A jury ruled Thursday that the University of Colorado wrongly fired the professor who compared some Sept. 11 victims to a Nazi, giving him only $1 in damages but a chance to get his job back.
It is easy to support the First Amendment when someone says something you agree with.
The real test of principle comes when someone says something you do not agree with.
I do not agree with Ward Churchill's original speech because he approaches 9-11 from the point of view that the attacks were indeed carried out by Muslim extremists, which of course I d not agree with at all.
However, Ward Churchill has every right to express his opinions, especially at a university which is supposed to be the source of new ideas in society, not the stern defenders of the status quo such as they appear to be today.
That being said, a careful review of what Ward Churchill actually did say shows that the Eichmann comment was intentionally take out of context by the media (especially Bill O'Reilly at FOX) and fanned into a furious demand for his firing by what in hindsight was a cadre of individuals terrified at anyone who might interfere with the carefully planned propaganda that led from 9-11 to war in the Mideast.
Ward Churchill's "crime" was that while he accepted the official story of 9-11, he questioned whether years of US Mideast policy might not have created the justification for such an attack. The promoters of war needed to sell the idea that the attack was unprovoked and undeserved, the better to create a war-list in the public.
So Ward was publicly pilloried as a warning to any who might challenge any aspect of the propaganda, and now that he has had his day in court, the whole world knows it.
More information is at Ward's personal website at http://www.wardchurchill.net/churchill_v_cu.html