<html>
<body>
<font size=3>Ward Churchill and Death of Academic Freedom (part II)<br>
10.07.2009
<img src="http://english.pravda.ru/img/ar_gr.gif" width=6 height=9 alt="[]">
<b>Source:</b> <a href="http://english.pravda.ru/">Pravda.Ru</a>
<img src="http://english.pravda.ru/img/ar_gr.gif" width=6 height=9 alt="[]">
<b>URL:</b>
<a href="http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/108039-Ward_Churchill-0" eudora="autourl">
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/108039-Ward_Churchill-0</a>
<br><br>
<i>By David R. Hoffman <br><br>
…continued. <br><br>
Click
<a href="http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/09-07-2009/108027-Ward_Churchill-0">
here</a> to read Part I.<br><br>
</i>Recently neo-fascists opposed to Sonia Sotomayor, Barack Obama’s
nominee to the United States Supreme Court, have argued that she doesn’t
respect the “sanctity” of the law and chooses instead to be guided by her
personal beliefs. <br><br>
But if there is such a thing as “sanctity” of the law, why are so many
Supreme Court cases decided by five-four votes split along ideological
lines? Where is this concern when self-loathing Clarence Thomas uses his
experiences at Yale University, not the law, to dismantle affirmative
action programs, or when Antonin Scalia unethically hears cases where his
political cronies are litigants. And why was there no impeachment talk
when Thomas, Scalia and others of their ilk violated judicial ethics by
refusing to recuse themselves in Bush v. Gore, the case that illegally
elevated George W. Bush to the White House during the coup of 2000.
<br><br>
The reality is that Naves, undoubtedly because of his contempt for
Churchill’s viewpoints, ignored the law. In doing so, however, he issued
one of the most spurious, and dangerous, decisions in modern legal
history. <br><br>
According to the Associated Press, Naves opined that granting Churchill
any type of judicial relief “would create a perception that the school
[CU] tolerated research misconduct.” <br><br>
But this argument is both disingenuous and contemptuous of the legal
process. Jurors had already heard the case, deliberated and decided that
the “research misconduct” allegations were simply a pretext used by CU’s
regents to camouflage the fact that they fired Churchill because of the
opinions he expressed in his essay. Thanks to the machinations of Naves,
these jurors have belatedly discovered they were simply part of a show
trial in a kangaroo court, and that their verdict, to paraphrase
Shakespeare, “signified nothing.” <br><br>
Naves also proffered the ridiculous claim that reinstating Churchill
would make it harder for CU “to recruit and retain teachers.” In reality
his judicial idiocy achieves the opposite. Making it easier to fire
professors for dubious or pretextual reasons will certainly cause a
“chilling effect” inside the classroom that will invariably impede the
learning process. And this chilling effect will be even more devastating
outside of the classroom, where scholars have traditionally been freer to
express themselves. It is frightening to comprehend how many opinions
will now be unsaid, how many essays will now be unwritten, and how many
books will now be unpublished because of the fear of university
retaliation. And what professors looking for meaningful careers and the
opportunity to contribute to the DNA of scholarly debate will want to be
shackled by this fear, knowing that tenure is meaningless, that saying
the wrong thing can result in dismissal and that no legal recourse is
open to them, no matter how unfairly they are treated? As Churchill’s
attorney correctly points out, Naves’ ruling has not only empowered CU to
fire people for exercising their constitutional rights, but even because
of their “race or religion.” <br><br>
Still even that wasn’t enough. Naves’ inanity went even further when he
proclaimed that CU regents were entitled to the same type of “judicial
immunity” that judges and prosecutors use to insulate themselves from
civil liability whenever they abuse their power. <br><br>
So who are the new faces of university recruitment: Gonzales and Yoo? Has
the world of academia really sunk so low that lying, torture endorsing,
constitution loathing war criminals are more preferable to have as
colleagues than professors who use distasteful analogies to stress a
point? <br><br>
The answer, unfortunately, is yes. During the past few years the
neo-fascist movement in America has taken control of the
corporate-controlled media, dumbing down the nation with “reality” shows,
celebrity “gossip,” pseudo-journalism, and an obsessive focus on
sensationalism and superficiality. This, in turn, has allowed these
fascists to steal elections, infiltrate classrooms, and influence
policies in education. In public school systems across America, the use
of random drug testing, the censorship of student newspapers, the banning
of books that challenge conventional thought, and the reduction in the
number of courses that inspire creativity and imaginationlike music,
art, theater and literaturehave all served to
<a href="http://english.pravda.ru/topic/oil_price-522/">fuel</a> the
neo-fascist ideology that indoctrination is more important than
education. <br><br>
Indoctrination is increasingly important to the military, industrial, and
police state complexes as well as advances in technologysuch as GPS
tracking, cameras at intersections, DNA databases, spying by satellite,
and other such devicestransform America into the “Big Brother” type of
regimented nation that George Orwell feared. The less students know about
their constitutional rights, the more complacent they will be as these
rights are increasingly eroded. <br><br>
Also, corporate fascism requires a labor pool of fearful, unquestioning,
subservient cogs who believe that conspicuous consumption is freedom.
Colleges and universities, where some of this labor will come from, have
traditionally been places where students learned things the public
schools were too reluctant to teach, and where questioning, analysis, and
the willingness to challenge conventional beliefs were considered
virtues, not vices. But the preferential treatment given to people like
Gonzales and Yoo, and the intimidation and silencing of professors like
Churchill are rapidly bringing neo-fascist indoctrination policies into
college and university classrooms. <br><br>
Several years ago televangelist Jerry Falwell sued a publisher of adult
magazines named Larry Flynt for defamation and intentional infliction of
emotional distress after an unflattering parody of Falwell appeared in
one of Flynt’s publications. Although the jury denied Falwell’s
defamation claim, it awarded him $150,000 for emotional distress.
<br><br>
In the wake of this verdict, Flynt tried to warn the public, particularly
the media, about the dangerous precedent this verdict had set: If public
figures could run to court and claim their feelings were hurt whenever
they became the subject of criticism or satire, the right to freedom of
speech would soon be nonexistent. But, because Flynt was viewed as an
“undesirable person,” few were willing to listen. <br><br>
Let’s not make the same mistake again. It may be easy to dislike Ward
Churchill for what he wrote. But whether you agree with Churchill or not,
the frightening reality is that Larry J. Naves and the regents at CU, in
their desperation to demonstrate their contempt, have destroyed academic
freedom as well. <br><br>
And what takes seconds to destroy often takes decades to rebuild.
<br><br>
<b>David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru<br><br>
</b></font>
<dl>
<dd>© 1999-2009. «PRAVDA.Ru». When reproducing our materials in whole or
in part, hyperlink to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The opinions and views of
the authors do not always coincide with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru's
editors. <br><br>
<br><br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
</dl><font size=3 color="#FF0000">Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#008000">415 863-9977<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.Freedomarchives.org</a></font><font size=3> </font></body>
</html>