Ward Churchill's Buyout

[KMA-628]

Yesterday, the rumour going around was that Ward Churchill and CU Boulder were discussing a possible buyout to his contract.

This morning, on the local news, we hear that an "agreement" was reached (undisclosed amount).

An attorney for Churchill said he expects to reach a settlement with the university "within the next day or so" on the embattled professor's future. Sources close to the negotiations between the lawyers for Churchill and CU told the Post the amount is "well under" $1 million and possibly less than $500,000. Churchill came under fire earlier this year for an essay he wrote in 2001 in which he compared some victims of September 11 to prominent Nazi Adolf Eichmann. Sources told the Post both sides still have to decide if they can live with the implications of making a deal.

LINK

My question:

All along we hear how he is standing on principle, yada-yada-yada.

Then we hear he is probably going to accept money to go away (i.e. bought off).

Does this negate any principle he may have tried to stand on prior to this news?

For reference: While I don't like what he said, I did not think he should be fired for what he said.

Side note: A rumour that has been floating around here for a little bit said that CU Boulder was pretty scared and that Churchill had threatened to let a few skeletons out of the closet if this were to go badly for him. Also, don't forget that the dean stepped down amidst all of this as well (football problems as well as this).

[KMA-628]

I'm a dumbass.....

[smooth]

NCB's post is referring to a different CU professor.

[raveneye]

My question:

All along we hear how he is standing on principle, yada-yada-yada.

Then we hear he is probably going to accept money to go away (i.e. bought off).

Does this negate any principle he may have tried to stand on prior to this news?

For reference: While I don't like what he said, I did not think he should be fired for what he said.

My guess is that his life is being made miserable at work.

If I were him (god forbid) I'd want to get out of there too, and there's nothing wrong with trying to negotiate as much as possible from the administration, since he is in a very good negotiating position.

[KMA-628]

Churchill settlement stalled

They are saying that since the plagiarism charges hit mainstream news media, the buyout may no longer be on the table.

We'll see.

[daswig]

Originally Posted by KMA-628

Churchill settlement stalled

They are saying that since the plagiarism charges hit mainstream news media, the buyout may no longer be on the table.

We'll see.

Plagiarism has long been seen as a fireable offense "for cause". I don't have all the details on what happened with this, but if it was reviewed by an independent academic panel and they found he plagarized her work, he's academically toast. I also find the reported allegations that he physically threatened her to be most disturbing.

[Willravel]

It was wrong of them to try and get him fired. He was trying to give his opinions, which he is free to. Since then he has been treated as a coward and a traitor. A lot of people passed judgment on him without even reading what he acutually said. I read several of his speaches. They were intriguing and had a fresh point of view. Obviously, a lot of what he said was insensitive and contraversial, but does he deserve to be fired? Nope. I don't claim to know what kind of guy he is, but based solely on his speaches he should not be fired.

[irateplatypus]

yeah, based on his speeches i don't think the man should actually be fired... though i'm interested how the other charges will develop.

however, i am very concerned about the environment that spawned this whole situation. apparently mr. churchill is just that. he is on tenure with only a master's degree... no doctorate. in my collegiate experience, this is exceedingly rare. i've heard multiple news sources speculate that mr. churchill was placed on tenure very early in his career so as not to lose him to competing universities. if so, that would mean that he was seen as an uncommonly skilled rising star.

it appears that in this particular circle of academia men like churchill are sought out and prized. if true, what a sad day for our country and for the students who put so much money and trust into the faculty's hands.

[squirrelyburt]

The first amendment grants us all a right to express our opinions, but I feel strongly that doing it on tax payer dollars is unnacceptable. His job as a professor is to teach, not impress his personal political opinions on his students. He can do it on his own time.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by squirrelyburt

The first amendment grants us all a right to express our opinions, but I feel strongly that doing it on tax payer dollars is unnacceptable. His job as a professor is to teach, not impress his personal political opinions on his students. He can do it on his own time.

I'm not sure of the specifics, but wasn't he hired as a guest speaker, not a professor, when he gave his public and oh so copntraversial opinions? If so, he was not on the government dime, and is free to say anything that isn't illegal. If he wants to say something stupid in public, he joins millions of Americans in their God and government given right to free speech. For me, the only way this is right is if he was being payed government money as a professor when he gave these speeches. If he is teaching math and he's going on about imperialism, then I agree that his tenure should be under review. BUT, if they expect Churchill to be a representative of the college even when he's not on the clock, then they are asking too much. If I worked for the DMV, and I made public speeches outside of the office about Depleted Uranium and it's possible health effects (in a way that makes the government look bad), I should not be fired.

