Ward Churchill: A sad look at a sick academic bubble
LeMod Pol
Ward Churchill: A sad look at a sick academic bubble
By Mark Goldblatt
The recent controversy over the writings of Ward
Churchill, radical activist, faux Indian, and tenured
professor of ethnic studies at the University of
Colorado, raises a number of serious academic issues ―
which, let me underscore, does not mean that Churchill
himself is in any way serious. On the contrary,
Churchill is as unserious as anyone ever paid to stand
in front of a classroom, an intellectual featherweight
whose ideas are less politically scandalous than
buffoonishly wrongheaded. Case in point is his
assertion that the victims of the World Trade Center
attack got what was coming to them: "If there was a
better, more effective, or in fact any other way of
visiting some penalty befitting their participation
upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile
sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested
in hearing about it."
Churchill's own attempt to clarify what he meant by
this is telling: "I have never characterized all the
September 11 victims as 'Nazis.' What I said was that
the ‘ technocrats of empire’ working in the World Trade
Center were the equivalent of ‘little Eichmanns.’ '
Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but
with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure
that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German
industrialists were legitimately targeted by the
Allies."
To make sense of Churchill's clarification, a reader
has to accept the following premises: 1) the United
States government is actively and intentionally engaged
in genocide; 2) the hijackers, contrary to their own
claims, were attempting to defend individual freedom
rather than advance a totalitarian spiritual regime; 3)
the ideological agenda of the hijackers represents the
true aspirations of the people on whose behalf they
claim to act.
Each of these premises is false based on a
preponderance of evidence. But that understates the
point; all three are so utterly false that failure to
recognize their falsehood, in effect, betrays a
cognitive disability. Yet I'd estimate ten percent of
American college professors ― and I'm low-balling that
figure ― would accept them as probably or at least
partially true. (If you substitute "corporate
capitalists" for "the United States government" in the
first premise ― i.e. "Corporate capitalists are
actively and intentionally engaged in genocide" ―
assent among college faculty probably rises to 25
percent.) These are credentialed adults who are
initially hired to instruct, and who are eventually
tenured to profess...yet they're professionally,
stupendously, tenaciously, defiantly, demonstrably
wrong.
That is the gist of the problem.
If we take as axiomatic the principle that colleges
exist in order to pursue and disseminate the truth, it
follows that no accredited mathematics department would
employ a teacher who denied, say, that base angles of
an isosceles triangle are equal; that no physics
department would employ a teacher who denied the force
of gravity; that no chemistry department would employ a
teacher who denied that protons and neutrons are found
in the nuclei of atoms; that no biology department
would employ a teacher who denied that green plants
convert light energy into chemical energy by
photosynthesis. The hard sciences, in other words, are
bound in their fidelity to truth not only by
traditional logic and empirical evidence but by a
demand for coherence within a framework of what is
already known. Faculty in hard sciences seek to push
the envelope of knowledge, not to "deconstruct" it.
(Deconstruct v.t. To affect intellectual depth by
teasing out secondary and tertiary senses of a term
until it belies its original meaning.) It is
exceedingly rare, therefore, to find a professor in a
hard science espousing irrational, unsupportable
theories.
Not so in the social sciences. To be sure, no history
department would, in the current academic climate,
employ a teacher who openly argued that the Holocaust
never happened. But this is a matter of political
expediency, not material certainty. On the contrary,
many history departments employ teachers steeped in
postmodern thinking, who hold, for example, that the
perception of a reality existing independently of
thought and language is illusory, that "reality" is in
fact a linguistic construct of the phenomena of
subjective experience which is continually adjusted in
response to a fluid social consensus. But if there's no
such thing as an independent reality, then there can be
no reality check. There's no test for truth. And that,
my friends, is Holocaust denial ― one step removed.
Postmodern thought has taken root across the social
sciences, spawning all manner of loopy theoretical
posturing in history, psychology, sociology,
anthropology, linguistics, political science, and even
philosophy itself.
