Professor Resigns Post Over 9/11 Smear

The Los Angeles Times reports that University of Colorado at Boulder professor Ward L. Churchill has resigned an administrative position after writings in which he compared Sept. 11 victims to the Nazi who helped plan the Holocaust were recently publicized:

The furor erupted last week over an invitation for Churchill to speak about Native American issues at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y. A group of professors there raised concerns after discovering some of his writings, including one done shortly after the 9/11 attacks.

In an essay entitled "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens," Churchill called the workers killed in the World Trade Center "little Eichmanns" — after the Nazi Adolf Eichmann, who helped mastermind the murder of European Jews during World War II. He said trade center employees were "technocrats of empire" working for the "engines of profit" and as such were inevitable targets.

"They were civilians of a sort," he said. "But innocent, gimme a break."

Professor Churchill issued a statement defending his writings. According to the Times, in the statement Professor Churchill said his views had been distorted but didn't deny using inflammatory rhetoric to make his larger point — namely that if the U.S. government didn't comply with the rule of law, it couldn't be surprised if it were attacked:

"I have never characterized all the Sept. 11 victims as 'Nazis.' What I said was that the 'technocrats of empire' working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of 'little Eichmanns,' " he said. "Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the allies."

He said the children, janitors, food service workers and firefighters killed in the trade center were not "little Eichmanns."

"According to Pentagon logic, [they] were simply part of the collateral damage," he said. "Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians or anyone else."

The professor's distinction isn't going to help him. Here is the relevant excerpt from "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens:"

The most that can honestly be said of those involved on September 11 is that they finally responded in kind to some of what this country has dispensed to their people as a matter of course.

That they waited so long to do so is, notwithstanding the 1993 action at the WTC, more than anything a testament to their patience and restraint.

They did not license themselves to "target innocent civilians."

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 – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.

I am a big supporter of the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I will support anyones's right, even Professor Churchill's, to say or write just about anything. That doesn't mean I support or agree with what the professor wrote. Just because Congress is prohibited from "abridging the freedom of speech," doesn't mean there are no consequences when someone, even a professor at a public school, says something as offensive as that.

Professor Churchill has resigned his chairmanship of the Ethnic Studies Department at the University of Colorado. That's a nice start, but it won't satisfy those who are offended by his ill-considered writings.

The Daily Camera reports that the resignation will cost Churchill about $20,000 a year. He earned $94,242 as a professor, and received a 21 percent increase for his chairmanship, CU spokeswoman Pauline Hale said. The Daily Camera didn't report that the Professor's term as Chairman was to expire in June, as did the Times.

Fox News reports that Hamilton College canceled a panel discussion featuring Professor Churchill.

Hamilton spokesman Michael DeBraggio said multiple death threats were made against both college officials and Professor Churchill.

Death threats against the professor are more despicable than anything he said. The best way to respond to statements as appalling as those written by Professor Churchill is to give them as much publicity as possible. The more people that become aware of such idiocy will reduce the author's following and credibility.

Comments

[kstreetfriend]

He prepared meals for two U.S. presidents over 11 years.

The White House chef, Walter Scheib, has been fired. He told The New York Times, that his ouster followed the appointment of a new social secretary to serve the first family.

"We've been trying to find a way to satisfy the first lady's stylistic requirements," Scheib, 50, told the paper in a telephone interview, "and it has been difficult. Basically I was not successful in my attempt."

Scheib, who was hired 11 years ago by then first lady Hillary Clinton, said he was asked to resign a few weeks after White House social secretary Cathy Fenton was succeeded by Lea Berman, the wife of a wealthy contributor to the Republican Party.

Before working at the White House Mr. Scheib was executive chef at the Greenbriar Resort (Virginia). On or about the same time as his firing the Ward Churchill "free speech" controversy gained momentum. I did submit comments on several blogs identifying the free speech crisis as connected to a Pittsburgh federal court. In fact, I'd called the Pittsburgh federal court case a nominal free speech matter that has "Watergate" problems. That is, too many coincidental links to bigger issues.

For example:

To follow through on a promise President Bush re-nominated 12 candidates for federal appeals court seats whose confirmations were blocked by Senate Democrats during his first term. The re-nomination of the judicial candidates ignited the partisan battle with Senate Democrats.

The battle over the makeup of the federal bench is an important concern for conservative evangelicals at the core of the president's political base. They see judges as crucial to their efforts to end abortion, allow for broader religious presence in daily life and limit the influence of the federal government. Senate Democrates will attempt to block those re-nominated.

Although not verified, my sources identify Raymond Scheib, a former Pittsburgh judge involved in a "case-fixing" scandal, as a relative (sibling or inlaw). That is, the executive chef working in the White House is possibly linked to the same judge and scandal involving the Pennsylvania judiciary where individuals were charged and convicted for violating my civil rights (fixing cases against me).

Note: The chef was hired on or about the same time that I started having unexplained difficulties with the federal court in Western Pennsylvania.

See vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2002/003466.pdf

See also www.cjdpa.org/decisions/fulltext/jd97-02-01-op.html

[kstreetfriend]

As a supplement, please note the following.

Introduction: In a Pittsburgh federal court a well connected corporate crony has suggested a novice "free speech" argument and the legal question is waddling without any legal precedent in need of an activist court.

Creating the free speech crisis is a "red herring" to draw attention away from the plain and clear evidence of the Pittsburgh Federal Court proceeding (best example of the corruption).

