When events are posted around CU Campus the organization is supposed to get permission and stamp of approval from USCU. USCU has specific guidelines as to the type of paper and any chalk postings. Also, if the event is sponsored by any UCB funding i.e. Office of Student Affairs then the flyer is supposed to announce the sponsor(s) and any student supported event is to be free and open to the public. Only events in which one is supposed to pre-register are not open to the public. So if this was a conference and if Drunkablog has a flyer handy she/he can take that flyer to the Regents and/or Ron Stump. I'm not 100% sure about this, but that's to the best of my knowledge as a former student. Policies and guidelines do change.
Hell, Jim, even I don't know where this event is being held. The details are still being worked out. I'll simply be described (I hope) as an anthropology professor and faculty senate president. Patience, my man. I'll let you know where to go.
Heidi,
Here's the flyer. Look at the sponsoring orgs at the bottom. No pre-registration mentioned.
Dean, my man:
You're awful quiet on what happened at the colloquium Thursday night. What do YOU think of us being kicked out of what was clearly a public meeting? Just for trying to record it? No "I don't have enough info," or "I wasn't there so I can't voice an opinion," or legalisms allowed. Even if they had the legal right (which they didn't), doesn't such a crude tactic go against everything CU (and people like you) claim to stand for?
Here's a question: if I show up on the 28th, tape recorder or video camera in hand, what are you going to do? Sit there while they give me the bum's rush? Or will you stand up to the tiny totalitarians?
PS: I truly was not planning to attend the all-day thing--even I have limits to the bilge I can take in--but now I almost feel obligated, just to show these thugs that they can't do whatever they want to people they don't like.
John-- I expect crude tactics from CU. That's a big part of my position on this. I thought my previous comments about echo chambers and exclusion made it clear where I stood. No one should be kicked out of public meetings if they are public meetings. If the meeting on the 28th is public and our hosts allow videotaping or tape recording and you show up with recording equipment then you can count on my support.
The Department of English, Students and Faculty for True Academic Freedom sounds like a new group with a connection to UCB. If so, then this group receives some type of student fee funding even if it comes from the English Dept.
I suggest Drunkablog attend today's event, document any forced removal by obtaining names of security and/or getting any type of name card and mention the earlier removal and bring this to the attention of Ron Stump, Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs, and the Regents.
UCB is trying to project the image of an open forum to all events on campus, which most are supposed to be free and open to the public if sponsored by a student group.
Best of luck.
Heidi:
The next event is two Saturdays hence, on the 28th. Nothing Churchill-related is planned for today, as far as I know.
Good advice, in any case.
Dean,
Crude tactics from CU? What in God's name are you talking about? That's just more willful misunderstanding on your part.
It was the organizers of the event--the same organizers, of course, of the event you'll be speaking at--who used the crude tactics. They just got the CU police to go along.
Saying you'll support me "if the hosts allow it" and "the meeting is open" is complete bullshit. If you really believe what you say, you'll demand that the meeting be open to anyone, with or without recording devices.
Ben Whitmer of Try-Works is going to be one of those "hosts," by the way, so you'll finally have the opportunity to meet the CU instructor who said he wished Westword editor Patty Calhoun had been "fucked with a wood rasp." Once again, nice bunch you're associating yourself with, Dean.
Is there a flyer available for the event on the 28th?
Not as far as I know, Heidi. Only info available is on the wardchurchill.net website, and PB has reposted that here.
Dean, I hope you will actively encourage the hosts to make the meeting public and open to recording. Unfortunately my experience at pretty much all events associated with any support for Ward Churchill is that they close their meetings from being recorded (or will close it off to certain attendees or dis-invite them, present party included). At some of these same events where Mr. Churchill will make an appearance, he will have his own videographer record himself and the audience, while barring audience members from doing the same.
If I happen to be in town that day, I'll offer to film the entire event and extend the offer to one-on-one interviews – both of which you and your group will have their own copy of. That would be a good way of showing transparency on both sides, would you agree?
