Ward Churchill Fired, Jim Zumbo Fired….Same Reason?
July 25, 2007
I just got home after spending a good six hours on the road while taking my granddaughter to Manchester, New Hampshire to catch a plane back home to St. Petersburg, Florida. When an 8-year old sleeps most of the way down and your alone on the return trip, you have ample time to think and collect thoughts. If any of you are like me, you dispense with any music on the radio in search of news or talk radio. I did just that.
Most of you probably have already heard that Ward Churchill, the very outspoken and controversial college professor at the University of Colorado was fired.
According to reports, Churchill was fired because of plagiarism and some other sorts of “misrepresentations”, whatever that means. Most people would have assumed that he got fired because of some of the bizarre and extreme comments he has made over the years. The one that comes to mind is his comments calling some of those killed in the World Trade Center on September 11th, little Nazis, implying they got what they deserved because they worked for capitalists.
I was listening to Bill O’Reilly on talk radio first. He was ranting on about Churchill. In part of his discussions, he talked with a lawyer representing the ACLU(American Civil Liberties Union) out of Colorado who is planning to sue the state of Colorado for infringing on Churchill’s First Amendment Rights.
The discussion began when O’Reilly asked the lawyer, and I apologize for not getting his name down, about why the ACLU didn’t run to support the President of Harvard University, Lawrence H. Summers, when he stated in public that maybe women weren’t as good in science and mathematics as men (not a direct quote).
A reminder for clarity, Churchill was not fired by what he said but more of what he did. O’Reilly’s issue is that the ACLU would not support Summers firing for free speech but is planning to with Churchill’s. Why?
According to this ACLU lawyer, the reason is because Harvard University is a private college and the University of Colorado, where Churchill works, is a public institution paid for in part by tax dollars. For that reason, the lawyer said that Harvard University is exempt from protecting anyone’s First Amendment rights.
I understand what the lawyer was saying and I am sure that another lawyer, perhaps not so entrenched into the purists perspective of free speech, would rebut that argument. Even though I understand, I am troubled by it in that he claims that a person working for a private business has no protection under the First Amendment. It may not be that well defined but it sure sounded like it.
The issue with Ward Churchill isn’t as much about freedom of expression as it is with college tenure. Once a professor obtains tenure, it is very difficult to fire them under any circumstances and Churchill may have plenty of grounds to stand on in his defense.
Fast forward a couple of hours to the Mike Gallagher Show. Mike also discussed the firing of Ward Churchill but his take on the issue was somewhat different than that of Bill O’Reilly’s.
Gallagher talked with Ward Churchill’s attorney, David Lane (who may have been the same lawyer that O’Reilly talked to), by telephone about the incident. Lane said the same thing as the other ACLU attorney that in Summer’s case, he has no protection under the First Amendment because Harvard University is a privately run business.
Living in a supposed democracy, laws are made and challenged every day. This is how they evolve and are tested under public scrutiny. I believe in obeying our laws and testing them in our court system. I also believe in working to change and modify such laws but to do that people need to understand the laws that we are currently living by in order to fairly know whether we need some change.
Having only heard one side of this argument, I would be remiss to state that the law is that Churchill has protection and Summers doesn’t. Let’s assume for a moment that Churchill’s lawyer, Mr. Lane, is correct, along with the ACLU lawyer Bill O’Reilly talked with. This better explains what happened to our friend Jim Zumbo when he got fired from Outdoor Life.
When Jim Zumbo got fired, many spoke out in protest that his firing was unconstitutional based on his right to free speech. I was one of those that said that even though Jim Zumbo has the right to say what’s on his mind, he doesn’t necessarily under the identity of Outdoor Life.
I’m not a lawyer and probably didn’t word my position in a legal manner. If Zumbo doesn’t have protection of the First Amendment because he was employed by a private business, then Outdoor Life was justified, legally, in terminating his employment. I can only assume that Mr. Zumbo was under legal council during this entire fiasco.
If all of this proves to be the case once tested in the courts, then we have to ask ourselves if we should have to give up our First Amendment rights under certain circumstances, like while working for a private entity? If so, is it a black and white relinquishing of First Amendment or other rights? Is there more rights under certain circumstances than others? Some believe that to be the case.
Tom Remington
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
We feature the latest news, events and politics effecting the sports of hunting, fishing, and all outdoor activities in North America.
