To bring you updated information on such struggles, to keep you informed of developments in Ward Churchill’s lawsuit against the University of Colorado (scheduled for trial in March 2009), and to better respond to your queries, we’re launching a new website (right here) in late August.

We’ll be featuring a column written by Ward, blogs, an updated calendar, news, and easier access to documents about CU and their corporate cronies.

Stay tuned.  As always, you can contact us at wcsn@wardchurchill.net.

In the wake of Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Susan Collins’ (R-ME) alarmist report, “Violent Islamist Extremism, the Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorism Threat,” the Senate may be moving towards passage of the Orwellian “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007″ (S. 1959).

A companion piece of legislative flotsam to the House bill, “The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007″ (H.R. 1955), the Democrat-controlled Congress seems ready to jettison Constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembly. The bill passed the House by a 404-6 vote in October. Twenty-three congress members abstained, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers.Under cover of studying “violent radicalization,” both bills would broaden the already-fluid definition of “terrorism” to encompass political activity and protest by dissident groups, effectively criminalizing civil disobedience and non-violent direct action by developing policies for “prevention, disruption and mitigation.” . . . .    click here to read the rest of the story.

“I began to think of these examples as ‘historical echoes’ – not proof that someone influential in the administration had studied the details of mid-twentieth-century fascism and totalitarianism, but certainly suggestive.

What was it about the image of a mob of young men dressed in identical shirts, shouting at poll workers outside of a voting center in Florida during the 2000 recount, that looked familiar? What resonated about the reports that Bush supporters in the South were holding organized public events to burn CDs by the Dixie Chicks? (CDs are actually quite hard to burn and produce toxic fumes.) What seemed so familiar about an organized ideological group shaming an academic for saying something unpopular—and then pressuring the state government to get the university president to fire that professor? . . .

These events may seem to have historical echoes because they actually are mirrored in history.

No one can deny the skill of fascists at forming public opinion.”

Naomi Wolf, The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot (2007).

Courses or school-sponsored activities that “assert as truth or feature as an exclusive focus any political religious, ideological or cultural beliefs of values” said to do so would be banned.  Also prohibited would be campus organizations “based in whole or in part on race-based criteria.”

Click here to read the entire bill.

Even Nobel peace prize winner Desmond Tutu isn’t immune, as this illustrates:

“Profs shy away from controversial issues . . . .
by Jon Collins, Minnesota Daily

last year, South African civil-rights leader Desmond Tutu was scheduled to speak at the University of St. Thomas to high school students about “turning enemies into friends.” Wanting to avoid controversy from a 2002 statement Tutu made against Israeli occupation of Palestine, the St. Thomas administration revoked the invitation.

When St. Thomas political science professor Cris Toffolo registered her discontent with the administration’s decision, she was dismissed as director of the Justice and Peace Studies program.

Because of this and other cases around the country, Toffolo and others said academics might feel pressured not to talk about potentially controversial issues, whether as private citizens or as professors, for fear of attracting negative attention that may threaten their jobs or tenure. . . .  read more.

“Wanted: Someone Who Knows Nothing About the Job”

New York Times Op-Ed Feb. 24, 2008

In one of those ironies that make life interesting, the University of Colorado, which dismissed controversial professor Ward Churchill because of doubts about his academic qualifications, has appointed a president who doesn’t have any. . . .

click here to read the entire article.

As you may remember, CU President Betsy Hoffman announced her resignation a few days after warning the faculty about the “new McCarthyism” attending Ward Churchill’s case.  She was replaced by Hank Brown, one of the founding members of Lynne Cheney’s American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA).  ACTA issued its “How Many Ward Churchills?” report in the midst of the Churchill investigation.  Brown announced his plans to retire almost immediately after ensuring that Ward Churchill was fired.

Benson’s qualifications?

* A member of ACTA’s Trustee’s Council (click here for more on the ACTA connection to Ward Churchill’s case)

• Multi-millionaire oil and gas executive
• Has a BA in geology; apparently believes we don’t really need to worry about climate change (since people and plants emit CO2)
• As president of the trustees at Metropolitan State, had the rules rewritten to eliminate tenured faculty and replace them with cheaper help  (otherwise known as the Wal-Mart approach)

But don’t worry about academic freedom, he has assured CU that he’ll promote “sensible” research and professors who teach “what they are supposed to teach.”

For more background on Benson, see statement of CU-Boulder’s AAUP chair.

Finally, for those who haven’t been paying attention, apparently being university president isn’t about academia anyway.  As former Colorado state supreme court justice Kourlis says, “To know Bruce Benson is to love him.  If he tells you he will stay out of academia, he will stay out of academia.”  (Rocky Mountain News, Feb. 21, 2007.)

1. BENSON HAS BEEN A MEMBER OF ACTA, AN ORGANIZATION ON RECORD IN OPPOSITION TO SHARED GOVERNANCE AND FACULTY RIGHTS. Bruce Benson is a member of ACTA’s Trustee’s Council; he served as an ACTA (American College Trustees and Alumni) Trustee at Smith College. ACTA (Check out http://www.goacta.org/about_acta/advisory.html) wants to create more “flexible” and “responsive” administrative structures by reducing the status (and even eliminate the requirement of a PhD) of top academic officers such as Deans, Department heads, and even, perhaps, Provosts. This already has happened at CU-Boulder; the Deputy Vice-Chancellor for Diversity, a post previously held by two tenured faculty members, was filled by a non-academic without faculty rank. The job description only required a BA degree. This “flattened” hierarchical structure already is being implemented Adams State and CSU, and it destroys the link between faculty and their academic leaders. No credible academic would take such a position without such protection. It’s more or less how WalMart operates. CU could be next.

