He'll Fight You on the Beaches, He'll Fight You in the Faculty Lounges

The committee tasked with investigating University of Colorado Prof. Ward Churchill is about to come out with recommendations on how to deal with him, ranging from suspension to straight-up firing.

Reason last looked at the amazing Mr. Churchill in April, when Nick Gillespie sat through his blah debate with David Horowitz.

Comments

Pro Libertate | May 16, 2006, 4:54pm | #

Academia is a weird place. But if the ethics rules have any meaning, then even performance artists like Ward Churchill have to get the book thrown at them when they violate so egregiously such rules. Now, if he'd been dating his students, well, of course, that would've been okay.

joe | May 16, 2006, 5:04pm | #

Look at this, from the Churchill/Horowitz "debate" link. It's from Sean Hannity's show.

HANNITY: Professor, I'm willing to debate you on the war, anyplace, anytime. I'd love to debate you publicly. And as a matter of fact, I'll challenge you to debate me publicly.

But it's interesting to me that you made these incendiary comments about very innocent people, and your only excuse or your only rationale for this is that, well, we had a war and Don Rumsfeld did something wrong. That doesn't justify the pain that you brought to the families to use the term little Eichmanns, to say that chickens come home to roost, that America deserves this, that these people weren't innocent, give me break — these people were...

CHURCHILL: You're breaking up. I can barely hear your tirade.

HANNITY: Will you at least acknowledge these people...

CHURCHILL: You have a bad connection, Sean. You're wasting your invective. I can't really hear you.

HANNITY: I know. You can hear me.

CHURCHILL: However...

HANNITY: Will you at least admit that these people were innocent? Do you have the intellectual honesty to say they were innocent?

CHURCHILL: I cannot hear you.

HANNITY: You can. You don't have the courage to debate me.

CHURCHILL: All you're doing is making an unopposed speech to a national listening audience. I can't hear what you're saying except crackles and pops.

Hannity is such a cowardly thug.

Pro Libertate | May 16, 2006, 5:11pm | #

Which in no way makes Churchill honest, competent, or otherwise presentable. Though Hannity does suck. Even Limbaugh isn't a shill all of the time.

Eric Atkinson | May 16, 2006, 5:15pm | #

So...Joe. Churchill lied about not being able to hear and that makes Hannity a cowardly thug how?

Eric Atkinson | May 16, 2006, 5:17pm | #

So...Joe. Churchill lied about not being able to hear and that makes Hannity a cowardly thug how?

Marcvs | May 16, 2006, 5:21pm | #

That would be pretty funny if Churchill could actually hear him, though.

Anyway, they are both idiots. They're punishment should have to be spending eternity on an island alone together.

Clean Hands | May 16, 2006, 5:24pm | #

Can we just fire 'em both? It's just a thought...

Rick Barton | May 16, 2006, 5:26pm | #

...and also whether a questionable Indian ancestry affected his hiring.

He faked an Indian ancestry to secure the gig. An even more egregious violation of decency is CU's policy that made it so an Indian ancestry would help him land the position.

scape | May 16, 2006, 5:39pm | #

They're punishment should have to be spending eternity on an island alone together.

The Lone Ranger and Tonto Waiting for Godot.

HANNITY: I know you can hear me.
CHURCHILL: I cannot hear you
HANNITY: I can't go on like this.
CHURCHILL: That's what you think.
HANNITY: If we parted? That might be better for us.
CHURCHILL: We'll hang ourselves tomorrow. Unless Godot comes.
HANNITY: And if he comes?
CHURCHILL: We'll be saved.

John | May 16, 2006, 5:48pm | #

I think Churchhill is a genius. His entire academic career is one of the great pieces of satire in the last 25 years. Think about it. Here is a guy who seems to have no legitimate academic credentials, yet managed to become a tenured professor at a large public university. He did it by saying exactly what the academic left wanted to hear. He didn't get his job in spite of being a nut. He got it because he was a nut. He hit all of the right buttons in just the right way. He is even a fake Indian. It doesn't get any better than that. I don't think he believes any of the things he says. I think he just needed a job and figured out that being a college professor could be a pretty good gig. I really admire the guy.

Rick Barton | May 16, 2006, 5:48pm | #

...and also whether a questionable Indian ancestry affected his hiring.

He faked an Indian ancestry to secure the gig. An even more egregious violation of decency is CU's policy that made it so an Indian ancestry would matter at all.

coarsetad | May 16, 2006, 5:51pm | #

Hannity and Churchill.... proof that two wackos don't make sanity.

joshua corning | May 16, 2006, 6:03pm | #

churchill has no soul...of course i don't have one either nor anyone else who is alive or was alive or will ever be born...

this one goes out to you dagny.

eric mattingly | May 16, 2006, 7:04pm | #

"Anyway, they are both idiots. They're punishment should have to be spending eternity on an island alone together."

