I assume this has no chance of passage? Are people doing anything about it?

re: Churchill.

(a) I agree that there is a good 1st A argument here--although I think the standard for govt as employer (rather than govt vs. citizen) is still the Pickering-Connick test: Assuming matter of public concern (clear to me), does prof's speech interests outweigh college's interest in efficient/effective delivery of education/research etc?--rather than compelling state interest.  Still seems to me that he wins.

(b) I thought the purpose of tenure to assure our freedom to speak and research etc.-- but increasingly universities/colleges are trying to find ways to narrow that to our fields of expertise, etc. Check out the aaup statements on academic tenure and academic freedom--they have sometimes been champions of both.

 

This case seems so blatant to me because he's tenured--it gets stickier in other cases. (e.g. In today's Philadelphia Inquirer, there is a story of a Penn psych asst prof who seems to have little chance of getting tenure of the merits (no good pubs since 2001, lower student evaluations than others in the pscyh dept., refusal to retool his course in Psych of Ethnicity to satisfy his dept)--Anyway, his claim is that his job is being threatened by his views that Sept 11 attacks were an inside job, articles alleging NATO gframed Milosevic, and that US is secret enemy of Israel.--he's under review now.

	-----Original Message----- 

	From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk on behalf of Terence Lau 

	Sent: Thu 2/10/2005 8:06 PM 

	To: [log in to unmask] 

	Cc: 

	Subject: Re: Professor's First Amendment Protection?

	

	

	Think that’s bad?  Try Ohio Senate Bill 24.  For those of you not in Ohio, here’s the link: http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=126_SB_24

	 

	Note the language of paragraph C: Faculty shall not infringe academic freedom or quality of education by “persistently introducing controversial matter into the classroom…”

	 

	 

	

  _____  



	From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]

	Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 7:26 PM

	To: [log in to unmask]

	Subject: Professor's First Amendment Protection?

	 

	I am sure that most of us know the story (excerpts below) of the tenured professor at U. of Colo. who referred to the 9-11 victims as “little Eichmanns.” The governor has called for him to be fired. Maybe I missed it, but I have not seen or heard in the press or broadcast media any First Amendment argument being advanced on his behalf. Can anyone see a compelling state interest that would justify his firing?

	Keith

	BOULDER, Colo. (AP) - A University of Colorado professor who once compared some of the World Trade Center victims to a Nazi war criminal said Tuesday he mourns for everyone killed on Sept. 11 and conceded that he could have explained himself better.

	Ward Churchill made the comparison in an essay written hours after the 2001 attacks and later revised for a book. He called some victims "little Eichmanns," a reference to Adolf Eichmann, who organized the Nazi campaign to exterminate European Jews.

	****

	Gov. Bill Owens has called for Churchill to be fired, and the school is investigating whether the tenured professor of ethnic studies can be fired. …

	 

	ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

	Keith A. Maxwell

	Nat S. and Marian W. Rogers Professor   

	Professor of Legal Studies and Ethics

	School of Business and Leadership

	University of Puget Sound

	Tacoma, WA 98416

	Office Phone: 253.879.3703

	www.ups.edu/faculty/maxwell/home.htm

	ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo