Ward Churchill Response 2nd Posting

After our multiple class discussions on Ward Churchill, and after our reading his response, I honestly feel that his response to the criticism was what he should have written to begin with. In essence, Churchill basically stated his entire list of points in short, concise, factual bullets that consisted mostly of logos and said what he wanted to say.

Again, the purpose of his response was to clarify his views and perserve his character. The widespread misconstruance (yeah, thats a word) of his views "resulted in defamation of my character and threats against my life." Therefore, I think the goal of his response changed. This is important because the first statement of his views focused on the facts and a lot of negative words, obviously representing how he felt. The goal of his response to the criticism was to GAIN ethos, which he felt he had lost because of America's reaction. So essentially, he used logos in the response to re-establish himself as a factual scholar.

Therefore, his overall goal changed to recover his character.

Again, the urgency of the situation was present because so many people misconstrued his views, and for a man of his stature (a professor at a state-funded university) it was imperative that he clarified he wasn't anti-American or involved in a treason plot. Thus, the urgency was to pull his character up from the slum of falsified information.

Another thing we discussed: should he be terminated or no. Speaking honestly, I do not know. My conflict: Churchill is a professor at a state-funded institution, a tenured professor representing higher education as a whole, working at a public university, so regardless of the freedom to say what you want, you have to be careful because your work represents more than just you. A freelance writer truly has freedom of speech. But Churchill is tied to a university. On the other side, can we restrict his freedom of speech just because he works at public university?

EXAMPLE: When FOX channel puts on a show, sometimes they provide a disclaimer that says the values of this show don't necessarily reflect the values of FOX media.

Also, I just got a job at Abercrombie and when you get hired there, you have to sign a multitude of forms and such about employment, etc. However, one particular form we had to sign was that we never do anything that would reflect negatively on Abercrombie as a company. While working there, our actions reflect upon Abercrombie as a name, and its important that we, as employees, realize that and don't obligate Abercrombie by our actions.

In a way, Churchill obligated his university to make a statement about their position on his views. If they agreed with them, oh dear God what would happen. If they did not agree with him, the public wants him fired. Therefore, he has obligated his university without "their consent," per say.

So what is needed? A disclaimer? I don't know, but thats the thoughts of Kevin Jennings. Have a fantastic day fellas! AND chicas! and professors!