NationStates Jolt Archive

Professor Ward Churchill's appearance at a college speaking engagement was recently cancelled when an essay he wrote concerning 9/11 came to light.
See the following article:

College Cancels Professor's Appearance (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146039,00.html)

The exact text can be found at the following website:

9/11 Ravings (http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html)

The particular text that offended so many was the comparison of the World Trade Tower victims to "little Eichmans", and his glorification of the terrorists.

As a result, he has resigned from his department chair position, but still continues in his teaching capacity. Is this kind of speech justified, and should he have been fired or sanctioned by the University of Colorado or not?

So long as he doesn't let his personal opinions interfere with his professional obligations, I couldn't give a damn what he thinks or writes.

A man's mind is his own. When he starts trying to make others', his, then we've got a problem.

Even idiots have the right to speak their mind. I'm against punishing speech.

But what if the essay he had written had been anti-Semitic, or supportive of the Ku Klux Klan? I would imagine he would have been fired outright, though I don't know how easy it would be, given his position is tenured.

By the way, I am against punishing free speech, no matter how abhorrent. However, I have definite reservations against such a person indoctrinating any college students going thru his classes, especially if any of his courses are required.

Good thing I didn't have him as a professor.

I'd be in prison right now.

Professor Ward Churchill's appearance at a college speaking engagement was recently cancelled when an essay he wrote concerning 9/11 came to light.
See the following article:

College Cancels Professor's Appearance (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146039,00.html)

The exact text can be found at the following website:

9/11 Ravings (http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html)

The particular text that offended so many was the comparison of the World Trade Tower victims to "little Eichmans", and his glorification of the terrorists.

As a result, he has resigned from his department chair position, but still continues in his teaching capacity. Is this kind of speech justified, and should he have been fired or sanctioned by the University of Colorado or not?

Your question was,"Free Speech, Hate Speech, or just Stupid Speech?" My answer is, all of the above. His comments deserve to be derided, however, he has the right to his opinion even though it is insane.

Good thing I didn't have him as a professor.

I'd be in prison right now.
My gut response exactly.

Just because you have the right to free speech doesn't mean you can't be fired.

It also doesn't save you from getting your ass kicked when we catch up with you later at the Student Union, and later you can't find a single witness to your beating.

Just because you have the right to free speech doesn't mean you can't be fired.

It also doesn't save you from getting your ass kicked when we catch up with you later at the Student Union, and later you can't find a single witness to your beating.
Careful - you are giving away my plans . . .
By the way, in college with tenured positions, yes it does. Tenure was developed for, as one of several reasons, protection of college professors from being fired for expressing unpopular positions. No other profession that I am aware of has such protections (except maybe in government jobs?). Most normal employment is done "at-will", where the employer can fire you for any reason.

What wonderfully free-thinking people we have here ¬¬

*would be at that Student Union and would be a witness*

What wonderfully free-thinking people we have here ¬¬

*would be at that Student Union and would be a witness*
I believe we are engaging in a literary device called "hyperbole". Look it up.
Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion?

I would be interested to know how many of the people who posted that he was wrong, or stupid, actually read the text.

One of the big problems of an event so emotionally dramatic as 9/11 is that the ability to see the other side of the issue goes out the window. I think that Ward Churchill used som insensitive language, and was out of touch with the general feeling in the world, let alone the USA concerning 9/11, but some of the things he says are true and the USA public simply do not want to here them.

An example, speaking of half a million dead Iraqi children he says:
The Iraqi youngsters, all of them under 12, died as a predictable – in fact, widely predicted – result of the 1991 US "surgical" bombing of their country's water purification and sewage facilities, as well as other "infrastructural" targets upon which Iraq's civilian population depends for its very survival.

Now clearly, the attacks were not designed to kill children, but this was a colleteral effect. And it is one that the US population simply does not want to hear about.