Still further down the epistemological food chain come
literature and art, pseudo-disciplines hoist on the
ouija-board wonkery of aesthetic judgment. The truth
value of a work is gauged neither by correspondence
with an independent reality nor even, for the last
quarter century, by it coherence within a canonical
framework; rather, truth value is a function of whether
the work pleases the teacher. Subjectivity, therefore,
rules. Literature and art departments often employ
faculty members whose theories are not just at variance
with one another but are mutually exclusive. It is not
unusual, nowadays, for two students at the same college
to sign up for the same survey course the same semester
with two different professors and discover they're
learning nothing in common.
But the epistemological nadir of any university is
found in the wacky world of ethnic and gender studies:
black studies, Africana studies, Chicano studies,
Latino studies, Puerto Rican studies, Middle Eastern
studies, Native American studies, women's studies, gay
and lesbian studies, et al. The suggestion that
"studying" is involved in any of these subjects is
laughable; they are quasi-religious advocacy groups
whose curricula run the gamut from historical wish
fulfillment (the ancient Egyptians were black; the U.S.
Constitution was derived from the Iroquois Nation) to
political axe grinding (the Israelis are committing
genocide against the Palestinians; the U.S. is
committing genocide against the people of Cuba) to
gynocentric self-help (reasoning from verifiable data
is a tool of male domination, to which the experiential
impressions of women are a necessary antidote) to
circumstantial special pleading (Lincoln was gay
because, well, he was a nice guy; Hitler, not so nice,
therefore not gay). Contesting the status quo is the
raison d'etre of these departments. No idea is beyond
the pale ― except, of course, the suggestion that the
status quo might somehow be valid.
Which returns us to Ward Churchill, professor of ethnic
studies, University of Colorado. In one sense, he's
like a thousand other burnt-out refugees from the 1960s
who avoided a full-time job long enough to acquire
multiple university degrees. Along the way, however, he
convinced lots of people that he was a Cherokee Indian
― apparently on the basis of an honorary tribal
membership ― and thus tapped into the vast reservoir of
white liberal guilt flowing through the halls of
academia. Most critically, he found outlets to publish
crypto-Marxist rants and thereby distinguished himself
from the vast majority of his invincibly ignorant
peers. That publishing record, in turn, allowed him to
command not only his tenured professorship, but
activist committee posts and lucrative speaking
engagements at campuses nationwide.
So who published Ward Churchill?
Well, there's AK Press. Publisher's mission statement:
AK Press is a worker run book publisher and distributor
organized around anarchist principles. . . . Our goal
is to make available radical books and other materials,
titles that are published by independent presses, not
the corporate giants, titles with which you can make a
positive change in the world.
Then there's South End Press. Publisher's mission
statement:
Since our founding in 1977, we have tried to meet the
needs of readers who are exploring, or are already
committed to, the politics of radical social change. .
. . In this way, we hope to give expression to a wide
diversity of democratic social movements and to provide
an alternative to the products of corporate publishing.
Finally, there's City Lights Books. Manuscript
submission guidelines:
City Lights Books is a publisher of fiction, essays,
memoirs, translations, poetry, and books on social and
political issues. We publish a dozen new books a year
and are committed to providing the finest works of
vanguard literature and oppositional politics.
In other words, Churchill hooked up with like-minded
lefties, networked himself into book contracts,
parlayed these into academic prestige and political
name recognition ― and thus a wholly unserious man who
says wholly unserious things wound up being taken very
seriously. In a more rational world, Churchill would be
an amateur conspiracy theorist with a chip on his
shoulder, the type who spends an hour on hold with
CSPAN to spew 15 seconds of venom before Brian Lamb
cuts him off. In our world, Churchill is a cause
c l bre.
So what's to be done with him?
The fact that he has tenure must, I'm afraid, be taken
into account. Firing him, or forcing him to resign,
might be morally satisfying but would be a tactical
error. It would confer martyr status on him, and it
would be interpreted by his students, and by Churchill
himself, as punishment for speaking the truth to power.
Besides, the fault here does not lie with Churchill;
he's a symptom, not a disease. The fault lies,
generally, with the sick academic culture in which he
has thrived, and, specifically, with the administrative
weasels at the University of Colorado who have
repeatedly rewarded his dubious critical achievements.
What should be done with Churchill, therefore,
is...nothing. His notoriety should stand as an ongoing
monument to the decay of intellectual standards in
higher education, and his professorship as an ongoing
monument to the intellectual cowardice of the school
which hired and tenured him.
