University of CO professor Reprimanded
 

but it's ok, he's a conservative Christian. Nothing to see here, please move along...

Christian Professor Loses Job

by Steve Jordahl, correspondent

A University of Colorado professor has lost his teaching position because of his outspoken views and controversial personal beliefs—and it's not Ward Churchill.

Most Americans have no doubt heard of Churchill, the CU ethnic studies professor who compared the victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to Nazis. But he still has his job.

Phil Mitchell, a conservative Christian, does not. His offense? He assigned his history class to read "In His Steps" by Charles Sheldon, the book which in which the phrase "What would Jesus do?" was coined.

Mitchell said he was immediately terminated when one student complained to the history department about the assignment.

"I called the director of my program on Monday morning," Mitchell explained, "and he confirmed that the department was going to let me teach one more year and then I would no longer be permitted to teach history at the University of Colorado."

When asked about Mitchell, a secretary in the history department—who asked that she not be identified—angrily responded, "We don't let him teach here."

This isn't the first time Mitchell, who has taught at CU for more than 20 years, has taken heat for using conservative sources in his classes. He said that when he quoted from Thomas Sowell, a conservative black commentator, the department head berated him and called him a racist.

Ron Robinson, president of the Young America's Foundation, said what happened to Mitchell is a pretty obvious case of liberal bias.

"They know what they're doing," he said of University of Colorado officials. "They're freezing out conservative ideas; they're freezing out conservative professors."

The timing of the controversy is especially odd, considering how the campus has rallied around Churchill.

"I think it's interesting," Mitchell said. "People are marching for Ward's academic freedom, and I think—to a point—that's legitimate. I just wish somebody would march for mine. I don't have any."

http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0035825.cfm

Before I'd pass judgment I'd like to know what purpose "In his steps" had in a history class.

Not knowing, I agree that it was wrong to fire him for that. But that is qualified by not knowing what kind of history class it was and the relevance of the book to the class.

whoops - my mistake

The problems this teacher has had over a span of 20 years were glossed over in this article.
Where are the details? We're supposed to get upset without any evidence?

But it doesn't really matter, a lot of the "rallying" behind churchhill is related to his being tenured--not his personal position. Support has less to do with him than it has to do with support of the kind of protections tenure was designed to ensure.

Was this teacher tenured?

What smooth said and I'd add:

Correct me if I am wrong, but there is a significant difference between a professor expressing his opinion in public and a professor inserting material into a curriculum.

http://dirwww.colorado.edu/whitepage...full=100052236

Small detail:

He was just a lecturer, without tenure or any rehiring rights whatsoever.

Absolutly no comparison with Ward Churchill, who had been tenured for what, 20 years?

If Ward Churchill had also been a lecturer, he would have been out on his a$$ in 5 seconds.

And Churchill probably will end up leaving, anyway:

(no link available)

Whew, this is sticky.

I don't see any problem with using conservative sources in university classes, any more than I see a problem with using liberal sources. But when you start injecting religion into unrelated disciplines it gets very sticky.

Is using Christianity as a perspective on, say, history, any different than using Marxist theory? I would say that to the extent that Christianity relies on faith and interpretation versus logic and empirical reasoning, yes, there is a difference. If the purpose of University is to teach people to engage critically with the world, then the kind of sources that are appropriate are those that have an intellectual and not a spiritual basis.

Comparing the victims of the World Trade Center bombing to "Eichmanns" is definitely offensive, but it's something you can engage with on an intellectual level. Asking "what would Jesus do" in a history class requires people to accept a particular faith-based standpoint that, IMHO, is inappropriate in an academic setting.

I just checked the local news and the local paper and haven't been able to find anything on this.

What class(es) did he teach?

Could this have been pertinent to the class?

Hard to say without knowing what type of class this happened in.

Oops, hadn't seen the other posts in this thread. Nice to see we're all making the same point.

In general I don't have much sympathy for academic administration, but this guy knew he had no rights whatsoever. I'm sure with his notoriety he can find another lecturer position at a conservative college, where he'd probably be happier anyway.

To add: you gave us a very vague link from a pretty shady organization (Focus on the Family) that's run similarly to the 700 club.

You need to branch out a bit. This really shouldn't have been a thread. Much too filtered. (i.e. should have included some back up info from a more mainstream source)

Hmm, yeah, I'm sure a lot of the support for Churchill was because of tenure. But don't think he didn't get censured in other ways...there's a lot of things the administration can do to punish a tenured prof.
And a lecturer who's been having 20 years of problems? I'm surprised he stayed that long...

