by TChris

During February, PBS will air Slavery and the Making of America, a four-part series "documenting the history of American slavery from its beginnings in the British colonies to its end in the Southern states and the years of post-Civil War Reconstruction."

As one reviewer notes, it's worth reflecting on the disgrace of our past to better comprehend the present.

To have a real understanding of America -- its history and its values, its economic growth and social order -- it's important to know more about slavery in America and its development and dimensions. In the words of James Oliver Horton, a professor at George Washington University, "Slavery was no side show in American history -- it was the main event."

by TChris

Some members of Congress evidently believe the First Amendment doesn't apply to law schools. Representatives recently voted (by 327 to 84) to support a resolution encouraging the executive branch to challenge a Third Circuit decision that upheld the right of law schools to ban military recruiters from their campuses without losing federal funding. The military needs more lawyers, but some law schools prefer not to be associated with the military's discriminatory policies.

The 2-to-1 [court] decision relied in large part on a ruling in 2000 by the Supreme Court to allow the Boy Scouts to exclude gay scoutmasters. Just as the Scouts have a First Amendment right to bar gays, the appeals court said, law schools may prohibit groups that they consider discriminatory.

Representative Tammy Baldwin explains why the resolution (like the law withholding federal funds from campuses that "obstruct" military recruiting) is short-sighted.

"We should be looking at ways to strengthen our military and expand our resources," Ms. Baldwin said. "When will we have the debate about the harm caused by excluding many qualified, skilled Americans from serving in our military simply because they are gay or lesbian?"

The Rocky Mountain News today has a very interesting article on the concept of "collective guilt" in the context of the Ward Churchill controversy. The News traces the concept back to the bible and reports that it is very controversial.

The idea that an entire people can be guilty of common sins goes all the way back to the Bible, but in more recent times it's come to be known as "collective guilt." The concept is controversial, but discussions of collective guilt always tend to go back to the Germany of the 1930s.

...But many people believe the entire notion of collective guilt is wrong. "The whole development of European and American law is that there's personal responsibility," said Professor Robert Schulzinger, who teaches U.S. diplomatic history at the University of Colorado. "That was the whole idea behind Nuremberg, identifying the individuals responsible." Schulzinger believes the idea of collective guilt is inherently racist.

The article then quotes some Holocaust survivors on the issue of whether German citizens who stood by and did nothing knowing what their government was doing to Jews also were responsible for the genocide.

The Rocky Mountain News has extensive coverage of Ward Churchill today, including an article that quotes legal experts, including Churchill's veteran and prominent civil liberties attorney, David Lane, who explain why Churchill's job is not in danger. Unless, of course, Colorado wants to pay some big bucks to Churchill when it loses the lawsuit Churchill would file over such a firing.

I agree, particulary with the point that because the University of Colorado is a publicly funded institution, Churchill's job actually is safer than it would be if he were teaching at a private college like the University of Denver.

Here are excerpts from an interview with Churchill conducted at his home Friday. He is not sorry, and he will fight back.

Here is the text of a memo from C.U. President Elizabeth Hoffman to university faculty yesterday on academic freedom.

Churchill will be speaking at the University of Colorado in Boulder on Tuesday night. Churchill has arranged for personal security.

John Gibson, subbing for Bill O'Reilly tonight on Fox, interviewed two of Professor Ward Churchill's students, both of whom support Churchill's right to express his views. One of the students, Dustin Craun, was arrested at the C.U. Regents meeting yesterday.

Student Chris Maes was repeatedly asked whether he agrees with Churchill's views. He responded that his own views are not the issue. Maes kept the converstation to what he sees as the real issue: Whether Churchill has the right to express his views.

Maes believes that Churchill is a wonderful man who is being slandered. How so? Because people are taking the essence of his book out of perspective.

Gibson asked why Churchill should not be fired, if not for his views, then for his incompetence? Craun responded that Churchill has published 25 books and is not incompetent. Craun asserted that Churchill's view is that the U.S. has had a history of continuous warfare since 1776 and that if you continue to kill people's children, you can expect them to retaliate.

