges were those? Does he get to make them himself? Who initiated the SS going out of their way to find this guy and arrest him well after he spoke his mind?

I cannot believe there are people here who think you should be hauled off to jail for wearing a tee shirt to the State of the Union Address or for speaking your mind briefly to the VP when you find yourself in the same mall. Personally, I don't feel King George or the VP are so special they have the right to order the peasants around like that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't claim to know the real story about W Churchill. I suppose we may get some idea if the lawsuit isn't dismissed. My understanding is Churchill says the claimed plagiarisms are some short passages that one might find in anyone's work with a computer search.

A also wonder how he got tenure in the first place.

But you cannot look at every trumped up excuse and claim for certain people like Churchill and the button vendor were legitimately stopped or whether an excuse was generated to get around free speech rights. With the amount of information we have here, you cannot make a determination.

I will say I am not very impressed by this particular document describing Churchill's research "fabrications". See for yourself.

Here's the full report on Churchill. I haven't finished looking at it yet.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I looked the paper on Churchill over. I would be surprised if anyone's work could withstand such a fine tooth comb. Take this example:

In two published works, Professor John P. LaVelle (now a Professor of Law at the University of New Mexico Law School)17 has alleged that Professor Ward Churchill has misrepresented the contents of the General Allotment Act of 1887

Then in a footnote:

In interviews with our Committee, Professor Churchill and several of his witnesses suggested that at least some of the accusations of academic misconduct made against him involve continuing efforts to discredit his work by political opponents, some of whom are part of an opposing faction that resulted from a major political schism among the founders of the American Indian Movement (AIM): e.g., discussions with Professor Churchill, April 15-16, 2006; interview with Professor Glenn T. Morris, Chair and Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Colorado at Denver, April 15, 2006; and interview with Russell Means, a Lakota activist, April 16, 2006. For a brief, albeit incomplete, synopsis of the origins of the divisions in AIM, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Movement, accessed 04/17/2006. For an illustration of the vitriolic diatribes of the faction of AIM opposed to Professor Churchill, including overt efforts to discredit his scholarship, see http://www.aimovement.org/moipr/USvAIMbackground.html, posted in 1993 and accessed 04/17/2006. Professor Churchill and his witnesses suggested to the Committee that Professor John LaVelle had been associated in San Francisco with the opposing faction of AIM and had sought to discredit his work as part of the larger political agenda of the faction AIM opposed to his work. Professor Churchill suggested that some of his other critics who lodged complaints with the University were also associated with the opposing AIM faction and had a political agenda and motive to discredit his work. While the appearance of the above-described diatribe in 1993 followed by the publication of the first of Professor LaVelle’s articles in 1996 might add some credence to such suggestions, the Committee was charged with evaluating the claims of academic misconduct lodged by the University based on Professor LaVelle’s criticisms on their merits, ignoring the motivation of the source of the criticism, just as it chose to ignore in addressing the merits of these allegations the motivation of the University in formally filing them. We also note that under the University’s rules, the question of possible malice in submitting allegations is to be addressed only if no research misconduct is found by an investigative committee.

So, we have political opponents hunting for cause, and two experts disagreeing on the interpretation of a law. For crimey's sake, even the Supreme Court rarely interprets laws unanimously. And Churchill is an ethnic studies professor, not a law professor.

In one of the plagiarisms Churchill notes right in the paper that it is an update of someone else's work and that work is cited. There's another version that was published and the publisher left out the citation. The committee just goes on to say tough, he was responsible. While it may have been a mistake, it isn't as straightforward as is being made out. It isn't like Churchill hid or didn't mention the material the passages came from. It's more like he didn't properly cite the original work, rather than not citing the original work at all.

There are some errors in this guy's work. They hardly amount to the charges found against him. I find it hard to believe any tenured professor would have been fired for this if not for Churchill's political enemies like David Horowitz who has been relentlessly campaigning against Churchill for years. Horowitz has been obsessed with Churchill and it looks like Churchill has a number of people who have been working tirelessly to get him for his political views they dislike.

 

[PixyMisa]

I've gone over the report as well. In no case are the allegations taken at face value; in every case the investigators appear to have done their job thoroughly. (Whether it is accurate or not is an open question, since I don't have access to the papers they cite.)

It looks to me that this is an entirely fair if exacting investigation of academic misconduct, and Churchill was found severely lacking in multiple respects. These are not simple mistakes we're talking about, it's persistent misrepresentation of fact.

That's academic misconduct, and if you're an academic, you get fired for that.

My understanding is Churchill says the claimed plagiarisms are some short passages that one might find in anyone's work with a computer search.

He also blamed his collaborators, his editors, his wife, and various other people.