Is it me or has all the news coming out of CU lately been bad from the questionable academic assignments and inflammatory quotes, to the athletic department's misdeeds. Do they really have their heads up their collective asses, or is this the most ill-timed confluence of events ever?

I get the impression that CU Boulder is in "cleaning house" mode.

If you live in Denver, you would probably understand my point more as CU is getting slammed by every news organization (print/TV/Radio) over all kinds of things.

What you hear nationally is just a fraction of what we hear locally, and it has been going on for several years.

Aside from the fact that no mods have told you to post an opinion with your link or that the thread will be locked, I agree that there is nothing to see here. Who cares?

I saw this guy on O'reilly the other day. He says that he was lecturing on the protestant mindset or something along those lines, which rendered this particular book and the information it containd, relevant. He also stated the reason he wasn't tenured, was one of personal choice. He would rather be doing what he was doing.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149901,00.html

This kind of crap is happening more and more every day. Kudos to this guy for bringing it into media spotlight. I can't stand the way that Christians get picked on in universities. It's a sign of the times....

Nor are you getting in trouble for posting something that isn't related to the thread or for airing something in public that is best handled in PM's.

But hey, everyone here knows we're biased :hmm:

Well if what he's saying in the O'Reilly interview is true, then the "non-renewal of contract" (= firing) is disgusting. The reasons don't make any sense, and he's been a respected educator for 20 years.

But unfortunately he probably doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. Probably his only chance would be to shame them with publicity into keeping him on the payroll. He's doing exactly the right thing by taking it to the media. If they fire him, he could probably find an activist lawyer to embarrass them some more, which I would have no problem with whatsoever, if the details are as he describes them.

Bottom line, he is an excellent, talented teacher. And that was all he was required to be in his job.

All that said, this is not the same as the Churchill case, as has already been pointed out.

While the proff wouldn't seem to have any practical legal recourse, he seems well aware of the climate there (most proffs learn this quick), and he seems to have taken the issue in stride in spite of O'riley trying to make it into the old "us VS them".

I'll grant him a modicrum of bitterness, I'ld be pissed if I got fired, my fault or not. :)

If he included the book for the stated reason, then it sounds fine to me. (Never read the book, never took the course so I could be way off)
We go over stuff that I find offensive in class, but in the context, it has always made sense.

Self-concious is walking into the pub library and handing the nice, older, black woman there the copy of "Toms, Coons, Mammies, Mulattoes, and Bucks" I needed for theory this year.
-fibber

Raveneye, it's be cheaper and easier to fire Churchill for plagarism....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7156384/

Yeah--Professors' paychecks.

KMA,

Can you drop a little insight from a Colorado perspective? Also, since there's more news there can you give us some context?

Also, is there any major differences in perspective between Boulder and Denver? I am under the impression that they are very different cities.

What the heck is going on here? It has been my experience that people who call themselves liberal are usually very tolerant of differing ideas. I am surprised by the professor's remarks below from the Fox interview regarding "leftist" intolerance. I would normally think that the tolerant viewpoint would be dominant and the professor could continue teaching.

Boulder is to Colorado as Berkely is to California--it is fair to say that these are the most liberal towns in these states.

However, Boulder is a gorgeous city. One of the major projects I worked on was in Boulder, so I was pretty much up there every day--for the most part, I like Boulder (better looking women than Denver too, but I digress)

Some more news came on the radio this morning: The local news radio station is reporting the CU Boulder suddenly called off the "buyout" talks (with no explanation why), but they added "all options are still on the table". They are reporting that the talks were stopped because of the plagiarism charges and the teacher scuttling charges--but that is purely conjecture as this information is not new, if these things were bad enough to stall talks, the talks never should have happened.

Here are the issues they (they being the media) cite with Churchill: Plagiarism, making up facts for his research papers (some of them), scuttling another teacher (a Canadian), given the job under AA (his minority status is in dispute), intimidation of students that disagree with him, and being given tenure as a gift, not earning it (he got tenure really quickly).

Rather than requote the media, here are come links to the local news here in Denver with "churchill" search terms:
The Rocky Mountian News
The Denver Post
9news - Local NBC

Plus, more news about CU Boulder, some pretty heavy accusations of racism (odd for such a liberal school and town).
Charges of racism at CU Boulder


As I mentioned, the media here has their targets on CU Boulder, and have for quite awhile:

1) Rape
2) Sexual Harassment
3) Football Recruiting: Underage drinking/hookers, etc
4) Many questions about School expenditures ($500,000 worth of alcohol bought from a company owned by somebody that works at the school or has some association with the school)
5) The Churchill story
6) And the new racism story

There's more, but that's all I can think of off the top of my head.