Free speech, means having to hear the bad news, as well as being able to say what you want to. Ward Churchill was insensitive, and thus could be called stupid, but there is no Hate involved here, just uncomfortable information.

I believe we are engaging in a literary device called "hyperbole". Look it up.
Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion?

Did. You can read it up there.

By the way, in college with tenured positions, yes it does. Tenure was developed for, as one of several reasons, protection of college professors from being fired for expressing unpopular positions. No other profession that I am aware of has such protections (except maybe in government jobs?). Most normal employment is done "at-will", where the employer can fire you for any reason.
I'm not sure what other type of job would require that sort of protection. Perhaps someone working for a magazine or newspaper, writing opinion pieces, but on the other hand, magazines and newspapers need to make a profit, and they can't do that if the public hates what they're saying, so even that is unlikely. A professor, on the other hand, needs to be able to say whatever he/she wants or the entire goal of a university is ruined, as a free expression of ideas is necessary for a proper education.

I would be interested to know how many of the people who posted that he was wrong, or stupid, actually read the text.

One of the big problems of an event so emotionally dramatic as 9/11 is that the ability to see the other side of the issue goes out the window. I think that Ward Churchill used som insensitive language, and was out of touch with the general feeling in the world, let alone the USA concerning 9/11, but some of the things he says are true and the USA public simply do not want to here them.

An example, speaking of half a million dead Iraqi children he says:


Now clearly, the attacks were not designed to kill children, but this was a colleteral effect. And it is one that the US population simply does not want to hear about.

Free speech, means having to hear the bad news, as well as being able to say what you want to. Ward Churchill was insensitive, and thus could be called stupid, but there is no Hate involved here, just uncomfortable information.
I like how you quoted the article just up to and not including the point where he says the precision bombing was a war crime. By his definition any act during war could be construed as a war crime. Therefore I called him an idiot.

What wonderfully free-thinking people we have here ¬¬

*would be at that Student Union and would be a witness*

I remember being with students who beat an anthropology professor because he described Reagan as a "shithead" during class.

I paid for that class. Nowhere in the textbooks did I see "Reagan is a shithead". My parents weren't wealthy enough to pay for any of my college, and I didn't get any grants or loans.

The Reagan defense spending increases made it possible for me to get a decent job which paid for my school.

If the course description and syllabus don't say it's about "Reagan is a shithead", and you're the professor, and you bring that up, I either get my money back, or your ass is getting kicked.

Now, if the class had been "History 520 - Abuses of the Reagan Administration", I would have expected that. But then again, I wouldn't have taken the class.

Class is not the pulpit from which a professor may freely force students to accept his or her idea of the truth. We choose which classes to attend - and which professors to believe. I am not a fucking lemming.

An example, speaking of half a million dead Iraqi children he says:


Now clearly, the attacks were not designed to kill children, but this was a colleteral effect. And it is one that the US population simply does not want to hear about.

Free speech, means having to hear the bad news, as well as being able to say what you want to. Ward Churchill was insensitive, and thus could be called stupid, but there is no Hate involved here, just uncomfortable information.
Intent is important. The terrorists had every intent, and acted upon that intent, to kill every single solitary man, woman, and child they could, regardless of their innocence. Their is absolutely no moral equivalency between the two. As several million free Kuwaiti citizens would argue as well. As well as those several million Iraqis that just voted in free elections, and danced in the streets to celebrate.

I would be interested to know how many of the people who posted that he was wrong, or stupid, actually read the text.

One of the big problems of an event so emotionally dramatic as 9/11 is that the ability to see the other side of the issue goes out the window. I think that Ward Churchill used som insensitive language, and was out of touch with the general feeling in the world, let alone the USA concerning 9/11, but some of the things he says are true and the USA public simply do not want to here them.

An example, speaking of half a million dead Iraqi children he says:


Now clearly, the attacks were not designed to kill children, but this was a colleteral effect. And it is one that the US population simply does not want to hear about.

