While most people are aware that Fox-TV and other right wing outlets are on a campaign footing to get Ward Churchill fired, there is a parallel campaign by liberal academics and journalists to accomplish the same thing. Although some of the liberals claim that Ward has the right to teach (as does Bill O'Reilly for that matter), their steady drumbeat of denunciation serves the interests of the Colorado Board of Regents.
And then Louis goes on to expose the "liberals"...
If the real source of the campaign against Ward Churchill and M. Shahid Alam is the right wing establishment (with the tacit encouragement or at least silent tolerance of the White House), then why on earth should we focus our attacks on the "liberals"? What's the rationale for these denunciations in the face of this assault coming from the extreme right? Shouldn't the attack be directed against the right wingers instead?
If we want the "liberals" to stiffen their position in defense of Churchill's and Alam's rights (with no ifs or buts that, under the circumstances, effectively undercut the defense), then I don't think that launching these kind of attacks against them is going to enhance the sex appeal of our positions. More likely, the attacks will push the "liberals" away. So, what do we want? Strengthen the right wingers by fostering divisions among those who may confront them, even if not all of them exactly like we'd prefer?
Whatever the intended purpose, it seems to me like a waste of energy or, worse, a shot in the foot, because we're not using the little we have to hit hardest at the real source of the attack. Actually, IMO what might have a positive effect on the "liberals" is that we *lead* the charge against the ultimate source of these attacks and try to weaken the right wingers, and that we lead it in such a way that we widen the support base of the victims' defense. After all, what we are defending here is a constitutional right. Every fair-minded American should be incensed by this assault on constitutional freedoms.
Here's what I think we should do instead: We need to concentrate the fire on Fox, the White House, and help the U of Colorado and Northeastern U defend their professors. Have all our little blogs (I'm late in this blog trend, I know, but someday I'll have my own) pointing the guns in that direction. We should demand that the White House issues a categorical rejection of this right wing campaign of intimidation, bullying and assault on freedom of speech. If the White House does not reject this campaign in unmistakable terms, then it should be said that the executive is de facto encouraging an assault against our constitutional liberties, which belies his famous "freedom-loving" inaugural speech.
We should demand Fox to cease Bill O'Reilly immediately, not because he's a bully damaging the civic life of the country by spewing his ideological garbage, but because he's tacitly admitted responsibility in sexually harassing a subordinate, and the mere appearance of such behavior should be ethical grounds for any decent media outlet to cease him immediately, given that he is so prominent and influential a media figure, and privileges should be checked with comparable responsibility and higher standards of behavior. And we should let the U of Colorado and Northeastern U know that, if they uphold the principle of academic freedom and stand by their professors' right to speak up, we will back them up.
I just think that'd be a better use of our energy than shooting at the "liberals." We really need to reign on the impulses of our stomach and acquire a bit of tactical discipline if we want to advance.
Julio