But you cannot look at every trumped up excuse and claim for certain people like Churchill and the button vendor were legitimately stopped or whether an excuse was generated to get around free speech rights.

"Trumped up excuse"? What "trumped up excuse"? We have a 125-page citation-filled document resulting from a 2 year investigation.

 

[Father Dagon]

The only thing Sheenan should be arrested for is her goulish abuse of her dead son. He was a adult volunteer and deserves respect, regardless of what you think of the military or the war.

If her son was an eventer and was killed in an accident during the cross-country phase and she started a crusade against equestrian organizations, then no one would've taken her seriously.

 

[marksman]

Tell me if this guy did anything the least bit physically threatening to Cheney why he wouldn't have been tackled on the spot?

I don't know. I've seen plenty of lapses in security. I find it astounding that the guy got close enough to touch Cheney at all (which he admits he did).

And so Cheney dropped the charges, if he did. What charges were those? Does he get to make them himself? Who initiated the SS going out of their way to find this guy and arrest him well after he spoke his mind?

Probably the Secret Service itself, who wanted to know whether this guy was a foil to test CHeney's protection. In other countries, it's not uncommon to send a noncombatant to see how close he can get to a target just to help superiors plan an attack. Investigating an assault is standard procedure and if he was belliegerent to the Secret Service when they went to ask him questions, they certainly may have arrested him.

So far, all we've seen is this guy's side of the story, and even though it's in his own interest to make himself seem as innocent as possible, his story contains sufficient details to make me think that the Secret Service had more than sufficient cause.

I cannot believe there are people here who think you should be hauled off to jail for wearing a tee shirt to the State of the Union Address or for speaking your mind briefly to the VP when you find yourself in the same mall.

Nobody does. Of course, you could just as innacurately claim he was arreested just for shopping in proximity to Cheney. He wasn't arrested for speaking to Cheney (or for shopping) but for his conduct.

Personally, I don't feel King George or the VP are so special they have the right to order the peasants around like that.

I don't think zeroes contain bacon. See how fun it is to write non sequiturs?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've gone over the report as well. In no case are the allegations taken at face value; in every case the investigators appear to have done their job thoroughly. .....

Well they have done a thorough job of BSing that they did a thorough job.

I have a mixed opinion on the Churchill case. The report lent more weight to both sides. On the one hand the board wrote this nice thorough report and made their case as if they had no preset goal from the outset. But anyone can BS an argument like that. It doesn't necessarily prove it was sincere.

On the other hand the report reminds us how many people have been after this guy relentlessly for his political views. David Horowitz has practically made a career of crusading against "left wing professors" Horowitz claims cheat kids out of their tuition by conducting classes where they are subject to the professor's views. Horowitz used Churchill as his example so often it was obvious Horowitz's real motive was a personal crusade against Churchill.

What leaves doubts in my mind is like I said, I doubt any professors' work could stand up to the fine tooth comb and nitpicking as this. The plagiarism seems more like sloppy work that motivated cheating and the supposed "false" data in Churchill's papers seems more like a difference of opinion than falsifying data.

I am not qualified to draw a conclusion about the case.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't know. I've seen plenty of lapses in security. I find it astounding that the guy got close enough to touch Cheney at all (which he admits he did).


Probably the Secret Service itself, who wanted to know whether this guy was a foil to test CHeney's protection. In other countries, it's not uncommon to send a noncombatant to see how close he can get to a target just to help superiors plan an attack. Investigating an assault is standard procedure and if he was belliegerent to the Secret Service when they went to ask him questions, they certainly may have arrested him.

You are stretching credulity here, Marks.

Nobody does. Of course, you could just as innacurately claim he was arreested just for shopping in proximity to Cheney. He wasn't arrested for speaking to Cheney (or for shopping) but for his conduct.

That was Cindy Sheehan hauled off to jail for the teeshirt. You ignored that part of my sentence.

I don't think zeroes contain bacon. See how fun it is to write non sequiturs?

Perhaps because you missed the comment on Sheehan's teeshirt offense you also missed why I noted both King George and Cheney in my 'sequitur'.

 

[Freddy]

There is no evidence that the University was just looking for an excuse to fire him. Whenever someone is accused of plagiarism, it is taken seriously and investigated. Often, charges are leveled by someone who personally dislikes the accused. The accusations are still investigated. Often times, nothing comes of it, or it turns out to be an honest mistake in a citation or a careless failure to cite adequately. In such cases, there may be no punishment at all or a minor punishment. If a pattern is discovered, or if it is determined that a professor intentionally plagiarized, they will be punished harshly. It really doesn't matter how it is found out or whether the person making the charge has a personal axe to grind. If the charges can be substantiated (as determined by an ethics committee), then action is taken.