Free speech, means having to hear the bad news, as well as being able to say what you want to. Ward Churchill was insensitive, and thus could be called stupid, but there is no Hate involved here, just uncomfortable information.
Change "little Eichmanns" to "little k*kes", "little n*g***s", and 99.9% of the people in the world would call that hate speech. It is no different simply because the recipients of that hate speech happen to be Americans, many of which were not necessarily white.

Bump.

Their is absolutely no moral equivalency between the two.
This is debatable... which is, in fact, the entire point of free speech like this professor's. One person says there is no difference between the two because when people end up dead it's murder, pure and simple, while another person says intent makes the difference. Both opinions, as well as any other on the subject, are necessary and must be expressed... unless anyone would prefer being indoctrinated, of course.

I like how you quoted the article just up to and not including the point where he says the precision bombing was a war crime. By his definition any act during war could be construed as a war crime. Therefore I called him an idiot.

He was implying that the precision bombing predictably resulted in the death of the half a million children. Whether this is true or not is debatable. He obviously believes it is, and it would therefor be a war crime to him.
My quoting was simply to pick one aspect of the whole situation that most US citizens do not want to think about, and to use this to make a point about free speech.

This is debatable... which is, in fact, the entire point of free speech like this professor's. One person says there is no difference between the two because when people end up dead it's murder, pure and simple, while another person says intent makes the difference. Both opinions, as well as any other on the subject, are necessary and must be expressed... unless anyone would prefer being indoctrinated, of course.
Explain that to the families who lost their loved ones on 9/11. If he had said something like the Holocaust was ok because the Jews were technocratic money-lovers antithetical to the glorious goals of Marxism, I doubt we would be having this conversation.

I remember being with students who beat an anthropology professor because he described Reagan as a "shithead" during class.

I paid for that class. Nowhere in the textbooks did I see "Reagan is a shithead". My parents weren't wealthy enough to pay for any of my college, and I didn't get any grants or loans.

The Reagan defense spending increases made it possible for me to get a decent job which paid for my school.

If the course description and syllabus don't say it's about "Reagan is a shithead", and you're the professor, and you bring that up, I either get my money back, or your ass is getting kicked.

Now, if the class had been "History 520 - Abuses of the Reagan Administration", I would have expected that. But then again, I wouldn't have taken the class.

Class is not the pulpit from which a professor may freely force students to accept his or her idea of the truth. We choose which classes to attend - and which professors to believe. I am not a fucking lemming.

You grossly misunderstand the roll of professors in higher education. Their purpose is not to spoon feed you answers from a syllabus or what you want or expect to hear.

Their purpose is to elicit thought and expression from the student body. This provides the student with the tools to create their own opinion and philosophy based on what they see of the world.

University only serves three real purposes for the students: To prove to them that they don't know as much as they thought they did coming out of highschool, to prove that noone else does either (including the professors), and to provide the student with a slip of paper that makes them look and feel important.

Sounds to me like he did his job.

Anything else you get out of a University program, good or bad, is just a bonus.

Sounds to me like he did his job.


He never strayed from the syllabus again. Of that I am sure.

You grossly misunderstand the roll of professors in higher education. Their purpose is not to spoon feed you answers from a syllabus or what you want or expect to hear.

Their purpose is to elicit thought and expression from the student body. This provides the student with the tools to create their own opinion and philosophy based on what they see of the world.

University only serves three real purposes for the students: To prove to them that they don't know as much as they thought they did coming out of highschool, to prove that noone else does either (including the professors), and to provide the student with a slip of paper that makes them look and feel important.

Sounds to me like he did his job.

Anything else you get out of a University program, good or bad, is just a bonus.
While I deplore the violence against the professor, I think you are missing the point. The professor does not elicit thought and expression from the student body by stating that "Reagan is a sh*thead". That is a statement presented as fact, not as a point of debate. If the professor had said, "Many in this country disagree with Reagan's policies of ... because of ..., what are your thoughts?", then you are not indoctrinating, you are engaging in intelligent, and hopefully enlightening, debate.

