CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
February 06, 2009 07:33 PM UTC
25 Comments
Arguably the best-liked Republican in the state admits that one of the higher-profile actions he did as governor was flat out wrong.
Still, he supported Ref C.
I just don’t understand what is going on with the Republicans, especially in Colorado. What is even scarier to me is that Colorado is on the leading edge of national politics. We saw a resurgence of the Dems and the self-destruction of the Repubs starting before 2004. And I don’t see the Repubs getting it together anytime soon, either. I like the Democrats winning but I would prefer to have Republicans who aren’t quite so … scary.
But it’s absolutely clear that Churchill’s 2001 ‘little Eichmanns’ remark about the 9/11 victims triggered the investigation that led to his dismissal for cause. In a criminal investigation, it seems to me, this would be akin to searching someone’s house because they posted a sign supporting David Duke for governor. Any evidence of wrongdoing thereby discovered would be inadmissible in court, so the homeowner/perp would walk.
But Owens wasn’t alone in wanting to get rid of Churchill-for most of us, his words disqualified him for his position, just as we’d want CU to get rid of a professor who was a holocaust denier. Churchill’s remarks, once publicized, led lots of people to dig for dirt and find a legitimate reason to get rid of him-and Owens’blathering had little to do with it.
Even though Owens is probably advised by his lawyers to admit that he was an ineffectual blowhard,he was right-Churchill had to go.
I don’t know about the analogy you give, but I was surprised to read the other day that the police can stop a car for a traffic violation, search the driver, search the car, and search passengers. I knew about the first three, but didn’t know it’s okay to order everyone out of the car and search them for no reason. So who knows? Most of the Bill of Rights are not supported by a majority of the public if taken in a piecemeal way.
I don’t think your analogy works. Illegal search and seizure only limits searchs of your person, home, etc… This only has an impact on an actual search, not on a general investigation, especially when it involves published research.
One might say that making wild remarks suggests a inapt academic mind. Academics are not known for out of the box thinking (well, not real academics as opposed to the few radicals highlighted by Republicans). There are few professions as bound by “standards” as academia…one of the reasons I decided against going in that direction.
So as someone who had their part in getting Churchill fired (well, I was a deciding vote to prevent the CU student union from passing a resolution supporting him), I have no regrets. CU is better off without him. Sometimes it takes an incident of some publicity to direct attention towards other problems…the lesson is, if you are going to draw attention to yourself, make sure you have crossed the t’s and dotted the i’s.
…do you mean the end justified the means? or being mean justifies ending someone’s career? or to justify means to end?
What I said is the same as saying the ends justify the means. It was just a round about way of saying it to be clever.
Ward Churchill deserved having his career ended. That isn’t being mean, it is being just or fair. I believe in meritocracy, where people get jobs because they are the best at that job.
…is not whether Churchill should have a career, but whether any and all means to take it from him were proper. Your apparent blessing of “anything goes if I don’t like the guy” is amazing.
I am not endorsing firing professors for political reasons. I am endorsing increased scrutiny of professors for political reasons, in certain situations. In this case, Churchill’s political comment was cause for reasonable suspicion of poor academic ability.
It’s OK to go on a witch hunt if you disagree with his political statements?
Have you no shame, Bondo?
It is only a witch hunt if you deny that Churchill’s statements have any relevance as indicators of his qualifications as a professor.
Imagine you are a police officer:
A. You see a driver doing something peculiar, though not necessarily illegal, and suspect they may be intoxicated. At this point, you cannot arrest them for a DUI.
B. However, you can pull them over on your reasonable suspicion of their intoxication and administer a sobriety test.
C. If they fail this, now you can arrest them for a DUI.
Similarly, Churchill’s statements caused a suspicion that he was not a competent academic. This would not justify his firing, but it does justify a closer look at his work to determine if he is a competent academic. Upon discovering that he is not, he can be fired.
His extreme political views have nothing to do with his academic competence. What you’re proposing is much closer to racial profiling than any kind of reasonable suspicion.
I think this is relevant.
If a biology professor made public comments opposing evolution, that would be a very relevant reason to explore his or her academic record and potentially fire them. Maybe they have a scientifically valid basis and their divergence should be supported, but it would certainly suggest a lack of academic soundness.
I’m a strong supporter of evolution, but there are biology professors who aren’t. Not every field of biology relies on whether evolution is valid or not, so you can certainly be quite productive as a biologist who believes in intelligent design. You’ll be in a tiny minority, and other professors may not take your views in general seriously, but if you’re publishing valid results and not trying to brainwash your students, you’ll be fine.
You’re suggesting sending investigators after a biology professor, looking for personal arguments he may have had with colleagues, going through his data searching for evidence of fraud, etc. Just based on his beliefs.
That’s precisely what academic freedom is for: professors are generally unpopular people with unpopular views, but unlike other people they have to back things they say with some kind of evidence. Attempting to fire them based on their views makes it impossible for them to do their jobs properly, or else to work in such an obscure field that nobody will ever worry about what they’re saying. I don’t think we want either thing from academics. Otherwise what’s the point of them being around?