I am unwilling to believe without very strong evidence that the University of Colorado's ethics committee would trump up bogus plagiarism charges to fire a professor for making leftist political statements. Having grown up around a university (my father is an academic), I can tell you that these things are taken very seriously by ethics committees. The reputations of departments and universities are at stake. Letting off someone who deserves to be fired will ruin a department's reputation as surely as firing a tenured professor over politics. These things just aren't done at respected schools. The only people who ever describe the process as a "witch hunt" are people who have just been (rightly) terminated.

In case you aren't sure of Churchill's character (or, more precisely, complete lack thereof), check out this story about how he ripped off someone else's art and presented it as his own.

http://cbs4denver.com/topstories/local_story_055200531.html

The man has no honor and no shame. Of course he was fired. He's an utter embarrassment to the University for reasons having nothing to do with his idiotic pronouncements regarding 9/11. Some profs deserve to lose tenure. That's why it's possible. The real travesty is that he ever got tenure in the first place.

 

[marksman]

You are stretching credulity here, Marks.

Your credulity is not a standard I tend to aspire to.

That was Cindy Sheehan hauled off to jail for the teeshirt.

No shirt, no shoes, no service. You can kick people out of functions for inappropriate attire. You don't have a first amendment to make political statements during the President's State of the Union speech unless you're the President (and only because he has a Constitutional argument to make the speech).

Despite her having been an invitee by a Congressman, even Congressmen don't have an absolute right to invite whoever they want. Being evicted form the State of the Union doesn't have anything to do with the First Amendment, even if she was kicked out because of speech. You don't have a right to speak your mind at the State of the Union. Neither do I. Neither does anybody but the President.

The only people the President can't have kicked out of the Chamber is Congress, and only because the Constitution requires that he "Address" Congress.

You ignored that part of my sentence.

Because I honestly didn't think you really thought that to be an argument.

Perhaps because you missed the comment on Sheehan's teeshirt offense you also missed why I noted both King George and Cheney in my 'sequitur'.

No, I got it. I just didn't think you thought you were making a valid point.

 

[PixyMisa]

Well they have done a thorough job of BSing that they did a thorough job.

What points do you think are actually wrong? Or is this just one of those opinion thingies?

I have a mixed opinion on the Churchill case. The report lent more weight to both sides. On the one hand the board wrote this nice thorough report and made their case as if they had no preset goal from the outset. But anyone can BS an argument like that. It doesn't necessarily prove it was sincere.

How does sincerity come into it? Was the report accurate?

On the other hand the report reminds us how many people have been after this guy relentlessly for his political views. David Horowitz has practically made a career of crusading against "left wing professors" Horowitz claims cheat kids out of their tuition by conducting classes where they are subject to the professor's views. Horowitz used Churchill as his example so often it was obvious Horowitz's real motive was a personal crusade against Churchill.

And?

What leaves doubts in my mind is like I said, I doubt any professors' work could stand up to the fine tooth comb and nitpicking as this. The plagiarism seems more like sloppy work that motivated cheating and the supposed "false" data in Churchill's papers seems more like a difference of opinion than falsifying data.

Not to me it doesn't. To me, as to the investigative board, it looks like systematic carelessness with matters of fact at best.

If you're an academic with tenure, you're protected from a whole lot of things, and in return you are expected to be scrupulously honest in your work. Churchill wasn't, not at all. What he did was a firing offense, and the motives of his political opponents don't enter into it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I said which points I didn't find convincing, PixyMisa, posts 45 and 49.

A lot of the rest of the issues in this thread are getting confused between technically legal vs intent of free speech rights vs using legal maneuvering to suppress free speech.

If you (as in anyone in the thread) don't care about free speech being curtailed as long as some legal technicality can be twisted to fit, or you don't care if someone is arrested to remove them from where they were exercising their right to free speech or just to harass them, as long as the charges are dropped, I see no point in arguing about those legal technicalities or arresting people then dropping the charges. Such activities do not mean the right to free speech was not impinged.

I remember sitting in court one day with a friend who had some minor charge, can't remember what it was. Anyway, some guy who was in jail was brought in. He couldn't make bail on a shoplifting charge. He got a choice, plead guilty and get 10 days, or plead not guilty and go to trial in 20 days.

My point is the issue here isn't about the imperfections in the law. Such imperfections are a separate issue from the issue of free speech. You can be arrested and held for 72 hours I believe, without charges being filed. Since that is legal, you could suppress free speech anytime you wanted to just by arresting people for 3 days and releasing them. If you did so would that mean you weren't suppressing free speech because it was legal?

Jury says Seattle violated rights of WTO protesters

A federal jury has ruled that the city of Seattle is liable for the unlawful arrests of roughly 200 protesters during the second day of the World Trade Organization meetings in 1999.