2. BENSON HAS VIOLATED THE CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS OF TENURED FACULTY. Upon his installation as President of Metropolitan State University’s Board of Trustees, he had the Faculty Handbook completely re-written without discussion or consultation with the faculty. (The person rumored to have done the job had previously re-written the management guide for Quizno’s). In the new Faculty Handbook, the RIF (Reduction in Force) policy was changed so that in case of a financial shortfall (not exigency), rank or tenure no longer need be considered in decisions about elimination of teaching positions. He then fired tenured faculty. Metro faculty sued, and the case still is in the courts. What would Benson do to further weaken faculty rights and due process at CU?

3. BENSON COULD FURTHER DESTROY DUE PROCESS FOR FACULTY AND STAFF: Already seriously under attack, due process for faculty at CU has only a tenuous and unenforceable toehold in the Faculty Handbook. That Handbook is only “advisory” to the administration, which does not have to abide by its policies. Benson already has re-written at least one Faculty Handbook. Hank Brown’s administration made major changes in it as well—all to the detriment of faculty rights. What steps would a President Benson take at CU?

4. BENSON HAS NO VISION. Benson’s ideas about CU’s mission are more appropriate for a public school system, a vocational school or a community college. It isn’t just that Benson has only a BA degree, a lack of qualifications entirely rare among University Presidents. It’s that he has no intellectual or scholarly appreciation for what
scientists and scholars do and the conditions needed for them to do their work effectively.

5. BENSON DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEXITIES OF CU’S MOST IMPORTANT RESEARCH INITIATIVES. Benson is either woefully unaware or refuses to acknowledge the impact of the carbon cycle on Earth’s living systems. It was embarrassing to hear Benson cite the National Geographic and the local newspapers as authoritative sources on climate change, and express skepticism about the human role (now indisputable among environmental sciences from all disciplines) in global warming. How can he lead an institution that is striving to be climate neutral when, at both the student and faculty meetings, he claimed that humans and plants emit CO into the atmosphere too? Does he really think that, when it comes to carbon, humans and plants are no different than cars and power plants? How can he preside credibly over CU when he doesn’t appear to believe in scientific initiatives for which CU faculty shared a Nobel Prize this very year????

6. BENSON HAS NO APPROPRIATE EXPERIENCE. Benson knows how to run an oil and gas exploration company. Not a university. He understands corporate culture. He is utterly uninformed about the culture and complexities of how to run a Tier One University. His actions at Metro were strictly corporate: Fire expensive (full-time and tenured) employees with benefits and replace them with cheap (part-time and contingent) employees without benefits. It’s WalMart all over again. We can expect the same kinds of “cost saving” actions if he becomes CU President.

7. BENSON’S CLAIM THAT HE WOULD LEAVE ACADEMIC MATTERS TO THE CAMPUS CHANCELLORS IS NOT COMFORTING. Not given ACTA’s agenda for reorganizing universities. Chancellors are appointed by the University President; nothing would stop Benson from firing the current administrators and replacing them with people sympathetic to ACTA’s agenda.

8. BENSON’’S STATEMENTS ABOUT ACADEMIC FREEDOM IN THE CLASSROOM AND RESEARCH ARE NOT CREDIBLE. When he says—as he did at we need “sensible” research and professors who teach “what they are supposed to teach” in their classes) too closely resembles David Horowitz’s rhetoric about “balance” in teaching. For ACTA and Horowitz, those words are simply cover terms for conservative hegemony.

9. BENSON HAS A RECORD OF DIVISIVE PARTISANSHIP. His Trailhead Organization spent $200,000 on negative and false attack campaigning against rancher Wes McKinley, state representative from SE Colorado and leader of opposition to the US Military takeover of the Pinon Canyon area. Despite his promises to abandon Republican party activity, it’s unlikely that his modus operandi in dealing with opposition and dissent will change.

10. BENSON’S RECORD OF SUPPORT FOR WOMEN IS POOR. He contributed at least $1000 to the defense fund of Senator Robert Packwood, who was accused—and convicted—of harassing and assaulting more than 20 women while in office. At meetings on campus, his only comment was that “everyone is entitled to a defense.” True enough, but given CU’s egregious record for protecting sexual harassers in the past, it doesn’t need another President who covers up and stonewalls for predators.

11. BENSON DOES NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT SUPPORT AMONG FACULTY, STUDENTS, STAFF AND THE REGENTS. A firestorm of protest already has erupted against both the process by which Benson was chosen, and his candidacy itself. Three current and one former (Jim Martin) Regent have openly opposed Benson for President of CU. The Benson Presidency is being forced upon a University system that seems dead set against him, and humiliated not only by the fact that the Regents didn’t want to support anyone more qualified, but by being ignored.

Nonetheless, the jury returned split and somewhat contradictory verdicts in the first three cases:  Glenn Morris was found guilty of one charge of disrupting a lawful assembly, and not guilty of obstructing a passage and interference. Koreena Montoya was found guilty of obstructing and resistance, not guilty of disruption and interference. Rev. Julie Todd was found guilty of obstructing, not guilty of disrupting and interference.

In sentencing, the city prosecutor asked the court to “deter” people planning to demonstrate at the DNC by imposing a $999 fine and a year in jail on each of the TCD defenders. Judge Jordan instead fined Glenn Morris and Koreena Montoya  $200 and court costs, with no jail time; Julie Todd received a $100 fine (with $50 suspended).  Glenn Morris was also ordered to pay the city $325 restitution for the hazmat response to the fake blood that was poured into the street.

About 70 other Columbus Day defenders await trial.