[NCB]

Harvard Prez loses no-con. vote

So why does Churchill get paid a kings ransom and this guy gets raked over the coals? Is what Sommers said far worse than what the plagerizing, phony Indian said?

[raveneye]

Summers I'm sure gets paid at least twice what Churchill gets paid.

The no confidence vote probably means absolutely nothing legally. It's just a political move, designed to embarrass him into resigning.

University presidents are judged by a completely different set of standards from professors. Summers probably has tenure too, so the worst that could happen to him is that he could be kicked out of his presidentship. He could probably still teach at Harvard for the rest of his life, if he wanted to.

I don't have any sympathy for Summers whatsoever, even though I think the only thing wrong with what he said is that it was diplomatically inappropriate.

[martinguerre]

Originally Posted by NCB

Harvard Prez loses no-con. vote

...this guy gets raked over the coals?

He hasn't been fired yet. But he did say something awfully stupid, and as a person in a management position, he has a differnt responsbility than someone who is one voice among many in the academic debate of a school.

As soon as i saw this story, i sent it to my sister, who's getting her PhD in genetics at Yale. She, and her PI (Primary Investigator, the faculty member in charge of a lab) and all the other female members of that lab had a good laugh over it. For Summers to make this comment reveals how little he knows about the field that he is supposed to have supervisory influence...his views have a role in hiring/funding, etc. Churchill has influence only to the extent that people sign up for his classes.

[KMA-628]

They announced a press conference regarding Ward Churchill for this afternoon at 3pm Mountain Time.

Here is a link to the main page for the local NBC channel where they will post more info: 9news - NBC

[pig]

So, is it correct to assume that 1. This guy made some offensive comments, and subsequently and that 2. charges of plagiarism, that were apparently not important enough to follow up on 5-6 years ago, became more interesting. I disagree with those of you who say that because he is paid on the government dime, and he's made offensive comments, that he is somehow liable for tenure revokation / job termination. That's the whole point of giving tenure to professors, and the academic environment - to encourage extreme points of view, if there are any, such that it broadens the spectrum of thought in the academic environment. Especially if you consider the things our tax money goes to support, and how much $$$ we're talking about relative to this guy's salary, it's just not that big of a deal.

If you want to take the principle that would call for his termination and shoot it around, the hypocracy of it becomes apparent pretty quickly, in my opinion. For example, neither I, nor many other Americans, believe in a personified deity, much less a Christian "God." Therefore, if my elected President evokes the image of a Christian God, should I be able to request that he be fired / impeached? Such statements might offend me and others, in the most absolute sense possible. Nevermind the probabilities of it, but consider the question on sheer principle?

In my opinion, this is a waste of time.

[NCB]

Originally Posted by pigglet

So, is it correct to assume that 1. This guy made some offensive comments, and subsequently and that 2. charges of plagiarism, that were apparently not important enough to follow up on 5-6 years ago, became more interesting. I disagree with those of you who say that because he is paid on the government dime, and he's made offensive comments, that he is somehow liable for tenure revokation / job termination. That's the whole point of giving tenure to professors, and the academic environment - to encourage extreme points of view, if there are any, such that it broadens the spectrum of thought in the academic environment. Especially if you consider the things our tax money goes to support, and how much $$$ we're talking about relative to this guy's salary, it's just not that big of a deal. .

1. You forgot the part where he's not a real Indian, but he promoted himself as such and ultimately got his job because of his "Native American roots"

2. You forgot about the part where he doesn't even have a real Phd. It's an honorary doctorate, the kind you get by mail.

3. For those two reasons he should be fired. However, I believe that his hate speech should not affect his tenure or job. What's the sense in having academic freedom when that freedom becomes subject to politicians and such?

[KMA-628]

They are going to go after him for almost everything.

Get ready for two years of fun (how long the disciplinary process takes)

Plagiarism: "sufficient merit" for further inquiry/research misconduct

His ethnicity: very questionable, "misconduct", etc.

CU-Boulder Chancellor Phil DiStefano says Prof. Ward Churchill's writings protected by 1st Amendment. Chancellor DiStephano says a faculty committee will review allegations of research misconduct.