However, the jury also determined that the arrests did not violate the protesters' free-speech rights because they were not made as a result of a city policy aimed at squelching anti-WTO viewpoints.

By finding the city liable for the illegal arrests, the jury cleared the way for potential financial damages to be assessed against the city on behalf of the protesters. A separate trial will be required to determine financial damages.

U.S. District Court Judge Marsha Pechman had previously ruled that the arrests of roughly 200 people at Westlake Park between 6 a.m. and noon on Dec. 1, 1999, were made without probable cause because the police did not try to find out if each individual who was arrested was in violation of a city order barring protesters from the area.

Jurors were asked to determine whether the city violated protesters' First Amendment rights to free speech and their Fourth Amendment rights protecting them from unlawful search and seizure.

The city has already paid out more than $800,000 to settle multiple claims involving police misconduct during the WTO protests.

The mixed verdict, which followed three days of jury deliberations in U.S. District Court in Seattle, virtually assures that the seven-year legal battle over the Seattle Police Department's conduct during the 1999 WTO meetings will continue for months and possibly years to come.

Ted Buck, an attorney for the city, said he plans to ask the court to vacate the jury's decision because the two verdicts were inconsistent. Buck said the jurors were confused by the court's instructions.

"We think it's pretty clear that because the plaintiffs couldn't prove viewpoint discrimination, the city cannot be held liable for false arrest," Buck said.

Arrested to stop free speech because there was no other reason for the arrest, yet the jury couldn't use 'obvious intent' as evidence for suppression of free speech. Well why else were they arrested for no cause for?

The point of free speech isn't whether or not you suppress it by legal maneuvers, the point of it is it is absolutely necessary for a healthy democracy. We have no reason to be afraid of or have contempt for free speech as long as it isn't slander, libelous or crying fire in a crowded theater.

I have issues with mass media and undue influence including government propaganda. But the best way to fight that is with equal access to free speech by all. And people who have the power are going to naturally use it to stop free speech they see as harmful to them. If you just go along, then those in power have the power to suppress free speech. That's not good.

 

[PixyMisa]

I said which points I didn't find convincing, PixyMisa, posts 45 and 49.

No. You did nothing of the sort. You attacked the motives of some of Churchill's political opponents.

Now, I absolutely agree that the formal investigation into Churchill's academic misconduct was sparked by an informal investigation conducted largely by right-wing bloggers. I read those blogs. I know many of the bloggers. That's exactly what happened.

But the reason they were able do dig up evidence of plagarism and lies in Churchill's academic papers is that Churchill is a plagiarist and a liar. Your attempts at poisoning the well don't change this one iota. And that you consider motives more important than fact is a major issue.

A lot of the rest of the issues in this thread are getting confused between technically legal vs intent of free speech rights vs using legal maneuvering to suppress free speech.

Churchill is still free to speak. He's just lost his job. Which he obtained under false pretenses in the first place.

If you go to a protest march, and someone sees you and recognises you from the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list, and you are arrested and thrown in jail, then that's just tough.

If you (as in anyone in the thread) don't care about free speech being curtailed as long as some legal technicality can be twisted to fit, or you don't care if someone is arrested to remove them from where they were exercising their right to free speech or just to harass them, as long as the charges are dropped, I see no point in arguing about those legal technicalities or arresting people then dropping the charges. Such activities do not mean the right to free speech was not impinged.

As has been said, place, time, and manner matter. If I were to run up to the Vice President and start haranguing him on some idiotic subject, I would fully expect to be wrestled to the ground by the Secret Service.

I remember sitting in court one day with a friend who had some minor charge, can't remember what it was. Anyway, some guy who was in jail was brought in. He couldn't make bail on a shoplifting charge. He got a choice, plead guilty and get 10 days, or plead not guilty and go to trial in 20 days.

And? Now, I don't necessarily agree with the way plea-bargains are used in American law, but so what?

My point is the issue here isn't about the imperfections in the law. Such imperfections are a separate issue from the issue of free speech. You can be arrested and held for 72 hours I believe, without charges being filed. Since that is legal, you could suppress free speech anytime you wanted to just by arresting people for 3 days and releasing them. If you did so would that mean you weren't suppressing free speech because it was legal?

If that was actually happening, that would be suppression of free speech. But it isn't happening.

Arrested to stop free speech because there was no other reason for the arrest, yet the jury couldn't use 'obvious intent' as evidence for suppression of free speech. Well why else were they arrested for no cause for?

Because they were presumed to be protesting in a location where protests had been banned. And the jury found against the city because the police didn't confirm that each individual present was there as part of the protest.

