Guess Who's Planning to Shine Lasers on Pilots

"Bob Fry" wrote in message
...

You guys say he's a "nutball." No doubt many others think he's got
something legit to say. Me, I don't care much what he says 'cause I'm
from California: far out, dude!


Agreed. When a nutball like Churchill wishes to say things which prove he's
a nutball the best thing to do is shut up and let him speak.



So you guys don't like him. Others do. Who decides whether his views
are useful or not? Time and history do.


Sometimes, but in this case we didn't have to wait.



That's why tenure exists, to
protect the jobs of a relatively few unpopular folk.


Tenure protects the jobs of poor teachers.



Unless some academic prof does something *really* egregious, I'm on
the side of those defending him and his paid, tenured position. He's
doing what his job description says to do: think, and express the
result of that thinking. Tenure has a long history behind it; are you
so willing to chuck it over one guy? That's scary.


I was ready to chuck it before I ever heard of Churchill.

"Bob Fry" wrote in message
...

True, the 1st amendment right to free speech is not about tenure or
having a publically paid position to make the offending speech.

But tenure is a critical element of western freedoms.


Why?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

At any rate, with very limited knowledge (one web page) of Churchill's
pronouncements and views, I find the thought of the establishment
dismissing him for what he _said_ to be infinitely more appalling, and
a true insight into the current trend of trampling citizen's rights
granted under the Constitution. His dismissal for this utterance
would be a another _tangible_ example of the totalitarian course set
by the current administration.


What rights "granted under the Constitution" are being trampled here?



After all, noble journalists are currently facing jail time for
exercising their 1st amendment rights in providing the American people
the truth.


What noble journalists?



Is that what we Americans want: the news media to only
report what the administration dictates, or a free press? The choice
is ours.


I'd prefer a free, objective press.



Are we going to give Churchill the _power_ to prove that the
Constitution has become meaningless, or are we going to tolerate
disparate opinions?


The Constitution HAS become meaningless and Churchill had nothing to do with
it.



(Robin Williams delivered this gem on last night's Bill Marr show,
"Now the Iraqi people must spend time drafting a constitution for
their country; we could give them ours; we're not using it anymore.")


And we haven't been for a very long time. (By the way, if Williams said
that recently he stole the line.)



If we're going to deny Churchill his 1st Amendment rights, then
perhaps we should stop "mad cowboy disease," and impeach the "son of a
Bush" for what he said:


What 1st Amendment right is being denied to Churchill?

"Icebound" wrote in message
news

We also don't want to trust our children to analyse opposing or
ulta-radical views. That might teach them independant thought. They
might actually do their own research to get closer to truth... so if we
can't control our educational institutions politically, we might want to
withdraw their public money and throw them to the mercy of handouts from
somebody who can.


Independent thought taught today on US campuses? Where?

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
.. .

And, no doubt, you can explain this in a bit more detail. What's the
alternative?


Why must there be an alternative?

"Bob Fry" wrote in message
...

Tenure as we're discussing here is university-level, academic tenure.
The USA still has some of the best universities in the world, and I'd
say tenure is partly responsible for that.


Why? Tenure protects poor instructors.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
my goodness, you don't see the parallel? You could have asked if rape
victims actually encourage rape through their support of
society/government
policies that encourage sexual violence.

Yes, I could have and your analogy would have been just as idiotic. It
would only valid if you assert that the rape victim's government DOES
support sexual violence and that the rape victim did nothing to try to stop
that.

But I do congratulate you on so quickly moving from intelligent discourse to
idiotic inflammatory language. Most Usenet posters require a warm-up, but
you just dove right in.

Pete

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
[...]
I'd lay the blame at the foot of religion...again.

The issue is "slightly" more complicated than a single statement about a
single event. Religion is no doubt in the mix, but as usual it's been used
more as a tool for motivation than being the actual root cause.

Pete

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
.. .
"Matt Barrow"

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...
The writings of an academic are considered part of his body of work. I
personally think Churchill is an idiot, but whether his comments were
made
"in the classroom, in the lecture hall, or even on the campus" is
irrelevant.

Not necessarily; his right to free speech does not include being paid
for
it, nor is his right being abrogated, only the aspect of being paid for
it.

Firing tenured professors because they say something offensive to many
people is a really bad idea.

True enough, but what this mental furrball is spewing is not merely
offensive, it's nownright demented. This is not the type of pereson we need,
of any persuasion, teaching our youth.

Unfortunately, in a politically charged
atmosphere, more and more academics are being threatened with censure.

Cite?

A
quick look back at history shows where this leads. If the guy's nuts,
he'll
eventually be ignored by everyone except other nuts.

And in the meantime he's polluting our youth minds. That's NOT the purpose
of education, especially tax funded "education".

This sort of thing
happens in the physical sciences as well.

Cite?

"Newps" wrote in message
...


Bob Fry wrote:
"Matt Barrow" writes:


His right to free speech does NOT include being paid to spew his
neurotic
drivel.


True, the 1st amendment right to free speech is not about tenure or
having a publically paid position to make the offending speech.

But tenure is a critical element of western freedoms.

No, rationality is.


Tenure is one of the main reasons public education is as bad as it is.

BINGO!!