Thus, inadvertently, Ward Churchill might teach us all
a lesson.
Mark Goldblatt teaches at SUNY's Fashion Institute of
Technology. His new novel is "Africa Speaks".
--
LP
"We are fighting today for security, for progress,
and for peace, not only for ourselves but for all
men, not only for one generation but for all
generations. We are fighting to cleanse the world
of ancient evils, ancient ills."
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
State of the Union Address - 1942
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
QuestionIsrael
> Ward Churchill: A sad look at a sick academic bubble
>
> By Mark Goldblatt
Lets guess. The author is a big time backer of Israel.
> The recent controversy over the writings of Ward
> Churchill, radical activist, faux Indian, and tenured
> professor of ethnic studies at the University of
> Colorado, raises a number of serious academic issues ¯
> which, let me underscore, does not mean that Churchill
> himself is in any way serious. On the contrary,
> Churchill is as unserious as anyone ever paid to stand
> in front of a classroom, an intellectual featherweight
> whose ideas are less politically scandalous than
> buffoonishly wrongheaded. Case in point is his
> assertion that the victims of the World Trade Center
> attack got what was coming to them: "If there was a
> better, more effective, or in fact any other way of
> visiting some penalty befitting their participation
> upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile
> sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested
> in hearing about it."
Hasn't bin Laden himself said he attacked the WTC because he saw it as
the seat of the US economic empire?
Churchill is a lefty America hater, but what he says is not inaccurate.
The US is financing a brutal, never ending, occupation of a people it
has no quarrel with. The 9/11 attack was retaliation for the US siding
so heavily with Israel against the Palestinians.
-Steve
zzbu...@netscape.net
But, the us retaliation for 9/11 is a never-ending
retaliation against all assholes who even heard of the
middle east. No just Bin Laden, and Hussein,
but the Koreans, and Chinese, French Exocet Builders,
and even US press assholes, like Enron, The New York Times,
ABC, CBS, NBC, IBM.
All Assholes with Die.
>
> -Steve
HymieGoldstein
Amendment. Thank God we live in a country where such speech can be discussed
instead of having the author tossed into prison or muzzled.
If Free Speech frightens you, perhanps a refresher course in American
History and Civics might be in order.
zzbu...@netscape.net
Like hell it can disussed, when the only thing
Lawyers know about the First Ammendent, is
the Second Ammendent, and flags. So the rest of us
don't live in Main Street, Washington, take
the Stealth Bombers, and spot the CIA, Israel,
and The Bronx, a Nuclear Submarine, The Air Force,
10 points, and China in a race to the finish line on Mars.
Willow Ufgood
Ward Churchill is the one that is frightened of free speech, genius.
The fake-Indian hypocrite says that he is allowed to censor people who's
views offend him.
QuestionIsrael
so what. He is still presenting an alternative viewpoint, that has
validity, to his students. How is it wrong for a college professor to
do that?
The US was attacked because it is financing the occupation of the
Palestinians and otherwise meddling in the ME on behalf of Israel.
Many of those in the power structure who are attacking Churchill are
doing so because they dont want that topic discussed by the American
public.
-Steve
Jim E
"Willow Ufgood" <wil...@nelwyn.org> wrote in message
news:372vvmF...@individual.net...
He can say whatever he wants, just as long as I don't have to pay him for
saying it.
Fire his ass, then let him blather from a street corner, where he will do
less damage to the education system.
Jim E
LeMod Pol
He can say what he likes --- but not in the classroom
where students must repeat his garbage in order to get
a grade -- that constitutes brainwashing - not teaching.
Hoover
in a prison and let to rot
"LeMod Pol" <mod...@igs.net> wrote in message
news:420E7741...@igs.net...
LeMod Pol
Who's Being Silenced?
By Jonathan Tobin
Free-speech cases show us tolerance is a two-way street
Taking the temperature of our democracy is always a
tricky business. The surest way to see how we're doing
is to see how willing we are to tolerate obnoxious
speech.
The latest poster child for the cause of unpopular free
speech is a Colorado academic named Ward Churchill. A
left-wing extremist and Native American activist,
Churchill earned his proverbial 15 minutes of fame by
writing shortly after the Sept. 11 terror attacks that
the thousands of murder victims who were slain by
Islamic radicals deserved to die. For him, they were
corporate tools who were "little Eichmanns" because
they were complicit in sanctions against Saddam
Hussein's Iraq.