Bondo, what you are advocating is political profiling. Professors who toe the conventional line can get away with sloppy work because they won’t be challenged. NOTE: I never read any further in the thread, and so just now saw sxp151 apt comments calling what you are doing Bondo, close to racial profiling. I concur with sxp151’s observations.
What you wrote next is crap:
Churchill’s 9/11 statements were valid. If your political perspective comes from studying the consequences to people of exploitive capitalism, primarily in the continental US, then his statements are understandable.
Churchill came out of the civil rights movement of native peoples in this country. There was no “academic career path” when the Department of Ethnic Studies was established. Prior to the 70s, the goal of education was to
promote assimilation. The exploitation of native peoples was seen as bringing “civilization” and christianity to savages. ….a variation on “the white man’s burden.”
With the redefining of the history of native peoples in this country, came the beginning of an academic discipline…for which there were few guidelines.
Owens is a jerk. He doesn’t believe in the Bill of Rights. He went after the Rameys in a way which could have been used to their advantage if they had ever been charged with a crime. He simply is a spineless jerk.
…and I said nothing.
which was stupid and insensitive, I don’t think it is or should be cause for dismissal. Political speech is the most protected of speech, and if you can sanction “offensive” political speech by a university professor, you’ve pretty much put a nail in the coffin of freedom of expression and the purposes it serves. Who determines what’s “offensive”? The majority? News flash: The Bill of Rights is needed to protect the minority from the majority, and truth from mass hysteria. I can envision (without much effort) an America in which my dynamical systems political philosophy would be considered offensive. Or if someone suggests that government SHOULD be in the business of redistributing wealth, that could easily get the ax in an America not far removed from the one we have.
Not only that, despite the errors in Churchill’s remark (blaming the innocent victims who just happened to be in the building for an attack provoked, perhaps, by American foreign policy), the underlying criticism that our own foreign aggression may have played a role in motivating the attack against us certainly is salient enough to belong in the mix of expressed points of view on the subject.
Yeah, I certainly agree that the issue of blowback is a highly relevant foreign policy concern and should be raised.
I suppose the main hesitation or qualification in my view is that one can argue that everyone has something that could be dug up and used to justify an action, and thus a political cause for action is sufficient to prevent punishment even if that punishment is ultimately deserved on the facts.
Is Churchill relatively unique in that he had a problematic record that probably justified his being fired, or would most professors have something that could be used effectively against them if they were targeted for political reasons. I certainly would like to think that the former is true.
have done things that can be made to look to the public like major indiscretions. I don’t know how many academics commit plagiarism or invent data, but those who do should be thrown out for doing so. Serious scholars, more committed to discovering and understanding the nature of the systems which envelope and permeate us than to blowing smoke in order to advance their career, would simply be unable to engage in such actions, even if it were absolutely certain that no one would ever find out. It would be like a doctor intentionally botching an operation at great cost to his patient because, due to some bizarre set of circumstances, doing so would be a boost to his career. I don’t think many doctors would take advantage of such an opportunity, and those that would should pay a high price for doing so.
I’m not saying that I think the nature of the way in which Churchill’s real sins were discovered should protect him from the consequences of having committed those sins, but rather that the speech which set the ball in motion should be vigorously protected, and that those who initiated an official investigation of Churchill on the basis of that speech need to be sanctioned as well.
I certainly have used stronger rhetoric than I really believe here, because hey, I figured someone needed to take that side of the argument for it to be interesting.
So while I do feel it was right to fire Churchill, there are certainly concerns about the manner in which things unfolded.
You’re absolutely right: Until you’ve argued both (or all) sides of an issue, there’s no basis for taking a position.
I have always told my students that if they wish to hold strong opinions, they had better be able to argue the opposite as well as anyone can, or their opinions will be just arbitrary assumptions rather than well-considered conclusions.
I have no problem understanding the side defending Churchill, there is certainly a slippery slope concern about academic freedom. Where it was more relevant to me on this debate is that I was a graduate student at CU, and at the time considering a career in academia. We are expected to have high standards for our research. We also typically face a very tough job market to become a professor, and we’d like to have access to the profession on our merits. Plus, the academic integrity of the University has great implications on our ability to be placed in that career.
Thus, regardless of the nature of how things came to be, as a grad student, rather than perhaps a tenured professor, these job market implications are more important than protection from political scrutiny. I, for one, feel that being highly political or partisan as an instructor is bad pedagogy…and I taught in political science.
but quality control and the protection of academic freedom are in an inescapable tension with one another. The problem with quality control of politically controversial speech (and no professor in the social sciences can both avoid controversial political speech AND do a good job as a social science professor) is that someone is defining “quality.” That’s a very dangerous power to grant to any institution or group of individuals.
I’ll take bad pedagogy over constrained political speech in the academy any day.
Good, let’s ignore him some more.
I pretty much ignored what Owens said during his entire governorship, so my good judgment in doing so has been vindicated by none other than the Gov. himself.