Explain that to the families who lost their loved ones on 9/11. If he had said something like the Holocaust was ok because the Jews were technocratic money-lovers antithetical to the glorious goals of Marxism, I doubt we would be having this conversation.
Point me to someone who has lost a relative that day and I shall do just that. And for the record, I support the rights of the man who's handing out leaflets saying the Holocaust was fine too, and celebrate his victories in court. Just because people died doesn't mean free discussion should be brought to an end, and if the survivors don't like free speech, that's really too bad, because both progress and democracy require it.

9/11 Families (http://www.familiesofseptember11.org/home.asp) Point me to someone who has lost a relative that day and I shall do just that. And for the record, I support the rights of the man who's handing out leaflets saying the Holocaust was fine too, and celebrate his victories in court. Just because people died doesn't mean free discussion should be brought to an end, and if the survivors don't like free speech, that's really too bad, because both progress and democracy require it.
Email these folks about the free speech rights of the professor. I'm sure they will be very reassured that democracy and progress requires slurring their families with Nazi references:

9/11 families (http://www.familiesofseptember11.org/home.asp)

Intent is important. The terrorists had every intent, and acted upon that intent, to kill every single solitary man, woman, and child they could, regardless of their innocence. Their is absolutely no moral equivalency between the two. As several million free Kuwaiti citizens would argue as well. As well as those several million Iraqis that just voted in free elections, and danced in the streets to celebrate.

What is this thing with equivalency? Are we using an eye for an eye, Islamic law? At no point, was I arguing that there was an equivalency. I was simply arguing that the emotional impact of 9/11 did remove, and still has removed, the ability to look at the situation surrounding the event from a more impartial perspective. When one person presents something that may be seen as an attempt to justify an unjustifiable act, in the eyes of the western world, then that person is going like a lamb to the slaughter.
If you try to obtain an emotional distance from the events, imagine you are reading about it in a history book, 2000 years from now, then Ward Churchill's text does not appear so hatefull. As I said, insensitive, but not hatefull.

Change "little Eichmanns" to "little k*kes", "little n*g***s", and 99.9% of the people in the world would call that hate speech. It is no different simply because the recipients of that hate speech happen to be Americans, many of which were not necessarily white.

Reading the text in full, Churchill (Ward, not Winston) has previously compared the results of the US actions in Iraq, with the actions of the Nazis in the Second world war. This is provocative, challenging, troll baiting, whatever you wish to call it, but if the deaths of millons are due to these actions, as he asserts, then from his view point this comparison may be valid. The term "little Eichmanns" is just a continuation of this analogy. He himself points out the emotional effect of terms such as n*g***s earlier in his text. It is not hate speech, it is simply pushing a few emotional triggers, in exactly the same style as elected politicians do when they go on about the free world etc. The difference is that you agree with one and not with the other. It is difficult not to chastise as hate speech any free speech that contains powerful rhetoric but to which you are strongly opposed.

What is this thing with equivalency? Are we using an eye for an eye, Islamic law? At no point, was I arguing that there was an equivalency. I was simply arguing that the emotional impact of 9/11 did remove, and still has removed, the ability to look at the situation surrounding the event from a more impartial perspective. When one person presents something that may be seen as an attempt to justify an unjustifiable act, in the eyes of the western world, then that person is going like a lamb to the slaughter.
If you try to obtain an emotional distance from the events, imagine you are reading about it in a history book, 2000 years from now, then Ward Churchill's text does not appear so hatefull. As I said, insensitive, but not hatefull.



