ACTA's Must-Reads
« Churchill decompensates | Main | Vanderbilt concedes defeat »
Time, place, and manner
Jim Paine, a.k.a. Pirate Ballerina, argues that Ward Churchill's ongoing pattern of inflammatory expression is far from self-destructive--that it is, in fact, a highly ingenious strategy for protecting his job by clouding the reasons why that job is in jeopardy. Paine's own expression is pretty inflammatary, but if you can get past the gratuitous comment about the "moonbat Left" and its "crude and violent illogic," he has a good point to make about how Churchill is working the court of public opinion:
The looming court battle over Churchill's tenure (and employment) with the University of Colorado will boil down to a single question: Is Churchill being terminated due to plagiarism, scholarly misconduct and race fraud, or is he being fired over free speech and academic freedom issues? If CU can prove it terminated his tenure/employment because of misconduct rather than for what he said, CU wins. That outcome seems less likely with each new speaking engagement.In this light, it's easy to understand why his latest remarks concerning the fragging of line officers in Iraq are slyly short of actual incitement (inevitably couched in rhetorical terms in what should be considered a rather daring prostitution of the Socratic method), as have been most of his other provocative comments. It's increasingly clear that as long as Churchill can keep the argument (and outrage) centered on his words rather than his actions (without stepping into "incitement" territory), the outcome of the legal question of "Why is he losing his job?" will most certainly be "because he said outrageous and hurtful things."
We pointed out that back in February, Churchill (and the Left) would work strenuously to recast the argument in First Amendment and academic freedom terms. We didn't realize at the time, however, that Churchill would take such a proactive approach to that recasting, ensuring with each new "frag the officers" outrage that it would be more difficult for a judge to see the argument as anything but a freedom of speech issue.
And that means Churchill wins -- he keeps his job or gets a huge settlement from CU, or both -- and the CU system and the people of the state of Colorado lose.
The University of Colorado has a damning case against Churchill, one that is centered entirely on the question of his academic integrity, and not his speech. But Paine is right that Churchill is skewing the issue by playing the public as he is--as shown by the fact that Churchill's got Colorado governor Bill Owens waxing apoplectic about his "unconscionable" and "outrageous" speech, to the point where he calls Churchill names ("Weasel Churchill") and proclaims that Churchill should not be allowed to express his opinions on fragging: "For him to suggest the fragging of officers as a means of political discourse is clearly beyond the pale .... You don't have the right in times of war to advocate fragging." The University of Colorado has made it very clear that Churchill's expression is not at issue, but that doesn't mean it won't have a public relations disaster on its hands if it attempts to fire the vociferous and calculating professor.
An irony: Churchill has been using the Ethnic Studies department homepage as his own personal soapbox since January. Where most department webpages describe their academic programs and outline their educational missions, UC Boulder's presently functions as a university-sponsored platform for Churchill's self-defense.
Thanks to Brian O'Connor for the link to Paine's article.
Posted by acta online on July 10, 2005 at July 10, 2005 08:01 AM