The point of free speech isn't whether or not you suppress it by legal maneuvers, the point of it is it is absolutely necessary for a healthy democracy. We have no reason to be afraid of or have contempt for free speech as long as it isn't slander, libelous or crying fire in a crowded theater.

That doesn't mean that protest marches can take over any space they want at any time, either.

I have issues with mass media and undue influence including government propaganda. But the best way to fight that is with equal access to free speech by all. And people who have the power are going to naturally use it to stop free speech they see as harmful to them. If you just go along, then those in power have the power to suppress free speech. That's not good.

So write a book. Start a blog. I'll give you a blog.

I care a lot about freedom of speech. I've given free hosting to hundreds of bloggers, paying for it out of my own pocket, supporting it with my time. I'm vehemently against the McCain-Feingold Act, and against the proposed return of the Fairness Doctrine.

But freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to do whatever you want while you are speaking. It doesn't guarantee you an audience. It doesn't guarantee that your arguments won't get torn to shreds. It's not freedom from consequences.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No. You did nothing of the sort. You attacked the motives of some of Churchill's political opponents.

Here, let me help you out.

Post 45:"So, we have political opponents hunting for cause, and two experts disagreeing on the interpretation of a law. For crimey's sake, even the Supreme Court rarely interprets laws unanimously. And Churchill is an ethnic studies professor, not a law professor.

In one of the plagiarisms Churchill notes right in the paper that it is an update of someone else's work and that work is cited. There's another version that was published and the publisher left out the citation. The committee just goes on to say tough, he was responsible. While it may have been a mistake, it isn't as straightforward as is being made out. It isn't like Churchill hid or didn't mention the material the passages came from. It's more like he didn't properly cite the original work, rather than not citing the original work at all.

There are some errors in this guy's work. They hardly amount to the charges found against him. I find it hard to believe any tenured professor would have been fired for this if not for Churchill's political enemies like David Horowitz who has been relentlessly campaigning against Churchill for years. Horowitz has been obsessed with Churchill and it looks like Churchill has a number of people who have been working tirelessly to get him for his political views they dislike."

Post 49: "Well they have done a thorough job of BSing that they did a thorough job.

I have a mixed opinion on the Churchill case. The report lent more weight to both sides. On the one hand the board wrote this nice thorough report and made their case as if they had no preset goal from the outset. But anyone can BS an argument like that. It doesn't necessarily prove it was sincere.

On the other hand the report reminds us how many people have been after this guy relentlessly for his political views. David Horowitz has practically made a career of crusading against "left wing professors" Horowitz claims cheat kids out of their tuition by conducting classes where they are subject to the professor's views. Horowitz used Churchill as his example so often it was obvious Horowitz's real motive was a personal crusade against Churchill.

What leaves doubts in my mind is like I said, I doubt any professors' work could stand up to the fine tooth comb and nitpicking as this. The plagiarism seems more like sloppy work that motivated cheating and the supposed "false" data in Churchill's papers seems more like a difference of opinion than falsifying data.

I am not qualified to draw a conclusion about the case."

I have no more to add. It's quite bizarre you find that answer to be devoid of anything except the part about being harassed.

Now, I absolutely agree that the formal investigation into Churchill's academic misconduct was sparked by an informal investigation conducted largely by right-wing bloggers. I read those blogs. I know many of the bloggers. That's exactly what happened.

Here are some links to Horowitz's campaign. It goes way beyond conservative blogs.

The Professors - David Horowitz writes up the faculty.

Ward Churchill, Cornel West...we all know the names of some of the radical professors in academia today. But in his new book The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America, truth-teller David Horowitz paints a portrait of some of higher-ed's worst. With 101, you might want to check and see if your kid's professor is among them.

Horowitz recently talked to National Review Online Editor Kathryn Lopez about The Professors.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: Can 101 professors actually be "dangerous"?

David Horowitz: Well, as I argue in my book, this is the tip of an iceberg that probably includes between 30,000 and 60,000 faculty activists whose agendas are political and radical.

Lopez: On a scale of 1-10, 1 being the worst, where does Ward Churchill rank among The Professors?

Horowitz: Again, as I argue in my book, there are thousands of Ward Churchills on American faculties, and my guess, without poring over my text, is that roughly a quarter of the professors profiled in my book would have views as extreme as Churchill's. Churchill regards the Islamic terrorists as freedom fighters and is rooting for them to win. But then Professor Hamid Algar is an ardent follower of the Ayatollah Khomeni and gave a speech in Tehran memorializing Khomeni before 9/11 in which he called for armed jihad against the West and the elimination of Israel from the face of the earth.

NPR - Campaign Stirs Debate over 'Liberal' Academics

Conservative activist and author David Horowitz is on a mission to purge what he sees as liberal bias from universities. In a new book, Horowitz revives a perennial debate over how college professors treat conservative students and their ideas.

