Еще в черчилльницу
Feb. 23rd, 2005 04:08 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
yuccaПозавчерашняя колонка редактора в местной газете The Daily Camera.
Желающие узнать еще подробности дела Черчилля могут зайти на сайт газеты www.dailycamera.com (надо регистрироваться).
От себя добавлю, что университетские власти сами поставили себя в крайне неловкое положение, начав расследование. Они уже выкопали столько всего сомнительного в его биографии, что, возможно, им придется в конце концов его уволить. Но само расследование начато незаконно, на основании его высказываний вне академического контекста. Так что, если Черчилля уволят, он вполне может выиграть дело в суде, не говоря уж о создании нехорошего прецедента. Что ж делать университету - а я откуда знаю? Надо было лучше смотреть, когда его нанимали и повышали в должности в обход всех правил.
Almost every morning, the newspapers reveal some new blemish on the increasingly pock-marked image of Ward Churchill, the much-reviled University of Colorado professor being investigated for potential firing offenses.
The university is poring over Churchill's "writings, speeches, tape recordings and other works." Top administrators are searching for evidence that Churchill's conduct, "including his speech," shows any grounds for dismissal.
If the review yields such evidence, the chancellor could recommend that Churchill be reprimanded or fired. Then, the case would slog through a series of hearings and reviews.
This newspaper has already condemned CU's launching of the investigation. The university has initiated a potentially punitive process based on one thing and one thing only — the content of Churchill's political speech.
From its very inception, then, the investigation affronted the Constitution and the central tenet of the university. When the chancellor launched the probe, he ignored the Boulder Faculty Assembly, which had just reiterated its unqualified support for "academic freedom for all the university's faculty."
But if the university hoped to pacify its critics by compromising academic freedom, the tactic failed. If anything, those who croak for Churchill's head have only grown louder. The Rocky Mountain News has published 11 editorials portraying him as a madman and calling for his ouster. The state Senate is considering a resolution demanding his firing.
We understand the revulsion to Churchill. His words are routinely odious. His logic is often flawed. His answers to direct questions can be evasive, particularly on the question of his much-flaunted but still dubious ethnicity. And as he preaches about human dignity, he shows scant respect for his fellow humans. He is a parody of himself and an embarrassment to CU.
But none of that means he should be fired.
At the same time, some recent revelations about Churchill's work are troubling. There is evidence that one of Churchill's writings plagiarized a section of work by another author. In another instance, Churchill is accused of fabricating a tale of the Army distributing smallpox-infected blankets to Native Americans in 1837.
We know now, too, that Churchill identified himself as Native American on his CU job application and that he continues to posture himself as such. Meanwhile he has produced no proof of his lineage and insists that he won't.
We've also learned that Churchill's tenure-review process was quicker and perhaps more cursory than is customary. Faculty members are occasionally put on a fast track, especially if they are deemed desirable, which Churchill was. Finally, some have alleged that Churchill has threatened them with violence.
These revelations are unsettling and might even include a firing offense. But it remains unclear whether any of this — or the whole of it — constitutes grounds for firing under the Laws of the Regents. These are the times that show why it should be hard to fire tenured professors. Tenure is supposed to protect wide-ranging scholarship and shield unpopular ideas. The offenses must be egregious before tenure can be breached.
Those who reflexively bellow for Churchill's job fail to understand the precedent they seek to set, or the questions they now raise: How offensive must a professor's remarks be before an investigation is launched? Will we probe the past of tenured-but-obnoxious faculty from all points on the political spectrum, or shall it be only those on the far left? Do we want a university in which robust debate is chilled to the point of somnolent mediocrity?
Though Churchill is at the eye of this storm, this is, in the larger sense, not about him or his fate. It's about whether — regardless of what happens to Churchill — the university will defend its central creed, or whether it will cravenly kowtow to partisan politics.
Желающие узнать еще подробности дела Черчилля могут зайти на сайт газеты www.dailycamera.com (надо регистрироваться).
От себя добавлю, что университетские власти сами поставили себя в крайне неловкое положение, начав расследование. Они уже выкопали столько всего сомнительного в его биографии, что, возможно, им придется в конце концов его уволить. Но само расследование начато незаконно, на основании его высказываний вне академического контекста. Так что, если Черчилля уволят, он вполне может выиграть дело в суде, не говоря уж о создании нехорошего прецедента. Что ж делать университету - а я откуда знаю? Надо было лучше смотреть, когда его нанимали и повышали в должности в обход всех правил.
Almost every morning, the newspapers reveal some new blemish on the increasingly pock-marked image of Ward Churchill, the much-reviled University of Colorado professor being investigated for potential firing offenses.
The university is poring over Churchill's "writings, speeches, tape recordings and other works." Top administrators are searching for evidence that Churchill's conduct, "including his speech," shows any grounds for dismissal.
If the review yields such evidence, the chancellor could recommend that Churchill be reprimanded or fired. Then, the case would slog through a series of hearings and reviews.
This newspaper has already condemned CU's launching of the investigation. The university has initiated a potentially punitive process based on one thing and one thing only — the content of Churchill's political speech.
From its very inception, then, the investigation affronted the Constitution and the central tenet of the university. When the chancellor launched the probe, he ignored the Boulder Faculty Assembly, which had just reiterated its unqualified support for "academic freedom for all the university's faculty."
But if the university hoped to pacify its critics by compromising academic freedom, the tactic failed. If anything, those who croak for Churchill's head have only grown louder. The Rocky Mountain News has published 11 editorials portraying him as a madman and calling for his ouster. The state Senate is considering a resolution demanding his firing.
We understand the revulsion to Churchill. His words are routinely odious. His logic is often flawed. His answers to direct questions can be evasive, particularly on the question of his much-flaunted but still dubious ethnicity. And as he preaches about human dignity, he shows scant respect for his fellow humans. He is a parody of himself and an embarrassment to CU.
But none of that means he should be fired.
At the same time, some recent revelations about Churchill's work are troubling. There is evidence that one of Churchill's writings plagiarized a section of work by another author. In another instance, Churchill is accused of fabricating a tale of the Army distributing smallpox-infected blankets to Native Americans in 1837.
We know now, too, that Churchill identified himself as Native American on his CU job application and that he continues to posture himself as such. Meanwhile he has produced no proof of his lineage and insists that he won't.
We've also learned that Churchill's tenure-review process was quicker and perhaps more cursory than is customary. Faculty members are occasionally put on a fast track, especially if they are deemed desirable, which Churchill was. Finally, some have alleged that Churchill has threatened them with violence.
These revelations are unsettling and might even include a firing offense. But it remains unclear whether any of this — or the whole of it — constitutes grounds for firing under the Laws of the Regents. These are the times that show why it should be hard to fire tenured professors. Tenure is supposed to protect wide-ranging scholarship and shield unpopular ideas. The offenses must be egregious before tenure can be breached.
Those who reflexively bellow for Churchill's job fail to understand the precedent they seek to set, or the questions they now raise: How offensive must a professor's remarks be before an investigation is launched? Will we probe the past of tenured-but-obnoxious faculty from all points on the political spectrum, or shall it be only those on the far left? Do we want a university in which robust debate is chilled to the point of somnolent mediocrity?
Though Churchill is at the eye of this storm, this is, in the larger sense, not about him or his fate. It's about whether — regardless of what happens to Churchill — the university will defend its central creed, or whether it will cravenly kowtow to partisan politics.