Around here, you pretty much get tired of hearing about CU.

While I won't force my kids to go/not go to a certain college, I will obviously discourage them from going to CU--there are many other colleges here in Colorado that are better, in my opinion.

Edit: Interestingly enough, the story about the Christian teacher losing his job gets ZERO media play here in Colorado. I have only seen this story on the link in this thread and the O'Reilly interview.

I find that a little odd since we get a daily diluge of CU stories around here--but no one is talking about this particular teacher.

Thank you KMA, for your brief summation and overview. It is well structured and organized. I found it to be very helpful. Further, it really opens up insight into the issues there.

I also find it weird that the Mitchell story got so little coverage. I appears (to me) to be a double standard, or the media fell asleep, or thought the story wasn't "juicy" enough. All very poor reasons in my opinion.

What ither colleges are in the area besides CU at Boulder?

The media in Boulder is pathetic. The only reason the Churchill issue has been such a hot topic here (I live in Boulder) is because it was so big nationally. If the Mitchell issue had received such national coverage, you would certainly have seen exactly the same amount of coverage in the Boulder media.

Overall, I'm rather pissed at CU in regards to Churchill. It's a total witch hunt. That they would even offer a buyout, and that they've taken it off the table now because they might be able to find a cheap way out of a public relations issue, is pathetic. They know they should be standing behind Churchill, whether they agree with his opinion or not - but instead, they're looking for anything that will get them out of the spotlight. At this point it wouldn't shock me to find out the IRS is going to audit the man.

While I am not a big fan of the local media here, this is not an accurate statement.

As I mentioned earlier, CU Boulder has been in the news, a lot, and not just for Churchill (see my list above).

Most of these issues see very little national airtime, but we hear quite a bit about them around here.

Of all the criticism levied at CU Boulder (above and beyond Churchill), there isn't even a whisper, locally, about Mitchell.

Are the other charges against Churchill a witch-hunt? Do you know if they are true or not? Does it even matter to you?

Yes, it is an accurate statement. The statement is that if Mitchell had received as much national media attention as Churchill, the Boulder press would have given it as much attention as it has Churchill.
I am well aware that there are events that take place in Boulder that are reported in the local news and not reported nationally. That does not make my statement inaccurate. Churchill did not deserve national or local coverage, Mitchell does not deserve national or local coverage. Churchill received national coverage because his essay was quickly misquoted into a very shocking sound bite. As a result, he received local coverage of epic proportions. Mitchell has no sound bite, he has no national coverage, he has no local Boulder media coverage. Though you might hear something from Wayne @ The Boulder Weekly ... but he'll jump on anything, so who knows.
Whether they are true or not has no bearing on whether this is a witch hunt. The other issues only became important when it was determined that CU public relations would be "better" if Churchill could be fired. An 8 year old plagarism accusation from someone in Denmark? Suddenly his heritage is in question? Please. :rolleyes: There is no question that CU prefers to get rid of Churchill - if this were not the case, they would not have been looking to buy out his contract. And that's the issue - CU absolutely should not be trying to get rid of Churchill, they should be supporting him as much as possible. Any possible questions on his history should be very specifically placed on a back burner by CU until they have successfully, and rightly, defended him as he is being attacked for his essay. CU should have released a statement to that effect long ago. But they didn't, because they're sell outs. Reprehensible. I too would discourage my children from going to CU - specifically because the administration has such disdain for academe.

Just my opinion, but the value of a degree from this school is becoming laughable. Talk about extremism, this is wild!!

To return to Dr. Mitchell . . .

I just re-read the thread opener article and the editorial below that I found in the Denver Post (dated March 8).

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...748616,00.html

If you read carefully you will see that Dr. Mitchell was NOT fired. He is still on the payroll, but is not allowed to teach courses in the history department.

When you consider that probably hundreds of non-tenured professors are dismissed every year, for all kinds of ridiculous reasons, and that Mitchell was not fired, just reassigned, then it is no surprise that this is not a big story.

FYI,

Whatever I feel about the number 1 party school or for that matter, the People's Republic of Boulder in general, CU is commonly acknowledged to be among the leaders as far as the astro-sciences goes.