Campus Crusader

Before 9/11, David Horowitz attacked political correctness on college campuses across the country. These days, under the rubric of academic freedom, bands of Horowistas are waging a vigorous ground war against liberal academics

Horowitz, David - 9 institutional roles for $2,323,623

David Horowitz represents one of the right's favorite kinds of people: lapsed leftists (See Marvin Olasky).

He is the president and founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center (formerly Center for the Study of Popular Culture - CSPC), which is a well-funded ($350,000 + from the Bradley foundation alone in 1998) launching pad for his and others attacks against supposed liberals, the supposedly liberal media, and public television in particular.

Horowitz was paid $330,000 in 2003 by the CSPC, according to their IRS 990

David Horowitz From his perch at the CSPC, Horowitz frequently appears on TV and radio to denounce the left and attack it for various "falsehoods."

And finally, Horowitz's web site.

But the reason they were able do dig up evidence of plagarism and lies in Churchill's academic papers is that Churchill is a plagiarist and a liar. Your attempts at poisoning the well don't change this one iota. And that you consider motives more important than fact is a major issue.

Churchill is still free to speak. He's just lost his job. Which he obtained under false pretenses in the first place.

Well, we certainly know where you stand then. Don't attack me for bringing up the case. I said twice I have not drawn a conclusion on Churchill. People can judge for themselves.

I will say I found Horowitz's activities to be the usual right wing propaganda campaign, funded by someone motivated to attack the left. Horowitz was trying to claim colleges were left wing bastions brainwashing kids like the liberal media. Neither the media nor universities are liberal propaganda machines. But the right would certainly like to make them both right wing propaganda podiums.

So you dislike Churchill, I don't know enough about him to have a strong opinion. I dislike Horowitz and I do know enough about him.

If you go to a protest march, and someone sees you and recognises you from the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list, and you are arrested and thrown in jail, then that's just tough.

What does this have to do with false arrests?

As has been said, place, time, and manner matter. If I were to run up to the Vice President and start haranguing him on some idiotic subject, I would fully expect to be wrestled to the ground by the Secret Service.

Maybe you should read more closely exactly what the actual story was about the guy in the mall.

...If that was actually happening, that would be suppression of free speech. But it isn't happening.

Because they were presumed to be protesting in a location where protests had been banned. And the jury found against the city because the police didn't confirm that each individual present was there as part of the protest.

That doesn't mean that protest marches can take over any space they want at any time, either.

I can't help but wonder if the protesters had your agenda if you would perceive things the same. Clearly you don't like their message.

For me, free speech is the most critical factor which keeps the public informed. If it weren't for the ability to speak out, we would have no democracy. So like the message or not, we clearly have a different value of the importance of free speech.

So write a book. Start a blog. I'll give you a blog.

I care a lot about freedom of speech. I've given free hosting to hundreds of bloggers, paying for it out of my own pocket, supporting it with my time. I'm vehemently against the McCain-Feingold Act, and against the proposed return of the Fairness Doctrine.

What did I do to piss you off? have a different opinion? That's not very free speechy of you.

I'm not for the Fairness Doctrine either, I'm for breaking up the broadcast media monopolies and for keeping the Internet from becoming controlled by corporate interests like the broadcast media is.

If by McCain Feingold you mean campaign financing reform, it is a failure anyway. Big money just buys issue ads that are really campaign ads in disguise like the Swift Boat lies. The problem with allowing big money to speak if again that is what you are referring to, is how do you stop the rich and powerful from overpowering the majority? People are so easily swayed by marketing techniques.

But freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to do whatever you want while you are speaking. It doesn't guarantee you an audience. It doesn't guarantee that your arguments won't get torn to shreds. It's not freedom from consequences.

No one is arguing this. But you seem to think that protesters were not thwarted from speaking out and I see things differently. You have not presented any evidence the guy in the mall was treated properly, you ignore the fact protesters in Seattle were harassed by the police. I was here, and they were. One of the cops I work with was caught on film kicking someone in the groin for not moving fast enough. Another cop I didn't know was caught on film pepper spraying a couple girls in a car for no apparent reason. Both cops were found in violation of their codes of conduct.

You seem to think the protesters are automatically in the wrong. Yet the courts found they were not.

 

[PixyMisa]

Here, let me help you out.

Post 45:"So, we have political opponents hunting for cause, and two experts disagreeing on the interpretation of a law. For crimey's sake, even the Supreme Court rarely interprets laws unanimously. And Churchill is an ethnic studies professor, not a law professor.

Does not address the point.