[pig]

Originally Posted by NCB

1. You forgot the part where he's not a real Indian, but he promoted himself as such and ultimately got his job because of his "Native American roots"

Nope, I just didn't know about it. If he lied on his application, he can be fired. Period. It's like faking a resume.

Originally Posted by NCB

2. You forgot about the part where he doesn't even have a real Phd. It's an honorary doctorate, the kind you get by mail.

Then it's at least as much the University's fault for not checking his accredidations. It depends on the specific wording of their job advertisement and their stated requirements for the job. I don't know anything about this aspect.

Originally Posted by NCB

3. For those two reasons he should be fired. However, I believe that his hate speech should not affect his tenure or job. What's the sense in having academic freedom when that freedom becomes subject to politicians and such?

Exactly. It seems to me that the questions concerning his ethnicity and academic background have only become important after the views were aired, so I'm thinking that in the practical sense it's kind of b.s. to scapegoat on those. On the other hand, if you lie on your application you might want to think twice about calling unnecessary attention to yourself. I have to wonder how much actual deceipt was in his application, because if it is there the University doesn't have to fuck with him - they can just outright fire the everliving shit out of him.

[roachboy]

more rightwing smear.
more prestructured "opinion" from the foxnews set.

the ethnicity question smacks of limbaugh or hannity-level nonsense. the kind of thing that only a conservative nitwit could find a way to invert--the guy supports a.i.m.--therefore he must imagine he is native american--blah blah blah--idioitic stuff.
if you have other stuff about this particular matter, post it.

the plagairism thing could be quite serious--but i do not think any group of citizen types has adequate information to say much about it. i know this kind of thing--data, proof--rarely stops the right machine in its favorite passtime of character assassination, but there we are. i read about the circumstances that surround the piece in question--i dont imagine that they would be grounds for dismissal. but i could be wrong, and would want to see the actual materials--all of them--before making up my mind. i woudl think the foxnews set would like to have data as well. but i could be wrong about that.


oin the question of credentials: i suspect that the university was aware of his credentials when they hired him--it is far from an extraordinary circumstance--if you think about who teaches creative writing, for example, many of these folk have mfas. if they were to get an honorary degree after the fact, would it too be characterized as a "mail order degree"--do you, ncb, have an honorary doctorate? from where? when did you get it?--the reason this practice has receded on recent years has more to do with the overproduction of phds (a function of their increasing function as cheap labor for universities) than policy changes.


the political motivations for this are glaring, evident, obvious. whether you agree with churchill, he maps the kind of analysis of the holocaust you find in zygmunt bauman's "the holocaust and modernity" onto the united states---evaluating this claim would require that conservatives had actually read his work--have you read it ncb? have any of the churchill critics here actually read it?

another characteristic of this degenerate political space is that folk who live there have no problem with getting in a real lather over books they have not read and films they have not seen....it is interesting, isnt it?

anyway, it is not really surprising to find such an argument be made--you might argue with churchill's particular premises--which i would suspect entail an examination of what kind of relation you see in the present between the american cultural order and the genocide of the native americans during the 19th century, their continued marginalization, etc.---but that such an argument is possible (the guy aligns with a.i.m.--it is pretty obvious that his would be a position from which such an argument could be made)---i dont see the problem. maybe it all resides in the fact that churchill called the american state fascist. and it seems the right has a problem with people using that word. probably because it creates obstacles to their mode of cultural domination. better to mobilize folk in an effort to effectively censor him--all the while denying that you are doing so of course. denials which change nothing....

in short, you cant make any claim that his arguments or his work are or are not responsible )whatever that means in rightwing land--i have no idea--i suspect it means whatever conservatives of this stripe are told it means) unless oyu have read the bgook, done some research, and can present an argument based on that. until i see something on this order from churchill's rightwing critics, i will simply assume you are talking out your hat.

that a university would consider buying him out of his contract is an index of the level of pressure the university feels is being brough to bear on it. they obviously have no grounds for any process to dismiss--like most universities, colorado is concerned with its reputation beyond everything else--universities are typically quite spineless in this kind of situation--so there we are.

[KMA-628]

Originally Posted by pigglet

On the other hand, if you lie on your application you might want to think twice about calling unnecessary attention to yourself. I have to wonder how much actual deceipt was in his application, because if it is there the University doesn't have to fuck with him - they can just outright fire the everliving shit out of him.