A scuffle by protesters at the C.U. Regents meeting over Professor Ward Churchill resulted in two arrests Thursday. The Regents apologized to the nation over Churchill's writings. Was this necessary?

In what may be an unprecedented action by any major university, the regents also apologized "to all Americans, especially those targeted in the 9/11 attacks and those serving in our armed forces, for the disgraceful comments of professor Churchill."

The Colorado Senate has condemned Churchill, as has the Colorado House.

Is Colorado getting carried away with the Ward Churchill matter? I think so, and said so yesterday over at 5280. The magazine's publisher, Dan Brogan, disagrees with me.

University of Colorado professors are backing Churchill. The Regents sound like they are about to fire him, although they took it under advisement for investigation.

The regents' review, which will be conducted by interim chancellor Phil DiStefano, will determine whether Churchill overstepped his bounds as a faculty member and whether his actions are cause for dismissal. DiStefano will explore two questions: Do Churchill's comments provide grounds for dismissal? And is this conduct or speech protected by the First Amendment against university action?

You can read his controversial essay here.

[comments now closed, 120 posted.]

From the ACLU. Watch this, it's priceless. I may never order a pizza again.

University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill released this statement in response to the criticism over his past 9/11 remarks. Hamilton College today canceled Professor Churchill's talk, citing numerous death threats.

Background and details are here.

by TChris

How scary is it that one in three high school students surveyed by the University of Connecticut failed to appreciate the rights and freedoms associated with the First Amendment?

The survey of 112,003 students finds that 36% believe newspapers should get "government approval" of stories before publishing .... Asked whether the press enjoys "too much freedom," not enough or about the right amount, 32% say "too much," and 37% say it has the right amount.

Jack Dvorak, director of the High School Journalism Institute at Indiana University in Bloomington, has a point:

The survey "confirms what a lot of people who are interested in this area have known for a long time," he says: Kids aren't learning enough about the First Amendment in history, civics or English classes.

Via Human Rights First:

On January 26, in the name of our so-called security, Representative Sensenbrenner introduced the REAL ID Act (H.R. 418). Yet the bill does absolutely nothing to enhance our nation’s security, instead it targets the world’s most vulnerable group—refugees fleeing persecution, including torture, rape and other horrific atrocities.

The REAL ID Act has direct life and death consequences for genuine refugees. The bill places many refugees, including those fleeing religious and political persecution, at risk of being returned to their torturers or to death. Our nation’s time honored commitment to providing safe haven for individuals fleeing persecution will be severely undermined if Sensenbrenner’s bill is enacted.

To take action to oppose these harmful provisions, go here.

by TChris

When INS agents broke into a Miami home in 2000 to seize Elian Gonzalez, their unnecessarily aggressive tactics were widely criticized. Now neighbors and bystanders who were traumatized by the agents' actions are in court, asking a judge for damages.

In a civil trial that began Monday in federal court here, 13 plaintiffs are seeking up to $250,000 each in damages, charging that agents from the Immigration and Naturalization Service unnecessarily sprayed them with tear gas at close range, shoved, cursed and traumatized them in their zeal to remove Elián without a struggle.

Some plaintiffs testified that agents went onto their property to spray tear gas, while others said they were sprayed in the face while standing behind the barricades. Several said they initially thought Mr. Castro had sent the black-suited, helmeted agents to wreak havoc on their neighborhood.

The government claims that the agents used only "appropriate and necessary force." The trial is expected to end today.

Steve Gillard writes about the employer who told his employees to quit smoking or look elsewhere for work. Now the employer is on a crusade against the overweight. Steve asks, "Where does it end?" Here's my answer:

This reminds me of today, where so many Americans don't care about the detainees at Guantanamo being held three years without charges or lawyers. They need to realize that they are setting a policy in motion that three or ten or twenty years from now may be applied to them or their kids or someone they care about. Today it's smoking and eating, tomorrow it's....fill in the blank.

Of course, I don't believe for a minute that this employer cares one whit about the health of his employees. He cares about his insurance rates being higher for those employees who smoke. And he's afraid that overweight people need more medical care than do thin people, and the greater the medical costs of employees, the higher the insurance rates for employers. So hold your praise.