In one of the plagiarisms Churchill notes right in the paper that it is an update of someone else's work and that work is cited. There's another version that was published and the publisher left out the citation. The committee just goes on to say tough, he was responsible. While it may have been a mistake, it isn't as straightforward as is being made out. It isn't like Churchill hid or didn't mention the material the passages came from. It's more like he didn't properly cite the original work, rather than not citing the original work at all.

Which of the plagiarisms, though?

There are some errors in this guy's work. They hardly amount to the charges found against him.

That's your opinion.

I find it hard to believe any tenured professor would have been fired for this if not for Churchill's political enemies like David Horowitz who has been relentlessly campaigning against Churchill for years.

Again, your opinion.

Horowitz has been obsessed with Churchill and it looks like Churchill has a number of people who have been working tirelessly to get him for his political views they dislike."

Poisoning the well.

Post 49: "Well they have done a thorough job of BSing that they did a thorough job.

Opinion.

I have a mixed opinion on the Churchill case. The report lent more weight to both sides. On the one hand the board wrote this nice thorough report and made their case as if they had no preset goal from the outset. But anyone can BS an argument like that. It doesn't necessarily prove it was sincere.

Opinion, poisoning the well.

On the other hand the report reminds us how many people have been after this guy relentlessly for his political views. David Horowitz has practically made a career of crusading against "left wing professors" Horowitz claims cheat kids out of their tuition by conducting classes where they are subject to the professor's views. Horowitz used Churchill as his example so often it was obvious Horowitz's real motive was a personal crusade against Churchill.

Opinion, poisoning the well.

What leaves doubts in my mind is like I said, I doubt any professors' work could stand up to the fine tooth comb and nitpicking as this. The plagiarism seems more like sloppy work that motivated cheating and the supposed "false" data in Churchill's papers seems more like a difference of opinion than falsifying data.

Unsupported opinion.

I am not qualified to draw a conclusion about the case."

Agreed.

I have no more to add. It's quite bizarre you find that answer to be devoid of anything except the part about being harassed.

And I think it odd that you consider your points to be in any way substantive.

Here are some links to Horowitz's campaign. It goes way beyond conservative blogs.

The Professors - David Horowitz writes up the faculty.

Hmm. Is there anything factually incorrect in what Horowitz said in that interview?

NPR - Campaign Stirs Debate over 'Liberal' Academics

Opinion; says nothing of substance.

Campus Crusader

A lengthy article about Horowitz's "Academic Bill of Rights". From the article, it sounds like the bill is seriously flawed. However, the article doesn't cite the bill even once.

Horowitz, David - 9 institutional roles for $2,323,623

Yes? A list of articles attacking Horowitz. What of it? The section you quote says nothing of substance.

And finally, Horowitz's web site.

Yep, that's a web site.

Well, we certainly know where you stand then. Don't attack me for bringing up the case. I said twice I have not drawn a conclusion on Churchill. People can judge for themselves.

I didn't attack you for bringing up the case. I disagreed with what you said about the case. You're the one engaging in personal attacks.

I will say I found Horowitz's activities to be the usual right wing propaganda campaign, funded by someone motivated to attack the left.

Opinion, poisoning the well.

Horowitz was trying to claim colleges were left wing bastions brainwashing kids like the liberal media. Neither the media nor universities are liberal propaganda machines.

Opinion.

But the right would certainly like to make them both right wing propaganda podiums.

Opinion, poisoning the well.

So you dislike Churchill, I don't know enough about him to have a strong opinion.

I dislike Churchill, yes. Also, he's a plagiarist and a liar.

I dislike Horowitz and I do know enough about him.

I know little about Horowitz. I've heard the name, but other than that, not much.

What does this have to do with false arrests?

Nothing. It has to do with the Churchill case.

I can't help but wonder if the protesters had your agenda if you would perceive things the same. Clearly you don't like their message.

I don't even know what their message was. Don't care much, either.

For me, free speech is the most critical factor which keeps the public informed.

Agreed.

If it weren't for the ability to speak out, we would have no democracy.

Agreed.

So like the message or not, we clearly have a different value of the importance of free speech.

What in anything I have written gives rise to this misconception?

What did I do to piss you off? have a different opinion? That's not very free speechy of you.

Quite on the contrary. I disagree with you on many details, and I'm engaging you in discussion. That's free speech in action.

That I think you are wrong and am saying so publically doesn't affect your freedom of speech one whit.

I'm not for the Fairness Doctrine either

Glad we agree on that.

I'm for breaking up the broadcast media monopolies and for keeping the Internet from becoming controlled by corporate interests like the broadcast media is.

Uh, you can't have multiple monopolies in a single industry. But you know that, right?

If by McCain Feingold you mean campaign financing reform, it is a failure anyway. Big money just buys issue ads that are really campaign ads in disguise like the Swift Boat lies.