Grant
John: "Bullshit"? I'm not sure that I've been given any more respect from you than you've been given from the Whitmer's of the world. I find the Try-Works tactics and language to be contemptible. That's why I don't contribute over there. I have no desire to expand my social or professional network to include that kind. As one of our PB commentators noted, zingers fly over here but it's usually within acceptable boundaries of passionate argument. I believe that I have a principled position on the Churchill affair. I've been invited to speak about it by people whom I do respect. I've already been accused by neutral parties and even people who agree with my position that I shouldn't be using my position as a Faculty Senate president to meddle in the internal affairs of another university. I am very cognizant of that. My circumstances, experiences, and obligations being what they are, I think an engagement is warranted. But "demanding" anything seems beyond the pale to me. The details of this conference are still being worked out. I'm assuming that it will be open to all comers. Like I said earlier, I wasn't aware that any exclusion was occuring last Thursday. I have no interest in being part of something that is going to be gate-kept (although good behavior on all sides should be a minimal expectation), and I will make that clear to the organizers. The "crude tactics" I had in mind refer to political and procedural issues around faculty governance and peer review. Cheers, Dean.
This says two more months maybe???
http://media.www.thecampuspress....n-
2841567.shtml
MM:
It also calls the Churchill burlesque "this unfortunate set of circumstances", so I wouldn't place any bets yet.
Dean, you need to decide whether you want to line up with the liberal left or the totalitarian left. I'm not sure whether Churchill and Whitmer could reasonably be labeled as leftists, but they sure as shit are totalitarian. They don't want non-fellow-travelers at their events. They attempt to prevent elderly Italians from parading on Columbus Day. Churchill demanded that Lamar University remove criticism of his research from a faculty web page.
These are not people who care one whit about free speech or democratic procedure. They are totalitarians pure and simple. If you are still not convinced, go read Churchill's political prescriptions in "I Am an Indigenist." (Churchill has no clue as to what "indigenism" really means in world politics, but the essay does reveal his totalitarian instincts.)
If you decide to speak at an event that excludes audience members based on their political opinions, that tells me all I need to know about which side you've chosen.
JGM, I suggest that you contact the relevant CU dean and CU security before the event, to ascertain what the ground rules are, and to make certain that CU security is aware of what they are.
I recall that the flyer needs to announce whether cameras and/or recorders are prohibited. I know when organizing an event at CU my program had to announce that on the flyer and special requests needed to be in before the event. No where on this flyer do I see that to be proclaimed. Another reason for Mr. Saitta to talk to these organizers about supression of specific individuals.
Uh-huh. Calling bullshit on your doubletalk is the same as repeated, misogynist death threats. Good moral equivalence you got going there, Dean.
You also seem to imply that my behavior Thursday was other than circumspect (until we were kicked out). I had quit trying to record and was sitting there taking notes. Period. (Though by this I don't mean to concede for a nanosecond that they had a right, legal or moral, to stop me from recording.) (Of course.) Read my post, please, Dean.
But also kudos where due, Dean. Your first reaction, "If the meeting is public and the hosts allow recording, I'll support you," was majorly weak, so your upgrade to "having no interest in being part of something that is going to be gate-kept" is encouraging.
In fact, Dean, I think you're honest enough to admit that there is no legitimate reason for them to keep out anyone who's not being disruptive. None. Not at a public university.
If you admit that, and if you really have no interest in participating in a gate-kept event, what will you do if it's not open to all (as, of course, it clearly was meant to be--look at the flyer).
Or what if they "only" try to control who records the speakers? That's gate-keeping in any sane person's (as Noam Chomsky would say) notion of the term. Will you participate then?
In either case, Dean, if you have the courage of your professed convictions, the answer is clear: No way. But saying "no way" in those circumstances would be very, very hard for an academic in mid-career, wouldn't it? People you "respect" might not respect you anymore.
But you sure would be defending critical thinking.
PS: Who invited you that you "respect" over there, anyway, or would it be too embarrassing to say?
By the way, JWP, I just clicked on that "great unwashed" link. Thanks for the reminder: it's bath night! Every week whether I need it or not!
Thanks, Heidi. Dean, it would appear they didn't even have the bare form of legality on their side.