Reading the text in full, Churchill (Ward, not Winston) has previously compared the results of the US actions in Iraq, with the actions of the Nazis in the Second world war. This is provocative, challenging, troll baiting, whatever you wish to call it, but if the deaths of millons are due to these actions, as he asserts, then from his view point this comparison may be valid. The term "little Eichmanns" is just a continuation of this analogy. He himself points out the emotional effect of terms such as n*g***s earlier in his text. It is not hate speech, it is simply pushing a few emotional triggers, in exactly the same style as elected politicians do when they go on about the free world etc. The difference is that you agree with one and not with the other. It is difficult not to chastise as hate speech any free speech that contains powerful rhetoric but to which you are strongly opposed.
And the deaths of millions, from Hitler's viewpoint, could make the comparison of Jews to cattle legitimate? This would be unacceptable coming from a politician, a priest, or a professor. Simply because you are in academia does not absolve you from all hate speech disguised as scholarly work. Trent Lott was removed as majority leader of the Senate for less.

Given that Iraq was allowed to purchase supplies through the Oil for Crap program that the UN ran from 1991-2003 but chose not to rebuild their water treatment facilities, one has to wonder if the alleged 500,000 dead children could or should be laid at the feet of the US or the Iraqi tyrant. No one in the US government in 1991 could have predicted that Saddam would not rebuild basic human survival tools after the war. He spent money to build them in the first place, after all.

The UN would have allowed for the materials to rebuild the waterplants to be imported. I suspect that some of the materials were purchased for just that reason and ended up in palaces and military installations instead.

So the professor is partially right. The US is tangently responsible for the non verified deaths he wrote about. So is the UN. So is Saddam Hussein.

I feel the professor is a narrowminded, idealistic idiot who sees violence as legitimate if done by people who hate America, but a war crime if done by Americans. Fortunately for him, he lives in a country where he won't be shot for opposing the government. Like, say, the countries of the people he was praising...

And its my right to say that as much as it is his to say what he said.

9/11 Families (http://www.familiesofseptember11.org/home.asp)
Email these folks about the free speech rights of the professor. I'm sure they will be very reassured that democracy and progress requires slurring their families with Nazi references:

9/11 families (http://www.familiesofseptember11.org/home.asp)
Very well, but before I do any such thing, are they aware of this situation? Did they enter into this debate, and suggest the man should be fired? If they did, I'll surely tell them that freedom is a requirement for democracy and progress. I never said this particular comment is necessary, but the freedom to make it is.

I feel the professor is a narrowminded, idealistic idiot who sees violence as legitimate if done by people who hate America, but a war crime if done by Americans. Fortunately for him, he lives in a country where he won't be shot for opposing the government. Like, say, the countries of the people he was praising...


Most of the Europeans on this forum believe the first sentence. To them, nothing that America has done, is doing, or will do, constitutes something good. To them, it's always evil, bad, despicable, immoral, unjust, etc.

If a terrorist scares the crap out of an old woman on TV, and then blows her brains out, that's the work of a noble freedom fighter. If a US soldier gives food to an Iraqi child, that's a manipulative TV moment created by the Bush conspiracy to get oil.

Every breath, every thought, and every argument will be brought forth to justify the claim that everything that America does is completely evil.

And I'm laughing, because talking is all they can do. They know they are militarily impotent in a major way. There's nothing they can do to stop America from making its own policies and doing things its own way.

Summary of WL's post.

OMG EU SUXS!
AMERICA TEH ROXXORS!

A pity the world is more complicated than the kind of view you like to tag onto 'us Europeans'.

Hehehe.

It's not even like he is a real professor. So what do people expect.

Secondly, I noticed he "resigned" as Chairman of the Deptartment, but not his tenure post. Big fucking deal, way to wiggle out of work asshole. If he was really protesting, he would quit his poat completely. (Of course he would then find that "ethnic studies" does not even qualify him to flip burgers).

Finally, why should he winge about "free" speech. You don't even have free speech here on the NS bulletin board, so why should this rectum spanner expect anything different when he is invited to speak publicly by others. He should learn manners.

