This is a bit old. However, the story continues to grow legs. I saw this on Fox News earlier and there have been several posts (HT: Instapundit) on the subject.
CBS4 in Denver (original story)
Belmont Club (interesting comment on "how each moment of procrastination increased the awfulness of the inevitable clash. The case, on smaller scale, describes CU's dilemma") ...boy I am glad the administrators at CU aren't on the national security staff.
My take: How long will the University keep this guy on the payroll? Keeping him on board lessens their authority and shows lack of leadership.
How does the MSM view this assault (and I believe it meets the threshold for battery)? It doesn't matter...the MSM lost my interest long ago.
We see Churchill ambushed by a TV crew, in between classes and death threats. The interviewer's insolent tone ("looks like you ripped it off") leads me to doubt his denial that the camera crew initiated the physical confontation. Given the context of what appears to be a well-orchestrated witch-hunt, my guess is that the crew entered the campus with the mission of assaulting Churchill and filming his response, much like police who assault people and then charge them with the crime they themselves have just committed.
As for the plagiarism charge, I believe Churchill's explanation that he had the original artist's explicit permission. It's a little difficult to settle the issue, given that the artist is no longer around; but the raising of such an obscure point when the overriding issue is Churchill's political activity suggests that someone put a lot of effort into digging up dirt and found damned little of any substance.
Churchill is highly regarded by his students, academic colleagues, and by legions of progressives (including me) who value him as both scholar and leader. His tenure was well-deserved and well-earned, and is now serving precisely the purpose for which tenure is designed, namely, as a bulwark against political attack. Almost none of Churchill's attackers can even quote him accurately. This discussion is not really about anything Churchill has done wrong. Rather, it's about what he's done right. He's being targeted for clarifying our understanding of American oppression and the the stuggle against it, and for inspiring those engaged in that struggle and related ones around the world.
Posted by: Ted Bagg | Tuesday, 08 March 2005 at 03:17