That was my thinking.

If you have all of this crap in the background that could get you fired, drawing attention to yourself is pretty stupid....or.....very arrogant. I think the later in the case of Churchill.

They can't just fire him, he has tenure and must go through this disciplinary thing which will last two years.


roach -

How is this a right-wing thing? The school is doing this to him and they are far from right-wing.

Shouldn't your anger be pointed at the liberal school administrators that discipling him. If your feelings about this are true, aren't these guys just caving into pressure from the right? Doesn't speak very highly of them if they are willing to cave in so quickly does it?

Or........maybe Churchill is an ass and a liar and should be fired. Stranger things have happened you know.

The evidence against him is pretty strong. The only questionable thing about this, I think, is that they waited until now to go after him.


As far as his ethnicity, you can say whatever you want--it is obvious you know very little about this.

He used his Native America status in order to secure a position under Affirmative Action. However, the very nation that he claims to be a part of, says he isn't Native American.

Having gone through the process to secure the Native American heritage of my kids I know the process and it is very detailed, tedious and a pain-in-the-ass to go through.

This is from the official report that came out today: LINK

c. Is there evidence that Professor Churchill engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation by misrepresenting himself as a Native American in order either to gain an employment-related benefit or to add credibility and public acceptance to his scholarship?


The reviewers received multiple generalized accusations that Professor Churchill is not, in fact, Indian, and that he has misrepresented his Indian status in a way material to his employment status and his work as a scholar. Professor Churchill's claim of Indian ethnicity dates at least to his self-identification on a 1979 application for employment at the University, and is perpetuated by the notation "Tribal Enrollment: United Keetoowah Band Cherokee (Roll No. R7627)" on his curriculum vita. It also appears that Professor Churchill has used his claimed Indian status to attract an audience for his work and to add credibility to it. He has used an "Indian voice," speaking of "my people" and "we."53 The title of one of his books, From a Native Son, implies that he speaks as an American Indian. At times he has claimed ancestry in three tribes. He started one speech: "I bring you greetings from the Elders of the Keetoowah band of Cherokee, my mother's people." In another work he refers to ". . .my father's people, the Creeks."55 He writes that "I am an enrolled Keetowah Band Cherokee."56 Principal Chief Wickliffe of the Keetoowah Band of Cherokee reported to the reviewers that an "associate" of the band is not enrolled in the tribe; associate membership is merely an honorary designation, like an honorary degree from a university.

The question of Professor Churchill's Indian status raises two separate but related issues. First, did Professor Churchill misrepresent his Indian status on an employment application and, as a result, gain an employment advantage? This question arose in 1994 when certain Indian leaders communicated with the University claiming, among other things, that Professor Churchill lied on his application about his Indian heritage. The then Boulder campus chancellor reviewed this complaint and concluded that University policy permitted self-identification. The chancellor noted that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission took the position that observation and self identification are the most reliable indicators of ethnicity. The chancellor declined to pursue the matter. The question about Professor Churchill's employment application must be considered closed as a result of this ten-year old review.

A remaining question is whether Professor Churchill has attempted to gain a scholarly voice, credibility, and an audience for his scholarship by wrongfully asserting that he is an Indian. There is evidence that Professor Churchill's assertion of his Indian status is material to his scholarship, yet there is serious doubt about his Indian identity. The evidence is sufficient to warrant referral of this question to the Committee on Research Misconduct for inquiry and, if appropriate, investigation to determine whether Professor Churchill relies on his Indian identity in his scholarship and, if so, whether he has fabricated that identity. The Committee should inquire as to whether Professor Churchill can assert a reasonable basis for clarifying such identity.57

I suggest you read the report link above--there is a lot of stuff there about Churchill

Rocky Mountain News

To print this page, select File then Print from your browser
URL: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...519179,00.html
Prof's Indian roots disputed

By Stuart Steers, Rocky Mountain News
February 3, 2005

The United Keetoowah Band Cherokee says University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill is not a member of their tribe.

"He's not in the database at all and is not a member of the Keetoowah," said Georgia Mauldin, the tribal clerk in Tahlequah, Okla.

In his books and articles, Churchill has described himself as a member of the Keetoowah Cherokee tribe in Oklahoma. In past interviews, he's claimed to be one-sixteenth Cherokee.