Most of the Europeans on this forum believe the first sentence. To them, nothing that America has done, is doing, or will do, constitutes something good. To them, it's always evil, bad, despicable, immoral, unjust, etc.

If a terrorist scares the crap out of an old woman on TV, and then blows her brains out, that's the work of a noble freedom fighter. If a US soldier gives food to an Iraqi child, that's a manipulative TV moment created by the Bush conspiracy to get oil.

Every breath, every thought, and every argument will be brought forth to justify the claim that everything that America does is completely evil.

And I'm laughing, because talking is all they can do. They know they are militarily impotent in a major way. There's nothing they can do to stop America from making its own policies and doing things its own way.


Propoganda, propoganda. Oh how much fun it is. If you want to make emotional arguments then the nha nha sceirdy type are always fun. Another good one is the:
I'm bigger dan yu!
argument.

NO. Europeans stopped being adolescents on testosterone supplements after WWII. We learned that "I am bigger than you" is a temporary position. Like it or not, this is also true for the USA. We learned to talk, we choose to talk. If we need to hit hard, and there is no other option left, then we can and we do. But we do not start by puffing out our chests and strutting around like a farmhouse cockerel.

Oh, by the way, the USA has done a lot of good things, and a lot of bad ones, as has almost every country in the world (I am not to sure about Andora). America helped introduce a genuine concept of free speech to the world, America provedhow a relatively free market system can generate substantial wealth, America even gave us pixar and the Green Bay Packers. But America does not like to be criticised, particularly when it is wrong.

Most of the Europeans on this forum believe the first sentence. To them, nothing that America has done, is doing, or will do, constitutes something good. To them, it's always evil, bad, despicable, immoral, unjust, etc.


For someone crying about 9/11 victims being likened to Nazis, you come across like a real Nazi. Supporting an assault on a teacher, delusions about how the rest of Europe might think... You'll be picking up litter in Oregon (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/29/nazis.road.reut/index.html) this weekend I guess?

Intent is important. The terrorists had every intent, and acted upon that intent, to kill every single solitary man, woman, and child they could, regardless of their innocence. Their is absolutely no moral equivalency between the two. As several million free Kuwaiti citizens would argue as well. As well as those several million Iraqis that just voted in free elections, and danced in the streets to celebrate.
So if the sanctions (talking post Desert storm, pre-Iraq war here) didn't INTEND to cause the deaths of so many Iraqi children, it's okay it happened anyway? I was protesting the sanctions long before the U.S decided to invade Iraq again...all they did was hurt the people instead of Saddam, and in fact, gave Saddam support as they 'united againgst a common enemy'. This guy said it in an inflammatory and insenstive way, but hey, there are loud-mouthed bastards on every point along the political spectrum. Don't try to say one thing is worse than the other...the sanctions didn't work, and the harmed more than they helped. Admit it, learn from it and move on.

I remember being with students who beat an anthropology professor because he described Reagan as a "shithead" during class.

That is reprehensible. You support the beating of someone because of their views? Interesting. You paid for the class? Good for you. If I hire you as a lawyer and don't like what you say, I can beat you? Nice.

Explain that to the families who lost their loved ones on 9/11. If he had said something like the Holocaust was ok because the Jews were technocratic money-lovers antithetical to the glorious goals of Marxism, I doubt we would be having this conversation.
He definately goes too far...

There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . .

Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire

I agree that 911 was a reaction to US foreign policy, and one which, to be honest, many people rather expected (though the manner in which it was carried out shocked us all). I do not lay the blame at the feet of those who worked in the Trade Centre though. That is inaccurate and hurtful.

Given that Iraq was allowed to purchase supplies through the Oil for Crap program that the UN ran from 1991-2003 but chose not to rebuild their water treatment facilities, one has to wonder if the alleged 500,000 dead children could or should be laid at the feet of the US or the Iraqi tyrant. No one in the US government in 1991 could have predicted that Saddam would not rebuild basic human survival tools after the war. He spent money to build them in the first place, after all.