What lies? The Swift Boat veterans stated their opinions. You might disagree; that does not make their statements false.

The problem with allowing big money to speak if again that is what you are referring to, is how do you stop the rich and powerful from overpowering the majority? People are so easily swayed by marketing techniques.

The problem with not allowing "big money" to speak is that it's a violation of freedom of speech.

The way to counter this is with more freedom of speech. Repeal McCain-Feingold; let anyone run whatever political ads they want at any time. If an ad is libelous or whatever, the target can sue.

No one is arguing this. But you seem to think that protesters were not thwarted from speaking out and I see things differently.

Yes, you do.

You have not presented any evidence the guy in the mall was treated properly

That article presents only the assertions of the guy in the mall.

you ignore the fact protesters in Seattle were harassed by the police. I was here, and they were. One of the cops I work with was caught on film kicking someone in the groin for not moving fast enough.

Well, that's assault.

Another cop I didn't know was caught on film pepper spraying a couple girls in a car for no apparent reason. Both cops were found in violation of their codes of conduct.

There you go. That's what should happen.

You seem to think the protesters are automatically in the wrong.

If they were protesting in a place were protesting is not allowed, then they were automatically in the wrong.

Yet the courts found they were not.

The courts found that the police did not bother to determine whether the people they arrested were part of the protest. That's a completely different finding to what you are asserting.

 

[PixyMisa]

Opinion; says nothing of substance.

Oops! Sorry, I see there's an audio link. That may very well contain something substantial, but I don't have time to listen to it right now. Sorry about that one.

 

[Freddy]

What leaves doubts in my mind is like I said, I doubt any professors' work could stand up to the fine tooth comb and nitpicking as this. The plagiarism seems more like sloppy work that motivated cheating and the supposed "false" data in Churchill's papers seems more like a difference of opinion than falsifying data.

I am not qualified to draw a conclusion about the case."

Fair enough, and I can see why you're reluctant to comment on the case. But let me point out that sloppy work, i.e. shoddy scholarship, is grounds for action up to and including dismissal if there is a pattern of it. Also, I can assure you that most professors' work can indeed withstand such scrutiny, because they are meticulous and scrupulous about giving proper credit. A mistake in citation or a failure to cite should never make it through to the final version. Not if you're doing your job, and it is your job as the author. You are responsible.

I've spoken to several of my dad's colleagues about this case and about giving proper credit in general. Here's what I took from the conversations: one or two errors of the type you mention (fairly, I think) as borderline would not be severely punished if that were all they found. That said, it simply isn't the case that you can find one or two such errors in most professors' work. Only the very lazy ones who think they're above the rules.

If those two minor errors were the only examples of wrongdoing, he probably would have been censured at worst. But a single intentional instance, or a pattern of careless instances of plagiarism speak directly to the quality of one's scholarship and thus one's worthiness for a tenured faculty position -- those positions are highly coveted, and competition for them is fierce. It isn't fair to some up and coming young professor that some lazy third rate scholar is taking up one of the scarce tenured positions.

And all of this assumes that Churchill was just a lazy and careless scholar rather than an intentional thief and revisionist historian -- and if you look at the link in my earlier post, you'll see that there is a case for not giving him the benefit of the doubt on that question. And that particular incident is just the tip of the iceberg. He was also found to have blatantly revised history to bolster his theories (revised concerning clear cut matters of fact, like dates, not matters open to interpretation). Add to this that he may have lied about his credentials in the first place, and suddenly keeping this guy around makes your department look bad. Looking bad to the public is one thing, but it looks even worse to departments and faculty at other institutions.

And that's the key here. His political comments made the University look bad to much of the public. But no action was taken against him until his poor scholarship made the University look bad in the eyes of peer institutions. The University can brave the onslaught of negative public opinion (and be considered brave in the academic community for doing so). But no one wants to come work in a department that is known for producing shoddy work and failing to give proper credit. That is the kiss of death for an academic department. Which is exactly why it's taken so seriously. Knowing something about departmental politics, I can assure you that no one in his department wanted to fire him for his 9/11 comments. I wouldn't be at all surprised if many of them though he had a point. If you're the type of person who becomes enraged at extreme leftist rhetorical diarrhea, you don't become an academic. That's not to say that all or even most academics would agree with Churchill, but I seriously doubt they would call for his head over that. No one takes academic freedom more seriously than scholars. But the minute he made the department look bad in the eyes of academia, his fate was sealed. I can't think of a single field where you can be such an utter embarrassment to your employer without losing your job. Okay, actually I can: politics.

 

[Dan O.]

Why did the right wing attack dogs decide to go after Ward Churchill in the first place?