But the Keetoowah say that's not true.

Attempts to contact Churchill for comment Wednesday on his background were unsuccessful. But Churchill's claim to American Indian roots has been challenged repeatedly by people in that community.

One Montana woman has an especially personal tale of confronting Churchill on his claim to American Indian heritage. She was taking one of Churchill's classes at CU in 1994 when she wrote an article for the Colorado Daily newspaper, saying there was no evidence he had any American Indian background.

"For so long it was whispered on campus that he really isn't an Indian," said Jodi Rave, who studied journalism at CU. "Here you had the director of the Indian studies program and he's not an Indian."

Rave is a Mandan-Hidatsa Indian originally from North Dakota. Today, she is a reporter and columnist with the Missoulian newspaper in Missoula, Mont. She was recently a fellow in the prestigious Nieman program for journalists at Harvard University.

In one of her journalism classes at CU, Rave was assigned to write a profile, and she decided to profile Churchill.

"To have somebody of that stature masquerading as an Indian was intriguing to me," Rave said. "On two separate days I asked him questions. I was up-front in asking him questions (about his background)."

Rave says she discovered that Churchill had enrolled in the Keetoowah tribe under a program initiated by a former tribal chairman that let almost anyone sign up. She says the Keetoowah later discontinued that program and disenrolled the people who had joined under it.

When her article came out, Rave says Churchill was furious and insisted that he did have American Indian lineage.

"He called me and said, 'Jodi Rave, this is your professor and I need to talk to you right away.' He was surprised I had a story published that called into question his identity."

He also defended his American Indian background and said her story was unfair.

Rave said she was enrolled in one of Churchill's classes when the article came out, and her grade went from an A to a C-minus.

She says Churchill can write what he wants, but his claim of American Indian heritage is bogus.

"There's no denying what he writes resonates with a lot of people, but when he says this is something he's experienced as a Native American man, that's fraudulent," Rave said.

The question of who is and who is not an American Indian is a sensitive one in that community. Many Indians resent the idea that only those who grew up on a reservation or have two American Indian parents are real Indians.

"Tracking blood lines is the business of Nazi Germany and South Africa (under apartheid)," said professor George Tinker, who teaches American Indian culture and religious tradition at the Iliff School of Theology in Denver. "That's not an Indian issue at all."

Tinker said that it should be up to the tribes themselves to decide who is an Indian.

This is not an easy guy to defend.

[smooth]

Interesting.

If someone wants to discriminate against me, I only need to appear or possess a drop of minority blood.

If I want to obtain some benefit, real or otherwise, I have to prove some undeclared amount of blood resides in my body.


FYI, I don't know what kind of process you went through for your kids to "secure" their heritage or whatever way you want to refer to it. Someone should have told you the basic fact--you don't have to register as anything to claim Native American heritage. I wonder what you and others considered their heritage to be before obtaining official recognition of their status.

But that is an interesting working hypothesis you've got going there: that someone falsely claimed his heritage on an application, which then became the basis for his hiring in, presumably, some form of reverse discrimination perpetuated against a better applicant who had the strange misfortune of being white in the 1970's.

Makes sense, sorta.

[KMA-628]

Originally Posted by smooth

Interesting.

If someone wants to discriminate against me, I only need to appear or possess a drop of minority blood.

If I want to obtain some benefit, real or otherwise, I have to prove some undeclared amount of blood resides in my body.


FYI, I don't know what kind of process you went through for your kids to "secure" their heritage or whatever way you want to refer to it. Someone should have told you the basic fact--you don't have to register as anything to claim Native American heritage. I wonder what you and others considered their heritage to be before obtaining official recognition of their status.

If someone is going to be given preferential treatment because of their heritage, shouldn't that person be compelled to prove the heritage?

Otherwise, we could all claim whatever we want and demand the benefits that go along with it.

Wouldn't that effectively dilute and negate such things as Affirmative Action? Otherwise, I could claim whatever heritage will benefit me the most in the particular situation.

Personal example: I was on the list for the Orange County Sheriff's Department. However, because I was a white male, my waitlist time was unknown. However, if I had been a minority or a female, I would have started the next available acadamy date. It turns out that my time on the list was over a year long and I didn't get my acceptance until after I was out of boot camp.

So, if I didn't have to prove my minority status, I should've claimed some kind of minority status so that I wouldn't have spent eternity on the waitlist.