Like Ugolino and Archbishop Ruggieri in Dante's Inferno. The bigger asshole lies encased in ice, only the back of his head sticking out. The other gnaws on the exposed hunk for all eternity. Now, who gets to be in which spot? I lean toward Churchill getting his brain eaten, but I'm open to debate (free minds and all). Hell, maybe they could change places once every thousand years or so.

Postmodern Sleaze | May 16, 2006, 7:43pm | #

eric:

Given that Hannity is a zombified ideologue to begin with, I'd say eating brains would be an appropriate pastime for him...

joe | May 16, 2006, 8:56pm | #

"So...Joe. Churchill lied about not being able to hear and that makes Hannity a cowardly thug how?"

Yes, of course he was lying. Fox News would never pull a dirty trick with its microphones. (Didn't one of the Reason writers get some dirty microphone tricks pulled on him during a Fox show?)

And, as we all know, Ward Churchill is so very shy about discussing the controversial things he's said. Especially on national television.

Tell me, Eric Atkinson, how did you know that it had to be Churchill who was lying, and St. Hannity telling the truth and playing fair - was it because he's an Indian (sort of), or because he's a leftie?

Marcvs | May 16, 2006, 9:39pm | #

Ugh, "their punishment", what's the circle of Hell for bad grammar?

Anyway, it's been a while since I read Dante, but isn't the 8th circle for hypocrites? I'd swear that Hannity called himself a libertarian once.

Marcvs | May 16, 2006, 10:18pm | #

Sorry, after a Google search I couldn't come up with anything. I guess ol' Sean probably never said that.

However, if you search for "Hannity libertarian" (no quotes) you get a lot of hits with Neil Boortz in the results. Ugh...

JD | May 16, 2006, 11:07pm | #

joe - So you're arguing that Fox intentionally monkeyed with Churchill's mike to make him look bad? That would seem to require the cooperation of a number of people. So is everyone who works at Fox, down to the lowliest tech guy pulling cables, just a right-wing mouthpiece? More to the point, do you have any evidence for a fairly serious allegation? Or do you just think it would be really convenient, and therefore it's what you want to have happened?

Rick Barton | May 17, 2006, 12:01am | #

...and also whether a questionable Indian ancestry affected his hiring.

He faked an Indian ancestry to secure the gig. An even more egregious violation of decency is CU's policy that made it so an Indian ancestry would help one land the position.

Jim Henley | May 17, 2006, 12:23am | #

Wow. There are people that really give a shit about Ward Churchill.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | May 17, 2006, 12:55am | #

Yes, of course he was lying. Fox News would never pull a dirty trick with its microphones. (Didn't one of the Reason writers get some dirty microphone tricks pulled on him during a Fox show?)

WC's microphone wouldn't affect his auditory sense.

Rick Barton | May 17, 2006, 2:54am | #

Jim Henley,

Well, here in Colorado, we have to pay for the idiot's "scholarship". (And I even think that some of what he's said about Bush administration and other US foreign policy is right on.)

Mr. Nice Guy | May 17, 2006, 7:49am | #

scape:

Brilliant. From the abyss, Beckett is smiling.

wellfellow | May 17, 2006, 8:13am | #

Joe,

Are you being for real or is this some kind of parody? Sometimes I get the feeling that you are really a contortionist. Without any evidence whatsoever, we are to think that Hannity arranged for WC's speaker to cut-out (for no discernible benefit), yet we shouldn't suspect that WC is lying, though he's made a career out of it. Yeah, it must be because he's sort of Indian or something. That's it. When reason eludes us, call racism.

Mr. F. Le MUr | May 17, 2006, 9:20am | #

I think Churchhill is a genius. His entire academic career is one of the great pieces of satire in the last 25 years. Think about it. Here is a guy who seems to have no legitimate academic credentials, yet managed to become a tenured professor at a large public university. He did it by saying exactly what the academic left wanted to hear.
Heh. Good point, but I'd use some term more akin to "low cunning" than "genius." It doesn't take a genius to fool people, the "academic left," who made a career of fooling themselves and each other.

Well, here in Colorado, we have to pay for the idiot's "scholarship".
Churchill is the tip of an iceberg.

Randolph Carter | May 17, 2006, 9:40am | #

Well, here in Colorado, we have to pay for the idiot's "scholarship".
Churchill is the tip of an iceberg.

A huge iceberg. But at this time, it's appropriate to remember that the tip is the most sensitive part.

stonerollins | May 17, 2006, 9:43am | #

WC is really Ann Coulter in male drag. Who knows what kind of offspring would emerge from that eternal union with Sean Hannity.

thoreau | May 17, 2006, 9:53am | #

I'd be content to say that Sean Hannity and Ward Chuchill are both full of it and leave it at that.

Hey, here's an idea: How about we silence both of their microphones!

brandy (I'm a fine girl) | May 17, 2006, 10:11am | #

If anyone needs proof that Churchill is actually a performance artist, the famous picture with the beret, you're-in-a-heap-a-trouble-now-boy-shades, and Kalashnikov should remove all doubt.