Later, he added that another possible justification for
the Al-Qa'eda attack was the plight of the
Palestinians.
Few outside of Colorado University, where he teaches,
had ever heard of him; even fewer had read the essay in
which he made this astonishing and utterly vile
statement.
But following his being tapped as a guest speaker at
Hamilton College, he was outed as a wacko on Bill
O'Reilly's Fox News cable show, and an ocean of protest
swept over the school's upstate New York campus.
At first, the school booked a larger hall for
Churchill's speech. Then, realizing that giving a
lunatic a platform was hurting fundraising and the
ability to recruit students, they canceled him. The
attention focused on Churchill's loony radicalism also
forced him to resign as head of his department.
All of which makes Churchill a victim in the eyes of
some. They blame O'Reilly for serving as the ringleader
of a mob that sought to extinguish free speech.
THE NEW ‘MCCARTHYISM’?
Others denounce those who are offended by the abusive
language used by radio "shock jocks" like Howard Stern.
The right of the federal government to fine stations
that broadcast smut is more than debatable. But
protests that seek to shame stations into upholding
decency standards are not attacks on free speech; they
are merely attempts to hold the sponsors of programming
accountable for their product.
The same allegation of "McCarthyism" has been applied
to JWR columnist Daniel Pipes, the think-tank head who
created a Web site devoted to monitoring anti-Israel
extremism on American campuses. When Pipes' Middle East
Forum produced its Campus-watch.com, those involved in
Middle East Studies, where such extremism flourishes,
roundly denounced the site as an assault on free speech
and academic freedom.
What some of us seem to forget is that there is a
difference between squelching the right of others to
speak out and merely pointing out what it is that they
are saying. Holding institutions or individuals
accountable for the things said in their name is not an
attempt at repression. It's democracy.
That doesn't excuse the threats and abuse that were
subsequently thrown at Churchill or Hamilton College by
outraged viewers, who quickly sank in their reactions
to the radical's level.
Maybe Hamilton shouldn't have invited him. But had the
school chosen to go through with the event, no one
would have had the right to try to push him off the
stage.
Ironically, that is not a right that's always respected
by Pipes' critics. When that redoubtable scholar speaks
on certain campuses, his appearance has been greeted
with attempts to suppress his right to speak because
some Arab-Americans and their sympathizers think anyone
who supports Israel, or who properly identifies radical
Islam as a threat, shouldn't be allowed to talk. And
that is part of the problem that many of us have with
free speech. As civil libertarian Nat Hentoff has put
it, most of us are for "free speech for me, but not for
thee."
Even more troubling is when groups that are themselves
often marginalized resort to the same sort of
heavy-handed tactics that were once used against them.
WHERE'S THE ACLU?
Here in Philadelphia last fall, a gay-pride street fair
called the "Outfest" was the scene of an instance where
the dividing line between permissible protest and
criminal behavior may have been crossed.
At the Outfest, a handful of evangelical Christians who
go under the name "Repent America" attended, carrying
bullhorns they used to spout anti-gay slogans. After a
confrontation with police, they were arrested.
But rather than just slap them with disorderly-conduct
charges, as has been the case with other protesters in
this city (such as those who attempted to disrupt
traffic during the Republican National Convention in
2000), the district attorney pressed felony charges
that could land Richard Marcavage, the leader of this
radical-right splinter group, in jail for years.
Ominously, the local American Civil Liberties Union
refused to jump to the right-winger's defense. That's
inconsistent with the ACLU's history, since this is the
same group that defended the right of American Nazis to
march through a neighborhood full of Holocaust
survivors in spite of arguments that such an action was
also an invitation to mayhem.
For the ACLU, and for a Philadelphia District Attorney
who is up for re-election this year, the need to
protect free speech doesn't extend to cranks if they
offend the sensibilities of their current donor base.
Defenders of these draconian charges — which the courts
are all but certain to eventually dismiss — will claim
that Marcavage's appearance at Outfest serves as an
example of what U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver
Wendell Holmes was talking about when he wrote in 1919
that "the most stringent protection of free speech
would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a
crowded theater and causing a panic."
