More on Churchill and Tenure

In regards to the mushrooming Ward Churchill controversy, David Harsanyi’s column in this morning’s Post advocates market pressure from parents and students (let me add, taxpaying citizens) as a means of injecting massive doses of calcium into the backs of CU’s administrators.

Harsanyi certainly is doing his part to put on the pressure.

Mike Rosen has been tackling the issue head-on during his morning 850 KOA program.

This blog and others (especially Joshua’s) have been adding their voices, as well.

Even well-known highly liberal CU law professor Paul Campos makes the case for firing Churchill.

Colorado citizens send their tax dollars, many of whom also send their children (and in many cases their children’s tuition, as well) to CU. And this doesn’t even take into account those who pay their own tuition. Are Ward Churchill’s hyperradical ideas worthy of taxpayer subsidy?

It is common knowledge our public universities are welcome havens for all sorts of left-of-center ideas and causes, much more so than is accepted in the mainstream of society. Some embrace it as a haven for their left-of-center worldview, some make the case for more of a conservative balance on campuses, and some tolerate the kookiness and just accept it as just “the way it is.”

But I think just about everyone can agree that there are limits to the protections of academic freedom and tenure. Take liberal CU law professor Campos, who cites Churchill’s comparison of 9/11 victims to Adolf Eichmann as “intellectually bankrupt and morally depraved,” which Campos says are “sufficient grounds for firing tenured faculty.”

Who wants to step forward and disagree with Campos on that point?