[lbo-talk] Churchill - the issue is academic freedom

[Gar Lipow]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 12:12:35 -0600, Thomas Brown <browntf at hal.lamar.edu> wrote:
> Gar wrote:
> >If you value academic freedom, arguments over the Churchill's essay or
> >the value of his scholarship are counterproductive - regardless of
> >viewpoint.
> 
> Academic freedom does not protect fabrications, any more than
> the Bill of Rights protects libel or slander.
> 
> >Criticism of  Churchill, even completely justified criticism, made at
> >this moment contributes  to his being fired for  uttering unpopular
> >opinions.
> 
> John Lavelle published his exposes of Churchill's plagiarism
> and fabrication back in the 90s. This is nothing new. The fact
> that the university and the state tolerated it for so long will
> work in Churchill's defense.
> 
> Churchill is in very little danger here. The CO governor and
> legislature have made it clear that he is being fired for insulting
> the 9/11 victims, and that they are looking for any excuse
> to violate his contract.
> 
> In other words, a good lawyer should have no trouble defending
> Churchill. I think the worst that will happen to Churchill is that
> he takes early retirement and a six figure parting gift from the
> CO taxpayers. He may well keep his job.
> 
> Save your energy for the folks who get fired without compensation,
> or even jailed. That is where free speech is under attack. Churchill
> put himself in this situation, he's thriving on it, and he is very
> unlikely to get hurt by it.

I  think  you are being reckless if  you assume that in this climate
his being fired is  impossible - especially since you have called
public  attention to a good excuse. I don't think  his being fired 
You mentioned in the comment section of the Crooked Timber blog that
you had been working on this for two years. I don't know how long this
type of "investigation" takes, but surely it will over within months.
What would  it have hurt  you to wait those few months, rather than 
publish at a moment they were  seeking to fire him (as  you
acknowledge) for his opinions? If you are wrong, and he is in fact
fired, then your essay will have helped ensure that a tenured academic
with  unpopular opinions was fired for  those opinions - regardless of
the truth  or falsity  of  your essay.  If that  happens do  you 
really  think it won't add to precedent and  make it easier to go
after the next unpopular academic.

Back in the days when literal  lynching happened more frequently than
today, quite often a local paper would  print an editorial stirring up
rage and  hatred against the soon  to be hanged victim. Much of the
time the editorial would consist of lies and slander. Occasionally it
would describe a horrible crime the future victim had actually
committed. In either case, knowing that a lynch mob  was stirring, the

 paper was  complicit.  You seem to be arguing in the case of this
metaphorical lynching that the local Sheriff is tough enough, and has
enough integrity  to protect the prisoner.