If I don't have to prove it, I can claim anything I want.

It just seems potentially disasterous to AA if we don't place some kind of burden of proof on the person trying to get benefits from AA.


On a different note, I get the impression that it is very different in the Native American community. It is almost arrogant. However, I have no problem with it since the rules are made by the tribe elders. If that is the way they want to do it, that is fine by me. They certainly deserve it, in my opinion.

As for my family, it was important to them to have that little yellow card, so I supported them 100%. They are very proud of their heritage and carry the little card proudly. However, they don't use their minority status to benefit them in any way. I find a certain level of respect for them in that matter--everything they have accomplished, they accomplished on their own having never received any benefit for being an "official" minority.

I think Churchill screwed up because he just didn't claim to be a Native American, he claimed to be a member of a specific tribe. Native Americans are very picky about their tribal membership and don't like to have anyone pretend to be one of them when the person is not--they take that as an insult.

[roachboy]

1. do all native american groups navigate the question of who is and is not a memebr in the same way?
could churchill not have been accepted as part of a given community, prompted to identify with that community?
if so, then how would you square this type of identification with the strange category of "ethnicity"? who gets to adjudicate such a question? certainly not fox news, certainly not right media....certainly not you, kma.

2.

registering ethnic data does not have a great history. the consequences of collecting such data are an immediate association with previous explicitly racist nationalist regimes. that your understanding of affirmative action would lead you to wonder about whether the system would work better if everyone had to register according to bloodline...well it would seem to me that you have a quite problematic understanding of the matter.

or maybe not--maybe the problem some with the notion of ethnicity that one is forced to work with. maybe you just follow the dominant logic here.

either way, it looks as thought when you apply it to yourself, this question becomes quite vexed and vexing, but when you apply it to ward churchill, suddenly things are clear to you. this must be a service fox provides its viewers. this illusion of clarity.

[KMA-628]

It is a little different for Native Americans.

If you claim to be black, it isn't very hard to tell if you are lying or not.

Same goes with claiming to be hispanic, asian, etc.

If you look at my kids, my wife, my wife's family, etc. you cannot tell be looking at them that their heritage goes back to a particular tribe. Does it matter to me? Nope. I don't give a shit about heritage, I really don't. I couldn't tell you one thing about my heritage, not one.

However, to them it is important, so I support that.



Here is what I don't get.

How is Affirmative Action fair if we can claim whatever heritage we want?

The points you guys are making leave me with even less respect for AA than I had before. Before, I thought it was an unfair system, now, after reading your posts, I think it is a farce.

[roachboy]

that i might understand affirmative action as being based in a problematic understanding of ethnicity-in general terms==does not preclude supporting it both in itself and for its function. all you do above, kma, is raise parallel problems if you take this definition of ethnicity and generalize it. which brings us back to the question of this ethnicity matter with reference to ward churchill. the question of how one might identify is not answered in your post, kma: all you do is say well, you caint necessariyl tell em by lookin at em. which substitutes your previous understanding of teh category ethnicity instead of answering the question.

[BigGov]

I go to the University of Wisconsin - Whitewater, the university where he visited and spoke on diversity and I believe when he first became fairly well known withing the political circle.

There was huge controversy before he spoke, everyone bringing up stuff from his past, the Eicheman statement, and a large majority of people forgot about what he had to say and just labeled him "a liar", "Unamerican" or "a user of hate speech". There was massive controversy and a large majority of people just didn't even bother to listen to him, which is a damn shame because he actually gave a very good speech that brought up many facts and was actually meant something. He didn't have an agenda, he spoke from his heart, and it was dead on.

Fuck credentials. He is a good speaker, he makes sense, and he can defend his points with fact. That's more important than a piece of paper or even heritage in my opinion, yet many people don't even seem to care.

[NCB]

Originally Posted by BigGov

Fuck credentials. He is a good speaker, he makes sense, and he can defend his points with fact. That's more important than a piece of paper or even heritage in my opinion, yet many people don't even seem to care.

Then perhaps he should have pursued a job as a public speaker or a disc jockey and not a professor who teaches our children

[roachboy]

"teaches our children"--what a load of crap--if your kid cannot make informed, adult decisions about information they encounter by the time they enter college, then the problem with that kid is probably more a function of yourself, ncb, than anything else.

"our children"---please.