The UN would have allowed for the materials to rebuild the waterplants to be imported. I suspect that some of the materials were purchased for just that reason and ended up in palaces and military installations instead.

actually, iirc, many of the necessary components were disallowed for being 'dual-use'.

I feel the professor is a narrowminded, idealistic idiot who sees violence as legitimate if done by people who hate America, but a war crime if done by Americans.

actually, his general argument is that state violence should not be privileged over non-state violence, and american violence should not be privileged over non-american violence. deal out violence, get violence in return. and unless you are going to hold that all violence is unustified (which ward doesn't), then there is a certain sort of justice in inflicting damage on those who damaged you. after all, his article is entitled "some people push back".

Most of the Europeans on this forum believe the first sentence. To them, nothing that America has done, is doing, or will do, constitutes something good. To them, it's always evil, bad, despicable, immoral, unjust, etc.
I'm not even European and I find that comment ridiculous. While we're blatantly stereotyping, perhaps we should mention the Americans on this forum who think their country is right no matter what...


And I'm laughing, because talking is all they can do. They know they are militarily impotent in a major way. There's nothing they can do to stop America from making its own policies and doing things its own way.
Yes, because Might makes Right. "Say what you want, we'll do what WE want." Then live like that...quit complaining that 'Europeans' are saying mean things about you.

While I deplore the violence against the professor, I think you are missing the point. The professor does not elicit thought and expression from the student body by stating that "Reagan is a sh*thead". That is a statement presented as fact, not as a point of debate. If the professor had said, "Many in this country disagree with Reagan's policies of ... because of ..., what are your thoughts?", then you are not indoctrinating, you are engaging in intelligent, and hopefully enlightening, debate.

If a professor is capable of indoctorinating college age students to his way of thinking simply by saying "Reagan is a Shithead" then either he has some crazy mental superpowers or those students were too stupid for their own good and the college should heve never accepted them.

Also, his statement probably did a deft job of encouraging debate and discussion among the students outside of class. Several of his students probably learned a LOT about themselves, Reagan, and their classmates because of it. Just because he didn't engage them in debate himself, doesn't mean the debate never occured.

A professor has to be able to express his thoughts and opinions freely in order to be able to do his(or her) job. Even if they are off topic. Even if they are crazy. Even if he is a complete jackass when he says them. University is about being exposed to as much of the world as is possible in a controlled and structured environment. You can't see the rest of the world unless the other people in it are allowed to show it to you.

That is reprehensible. You support the beating of someone because of their views? Interesting. You paid for the class? Good for you. If I hire you as a lawyer and don't like what you say, I can beat you? Nice.
We asked for our money back first from the school.
Then we asked him for the money. He gave a short speech on how he would stand up for his ideals, so we gave him that opportunity. He didn't stand up very long.

We asked for our money back first from the school.
Then we asked him for the money. He gave a short speech on how he would stand up for his ideals, so we gave him that opportunity. He didn't stand up very long.

"And the land of the freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee..."

We asked for our money back first from the school.
Then we asked him for the money. He gave a short speech on how he would stand up for his ideals, so we gave him that opportunity. He didn't stand up very long.
And then you were arrested for assault and battery? Because that what that is called.

And then you were arrested for assault and battery? Because that what that is called.

No we weren't. Because despite the presence of other students who did not take direct part in it, there was no one who would come forward for the professor as a witness.

Now clearly, the attacks were not designed to kill children, but this was a colleteral effect. And it is one that the US population simply does not want to hear about.

Free speech, means having to hear the bad news, as well as being able to say what you want to. Ward Churchill was insensitive, and thus could be called stupid, but there is no Hate involved here, just uncomfortable information.
Of course, Saddam couldn't do anything about rebuilding those plants. Even though he made how much again off of the OfF corruption again?