But the chances of proving that even Marcavage's
unwelcome presence was, to use Holmes' dictum, "of such
a nature as to create a clear and present danger" are
virtually nil. The point of the prosecution is to deter
future protest — something that might be good for
domestic tranquility but a clear violation of
Marcavage's right to have his say, even if most of us
believe he would be better off keeping quiet.
All of which leads me back to Hentoff's rule about
tolerance. We have the right to expose to the light of
day things we oppose. But we don't have the right to
silence our opponents. Too bad that's a simple rule
that some in academia, and even the legal profession,
are still tripping over.
Jonathan S. Tobin is executive editor of the
Philadelphia Jewish Exponent.
© 2004, Jonathan Tobin
LeMod Pol
Not Crazy Horse, just Crazy
By Ann Coulter
University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill has
written that "unquestionably, America has earned" the
attack of 9/11. He calls the attack itself a result of
"gallant sacrifices of the combat teams." That the
"combat teams" killed only 3,000 Americans, he says,
show they were not "unreasonable or vindictive." He
says that in order to even the score with America,
Muslim terrorists "would, at a minimum, have to blow up
about 300,000 more buildings and kill something on the
order of 7.5 million people."
To grasp the current state of higher education in
America, consider that if Churchill is at any risk at
all of being fired, it is only because he smokes.
Churchill poses as a radical living on the edge,
supremely confident that he is protected by tenure from
being fired. College professors are the only people in
America who assume they can't be fired for what they
say.
Tenure was supposed to create an atmosphere of open
debate and inquiry, but instead has created havens for
talentless cowards who want to be insulated from life.
Rather than fostering a climate of open inquiry,
college campuses have become fascist colonies of
anti-American hate speech, hypersensitivity, speech
codes, banned words and prohibited scientific inquiry.
Even liberals don't try to defend Churchill on grounds
that he is Galileo pursuing an abstract search for the
truth. They simply invoke "free speech," like a deus ex
machina to end all discussion. Like the words "diverse"
and "tolerance," "free speech" means nothing but: "Shut
up, we win." It's free speech (for liberals), diversity
(of liberals) and tolerance (toward liberals).
Ironically, it is precisely because Churchill is paid
by the taxpayers that "free speech" is implicated at
all. The Constitution has nothing to say about the
private sector firing employees for their speech.
That's why you don't see Bill Maher on ABC anymore.
Other well-known people who have been punished by their
employers for their "free speech" include Al Campanis,
Jimmy Breslin, Rush Limbaugh, Jimmy the Greek and Andy
Rooney.
In fact, the Constitution says nothing about state
governments firing employees for their speech: The
First Amendment clearly says, "Congress shall make no
law ... abridging the freedom of speech." Firing Ward
Churchill is a pseudo-problem caused by modern
constitutional law, which willy-nilly applies the Bill
of Rights to the states -- including the one amendment
that clearly refers only to "Congress." (Liberals love
to go around blustering "'no law' means 'no law'!" But
apparently "Congress" doesn't mean "Congress.")
Even accepting the modern notion that the First
Amendment applies to state governments, the Supreme
Court has distinguished between the government as
sovereign and the government as employer. The
government is extremely limited in its ability to
regulate the speech of private citizens, but not so
limited in regulating the speech of its own employees.
So the First Amendment and "free speech" are really red
herrings when it comes to whether Ward Churchill can be
fired. Even state universities will not run afoul of
the Constitution for firing a professor who is
incapable of doing his job because he is a lunatic, an
incompetent or an idiot - and those determinations
would obviously turn on the professor's "speech."
If a math professor's "speech" consisted of insisting
that 2 plus 2 equals 5, or an astrophysicist's "speech"
was to claim that the moon is made of Swiss cheese, or
a history professor's "speech" consisted of rants about
the racial inferiority of the n---s, each one of them
could be fired by a state university without running
afoul of the constitution.
Just because we don't have bright lines for determining
what speech can constitute a firing offense, doesn't
mean there are no lines at all. If Churchill hasn't
crossed them, we are admitting that almost nothing will
debase and disgrace the office of professor (except,
you know, suggesting that there might be innate
differences in the mathematical abilities of men and
women).