Ward Churchill was a relatively unknown professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, until Bill O'Reilly reported a piece about him and requested his audience to make a fuss. His provacative essay was written more than three years ago.

The connection:

Ms. ElizaBETH Hoffman is the President of Colorado University. Go to http://www.hss.caltech.edu/Photos/Alumni/HoffmanElizabeth.jpg and/or http://www.colorado.edu/Carillon/volume47/images/1.jpg to view her picture.

Ms. BETH (Rue) Kotcella Buchanan is the U.S. Attorney for Western Pennsylvania. Go to http://www.pittsburghlive.com/photos/2002-02-26/PH_2002-02-26_iattorney-b.jpg to view her picture.

Background: I attended undergraduate school with Ms. Buchanan. At the Pennsylvania University I succesfully re-established (and served as president) the pre-law society and graduated in 1983. Here Ms. Buchanan would become interested in the law. She graduated after me in 1984.

In addition, I was listed in Whose Who Among American Colleges and Universities, and given the 1983 Progressive Leadership Award, and 1983 Distinguished Honor Award.

Before joining the U.S. Attorney's Office in 1988 Ms. Buchanan secured a clerkship with U.S. District Judge Maurice B. Cohill, Jr.

Judge Cohill is the Western District Judge responsible for enforcing a consent decree governing United States of America v. Port Authority of Allegheny County, Docket No. 91-CV-1694. However, he turned a blind eye to my case Docket No. 95-CV-00339. I had organized (secure a union) a political sub-division.

During that same year members of the state judiciary were charged and convicted for violating my civil right (fixing cases against me in retaliation of Docket No. 95-CV-00339).

In a case related to Docket No. 95-CV-00339, an alleged EEOC investigative file was prematurely purged and the U.S. Department of Labor refused deliver its copy despite a subpoena, FOIA Request and Motion to Compel. See Docket No. 98-CV-230. That is, the Department of Labor closed its investigation based on the alleged EEOC decision. But, I had proffered to the court EEOC's writings that demonstrated no investigation was conducted.

Discussion: At issue is the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. The Bush administration is attempting to change the 50 percent rule. That is, financial aid is available for postsecondary education provided at a college or university that has at least 50 percent of its students campus-based.

Corporations have paid Senators and Congress men and women well, attempting to change the 50 percent rule. The rule is necessary to prevent fraud (absentee students and/or diploma mills).

It appears at least three corporations have abused the administration's Distance Education Demonstration that wavied the 50 percent rule.

The Career Education Corporation of Hoffman Estates, Ill., has faced lawsuits, from shareholders and students, contending that, among other things, its colleges have inflated enrollment numbers. In addition, F.B.I. agents raided 10 campuses run by ITT Educational Services of Carmel, Ind., looking for similar problems.

Nonetheless, the S.E.C. and FBI investigation is just spin to make it appear the administration is doing its job.

The Pittsburgh case involves Kaplan, Inc., who is wholly own by the Washington Post Company. For-profit postsecondary education has turned the company around. Individuals far more powerful than Martha Steward have made millions.

Thus the current unexplained campaign against “free speech” appears to be little more than another Madison Avenue scheme to control any discussion.

[kstreetfriend]

Manufacturing a weak integrity argument to justify free speech violations...

It started in a federal Court in Pittsburgh and has moved quickly to Colorado Universtity and Iraq. It's a stretch, but political hacks have besieged first amendment free speech protections.

They attempt to combine a provacative essay comparing victims of 911 with Nazi criminals and an emotionally charged General's comments on war, questioning whether such is permissible when the comments may cause damaged to an institution's integrity.

Why?

Because in a Pittsburgh federal court a well connected corporate crony has suggested the novice argument, and the legal question is waddling without any legal precedent in need of an activist court.

Thus the current unexplained campaign against “free speech” appears to be little more than a Madison Avenue scheme to control any discussion of the President’s desire to privatize higher education.

That is, a number of for-profit colleges have faced inquiries, lawsuits and other actions calling into question the way they inflate enrollment to mislead/increase the value of their parent company’s stock.

In the last year, the Career Education Corporation of Hoffman Estates, Ill., has faced lawsuits, from shareholders and students, contending that, among other things, its colleges have inflated enrollment numbers. In addition, F.B.I. agents raided 10 campuses run by ITT Educational Services of Carmel, Ind., looking for similar problems.

But in a Pittsburgh federal court there is a bigger can of worms.

Kaplan, Inc., is wholly own by the Washington Post Company. For-profit postsecondary education has turned the company around and individuals far more powerful than Martha Steward have made millions. However, there is a nominal “Watergate” styled federal court proceeding (scandal) involving campus “free speech,” that could expose the administration’s violation of public trust

In short, I provided the S.E.C., Department of Education, and federal courts information that appears to prove Kaplan inflated the Concord School of Law enrollment, telling investors that the “flagship” of its higher education division has as many as 600 to 1000 or more students.

I also provided evidence to prove apparent violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

However, in an attempt to protect important icons of the Washington and New York financial/political circle, hacks have been hired to stir a free speech controversy.

But even Stan Chess (En Passant http://lawtv.typepad.com/en_passant/2004/a_question_of_l.html) innocently questioned the obvious - a clear violation of the federal securities laws.

“Kaplan’s Concord School of Law says it’s one of the largest law schools in the country, yet for each administration only about 25 of its graduates sit for the bar exam. What happens to the hundreds of other students in each class?”

What are you willing to do?

[Walter E. Wallis]

Let him work for people who willingly pay for his idiocy.