And Dean, you may not have any "desire to expand your social or professional network to include" dregs like Ben Whitmer, but he sure wants to expand his to include you:
Professor Saitta, I’ve never met you, don’t know you, but you might want to quit posting at Pirateballerina. I don’t have a whole hell of a lot at stake, but you do. They’ll go after you, m’man.
They wag the local media’s tail, and if you make yourself a target, they’ll avail themselves of it. If that ain’t clear by now, it should be from the last comment left by Mr. Martin.
Read the rest.
Laurie: I think I might need your wire scrub brush, now that I've succeeded in making myself just a bit of an item in the Drunkablog-TryWorks "dialogue". I'll summarize and then leave (just for the moment) so that I can attend to visiting family, my day job, preparation for the 28th and, of course, the Stanley Cup Playoffs. I was thrust into this controversy when an in-house statement I wrote early in 2005 worrying about threats to academic freedom emanating from both the right and the left (triggered by the Churchill and Summers cases) got some national attention from an organized cabal highly critical of the American university. Noj, I have no use for totalitarian lefts, and virtually no sympathy at all for what passes today as the liberal left. Please don't make me choose. I believe that there are good, thoughtful people distributed across right and left who share some of the same credible views about academic freedom, university autonomy, due process, scholarly and administrative accountability, and other issues. As I suggested in my Anthropology Today piece about "Dangerous Professors", I see eye-to-eye with the late conservative scholar Allan Bloom on some key issues. I agree with Ben that tenured academics have not only been shamefully MIA on the local issues, but also the national ones— even as he joins John in attacking what both seem to construe to be my "mealy-mouthedness" (a descriptor which joins "hack", "idiot", "sucky" and others that have been applied to me). So I'll leave it to you guys to work out whatever "moral equivalences" need to be worked out. I'm participating in the April 28th event to speak about the Big Issues that are especially important to me and other faculty nationwide, to carry the flag for my fellow TDS petitioners (who were very timely in their response to CU's investigative reports when they were released in summer 2006, even as they hold a variety of opinions about specific issues), and to support my AAUP colleagues at CU. I will not participate unless this is an open event and there is an explicit policy governing recording devices that is even-handedly applied. I've emailed the event organizers asking about their intentions in these regards, and I trust that they will be made clear on whatever publicity finally appears for the event. If they aren't, then I'm gone. Jim, thanks for the space. Until next time,
Dean
Dean, extracting yourself from the loving embrace of a psychopath like Churchill will not be as easy as simply announcing "I'm gone." If you really plan to distance yourself from the gang of thugs you've so naively and tragically aligned yourself with, best of luck in dealing with the intimidation that will be brought to bear. For insight, you may want to read the book "Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Pyschopaths Among Us," by Dr. Robert D. Hare.
I'll offer here that I do appreciate Dean Saitta's comments, and can say from, at least my own experience, that he has been genuine with at least some of his actions matching his words. I received his signature of support for the former DePaul Professor Thomas Klocek, for his own reistatement on the grounds of academic freedom. Believe me, there are many people who support Ward Churchill who won't do that simply for politics and not principle.
I think the forum benefits from having his comments, not despite being a voice of dissent but because of it. From what I have read here, he is willing to participate in a dialogue and debate the issues, and not engage in unprovoked name-calling or character attacks. Even those things have their place, and while I have a completely difference take with Ward Churchill than Dean, and while I would call into question his assessments based on my own experiences, I would not call his opinions dishonest. (Unlike much I have seen from the pro-Churchill crowd.)
So I thank Dean for sticking, at least in his statement here, for the event to be open to the public. I think from that there will have to be open recordings of the event, as gleemed by CU policy. (It will be very difficult to label my small camcorder as "obtrusive", but it wouldn't surprise me what the anti-free speech Churchill Crowd may try to pull.)
Grantman
So Dean, seems you found out it's not so hard to make demands after all. You did the right thing. No doubt you won't appreciate my saying so, but good for you.
I hope, Professor Saitta, you'll keep us posted as to the restrictions, lunch times, locations, etc. as they are revealed.
One would think the revolutionary vanguard could spare a little time from their dialectical materialism sessions to learn some organizational skills. Spelling and grammar, of course, could remain optional.
Commenting by HaloScan