Was there ever a Hannity and Colmes bout on Celebrity Deathmatch? That would be great.

joe | May 17, 2006, 10:58am | #

JD, "That would seem to require the cooperation of a number of people." Well, Hannity, his producer, and a couple of sound techs.

"So is everyone who works at Fox, down to the lowliest tech guy pulling cables, just a right-wing mouthpiece?" I don't know. I do know they work for Fox and follow the directions of the producer, like video techs everywhere.

"More to the point, do you have any evidence for a fairly serious allegation?" Yes, Fox has been caught monkeying with the microphones before. "Cut his mike. Cut his mike."

TPG, "WC's microphone wouldn't affect his auditory sense." You can't possibly be as clueless as this comment implies, so I'll let it go.

Wellfellow, I'll go through this slowly for you.

"Without any evidence whatsoever, we are to think that Hannity arranged for WC's speaker to cut-out..." Well, except for the previous, well-known instances of Fox doing similar things to opposition guests, there is no evidence whatsoever.

"(for no discernible benefit)..." So the trouble you're having is understanding how a bloviator could benefit from making his opponent unable to argue against him?

"...yet we shouldn't suspect that WC is lying, though he's made a career out of it." Since this would be a case of Churchill lying in a manner that interferes with his twin goals of political argument and self-promotion, I would say that he, unlike Hannity, has no motive to lie here.

Mr. Nice Guy | May 17, 2006, 11:11am | #

So joe, it's not possible that Churchill was simply fucking with Hannity?

Is Churchill's rep as being a gadfly unfounded?

joe | May 17, 2006, 11:17am | #

MNG,

Have you ever watched a television show in which a host interviews people who are in a different location, with cameras, microphones, ear pieces, and monitors used to allow them to have a dialogue?

If so, have you ever seen a technical problem occur? A guest say, "Sorry, Chip, I can't hear you?"

When something like that occurs, what does the host normally do? Does he usually say something like, "Can you hear me now?" Or maybe, "We're having technical difficulties, let's go to Biff Biffley for a comment."

How many times have you seen a host respond by telling the guest "Yes you can" and continue talking to him?

wellfellow | May 17, 2006, 11:20am | #

Joe,

You do know the difference between a mic and a speaker, no? Cutting a mic would silence an opponent, cutting a speaker would silence yourself.

"making his opponent unable to argue against him?"

by making yourself unheard? Truly bizarre. This would make some sense if Hannity had been making a soliloquy, but he was asking a question. Hence the 'no discernible benefit".

I appreciate you going through this slowly, though maybe you should focus on the content of your argument, not so much the speed.

Lastly, Ugh. You're making defend Hannity!

Jim Henley | May 17, 2006, 12:26pm | #

Actually, defending Hannity is a pratfall you've made on your own, for whatever reason.

You do know the difference between a mic and a speaker, no? Cutting a mic would silence an opponent, cutting a speaker would silence yourself.

What Joe had too much self-respect to point out is that If a broadcaster will fuck with a guest's microphones to make them look bad, they won't scruple not to fuck with the guest's audio too, if that's easier or more effective. (Joe has more self-respect than I do.)

This would make some sense if Hannity had been making a soliloquy, but he was asking a question.

Actually, Hannity starts with a soliloquy and ends with a leading question, one that exists to score points with the audience, not to elicit info.

Churchill's a tool. And he could have been fucking with Hannity. But Churchill's a tool who has made a nice living saying the shit he does and agreed to go on Hannity & Colmes, where he presumably knew what he was in for. So it doesn't seem *obvious* that he was so stunned by Hannity's rhetorical brilliance that he decided to beat the retreat.

Mr. Nice Guy | May 17, 2006, 1:22pm | #

What I don't understand, joe, is that the dialogue you posted seems coherent. If there were truly technical problems I can't see the back-and-forth being that smooth.

H: Is it true that you're a fake Indian douchebag?

C: ....

H: Answer my question.

C: Are we on? What's going on?

H: Answer my question, tonto. And you do know that "tonto" in Spanish means "idiot"?

C: All I hear are cracks and pops. Is the asshole saying anything?

And you knocking Hannity is not going to get you much heat around here, joe. But what do you really think of Churchill? I'm curious.

wellfellow | May 17, 2006, 1:35pm | #

Thanks, Jim. I didn't get that. (sarcasm)

If Hannity says "cut the mic" to someone, it's a fairly clear and direct way of allowing yourself more air space to talk. If he cuts the speaker out, (to achieve what? The appearance of technical difficulty?)he achieves nothing but confusion. If there is in fact a precedent of cutting out the mic, why didn't he just do that again? Unless he wanted to achieve what MNG illustrated. I think if a broadcaster will fuck with a guest's mic, they will... fuck with a guest's mic again.

"Joe has more self-respect than I do."

OK.