In addition to calling Americans murdered on 9/11
"little Eichmanns," Churchill has said:
* The U.S. Army gave blankets infected with
smallpox to the Indians specifically intending to
spread the disease.
Not only are the diseased-blanket stories cited by
Churchill denied by his alleged sources, but the very
idea is contradicted by the facts of scientific
discovery. The settlers didn't understand the mechanism
of how disease was transmitted. Until Louis Pasteur's
experiments in the second half of the 19th century, the
idea that disease could be caused by living organisms
was as scientifically accepted as crystal reading is
today. Even after Pasteur, many scientists continued to
believe disease was spontaneously generated from
within. Churchill is imbuing the settlers with
knowledge that in most cases wouldn't be accepted for
another hundred years.
* Indian reservations are the equivalent of Nazi
concentration camps.
I forgot Auschwitz had a casino.
If Ward Churchill can be a college professor, what's
David Duke waiting for?
The whole idea behind free speech is that in a
marketplace of ideas, the truth will prevail. But
liberals believe there is no such thing as truth and no
idea can ever be false (unless it makes feminists cry,
such as the idea that there are innate differences
between men and women). Liberals are so enamored with
the process of free speech that they have forgotten
about the goal.
Faced with a professor who is a screaming lunatic, they
retreat to, "Yes, but academic freedom, tenure, free
speech, blah, blah," and their little liberal minds go
into autopilot with all the slogans.
Why is it, again, that we are so committed to never,
ever firing professors for their speech? Because we
can't trust state officials to draw any lines at all
here? Because ... because ... because they might start
with crackpots like Ward Churchill -- but soon liberals
would be endangered? Liberals don't think there is any
conceivable line between them and Churchill? Ipse
dixit.
Ann Coulter is the author of, most recently,
"How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) :
The World According to Ann Coulter".
Copyright ©2005 Universial Media
- -
LP
"Those who show compassion to perpetrators of evil,
will display indifference and cruelty to good people
deserving compassion." - Talmud
~~~~~~
LeMod Pol
Who's Being Silenced?
By Jonathan Tobin
are all but certain to eventually dismiss - will claim
--
LP
"Those who show compassion to perpetrators of evil
h...@nospam.com
>
>
>Not Crazy Horse, just Crazy
>
>By Ann Coulter
>
I wonder if she is still insisting that Canada fought in Vietnam.
Hal
Lazarus
> Not Crazy Horse, just Crazy
>
> By Ann Coulter
Is this the pot calling the kettle black, or Joseph Goebbels calling Ilya
Ehrenburg a bloated windbag?
Jim E
"Lazarus" <no....@this.address> wrote in message
news:1108670536.dabb6bd898d62f1d17346509aff280cb@teranews...
Neither, this is a rational explanation of why that screaming crazy shit
W.Churchill should be looking for a job.
Sergeant America
Ann Coulter is right on the money -- as usual:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17066
Lazarus
> Lazarus wrote:
> > "LeMod Pol" <mod...@igs.net> wrote...
> >
> > > Not Crazy Horse, just Crazy
> > >
> > > By Ann Coulter
> > Is this the pot calling the kettle black, or Joseph Goebbels calling
Ilya
> > Ehrenburg a bloated windbag?
> Ann Coulter is right on the money -- as usual:
"Money" being the operative word, of course. The only difference between
Ann Coulter and JeffJim Guckert is that JimJeff appears to be disease-free.
Dana
>
> Who's Being Silenced?
>
> By Jonathan Tobin
>
> Free-speech cases show us tolerance is a two-way street
>
> Taking the temperature of our democracy is always a
> tricky business. The surest way to see how we're doing
> is to see how willing we are to tolerate obnoxious
> speech.
>
> The latest poster child for the cause of unpopular free
> speech is a Colorado academic named Ward Churchill.
The guy who lied and claimed he was a native American. There is not one drop
of indian blood in this man's blood. Yet he was given his position at the
university based on his fradulent claim that he has some native American
blood in him.
Then the asshole turns around and says the 3000 innocent people killed on
9-11 had it coming to them just because they were Americans. Guess the fool
did not realize that foreign nationals were among those killed in the WTC.