He was fired for plagiarism. As for free speech, he should and was allowed to say what he wanted. The university is publicly funded institution for the free exchange of ideas.
This is nothign like the Zumbo case. He was an idiot and represented the company ion a negative light on a company website.
The two are not only not related, they are two different topics. Plagiarism has nothing to do with Zumbo’s sorry butt getting canned.
You are obviously angry at Zumbo for his stance on guns and justifiably so but I have to disagree with you that they are not related.
They did not get fired for the same reason, no. I never said that. I pointed out, twice as a matter of fact, that Churchill got fired for plagiarism and Zumbo got fired because he misrepresented the company that he works for.
The comparison comes, or at least the point I am making, is that contrary to what many thought when Zumbo got fired, he was not legally denied his right to free speech according to the law stated by David Lane.
You and I agree that Zumbo should have been fired but I’m afraid that because of your anger toward Zumbo, you are failing to look at this from a legal perspective and not an emotional one and this is the point of the entire article.
Many people have wanted to see Churchill fired because of the things he has said. This has not happened because it couldn’t be done legally. Churchill’s lawyer claims that the headhunting of Churchill began after his comments about 911 and may have even manufactured their so-called evidence on plagiarism.
Their emotions they felt because of his seemingly hate-filled comments, made them demand he be fired for that. Couldn’t do it as his free speech was protected through his tenure and interpretation of the First Amendment and the university being a public institution.
When Zumbo was fired, many claimed his First Amendment rights were not given him and once again emotions ran high on both sides.
The comparison comes in how the First Amendment is viewed and how law interprets different circumstances.
Tom, this was a great post. I, for one, did not feel that Zumbo deserved to be fired for what he said – although I didn’t agree with him. My reason is simply because I strongly feel that BLOGS should contain opinions of the writers. If the writer is not free to express his opinion – don’t call it a blog.
However, I completely agree that Outdoor Life had the legal ‘right’ to fire Zumbo. You do not have the legal ‘right’ to say anything you wish when representing a private company.
Money has a strange way of casting influence on some things doesn’t it! BUT, I think, and I say think because I’ve not been put into a similar circumstance, I would have handled the case differently than OL did.
I would have gone public to say that Jim Zumbo has a right to his own opinions. And like you said, maybe his blog is the place to do it. His views do not necessarily reflect the views of OL, blah, blah, blah
Then I would have presented my position as owner/representative of the company and moved on.
The decision that OL made had to have been a difficult one. Would I be remiss to say that Jim Zumbo made OL and substantial amount of money over the years?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Darrell
I disagree with Darrell completely.
Come on Ward Churchhill is a phony piece of work, Jim Zumbro is an excelent outdoor writer whom Outdoor life will miss over time. Colorado University will never miss Ward Churchill.
Who wrote this post? Was is you Tom. This whole Blogging is crap, It reminds me of ole woman on the phone right after someone in the neihborhood drives by with someone in the car other than there spouse and they get on the phone and call everyone up and down the block because they have no life of there own.
Ok some are news worthy, and I do thank you for posting pics for me in the past, but come on comparing Ward to Jim. WOW no comparison. NONE!
“you are failing to look at this from a legal perspective”
No, I’m not. That was my whole point. Zumbo was fired in a legal manner and so was Churchill.
“My reason is simply because I strongly feel that BLOGS should contain opinions of the writers.”
Blogs are purely opinion. However, his area was hunting, as such his writings should only pertain to hunting. Whether or not Ars and AKs should be allowed for hunting is something that he could address in such a blog. However, he referred to black rifles as “terrorist weapons”. He moved beyond simple disagreement over their usefulness for hunting and chose to flame owners of such weapons. To personally insult such a large segment of the shooting population casts OL in a bad light and warranted his firing.
Zumbo does not own one of these weapons and had no experience with them. Therefore he was not qualified to comment on their usefulness for hunting.
What the hell? Did I write in German or Russian or some other foreign language?? Where in this article to I compare Jim Zumbo to Ward Churchill?
I have already been accused of saying the two were fired for the same reason and that isn’t what I wrote. I asked the question, that’s what question marks (??????) mean, if they were fired for the same reason. Then I went on to explain, or so I thought, that the two were NOT, N-O-T, fired for the same reason.
Let me try one more time. Jim Zumbo is not Ward Churchill nor is Ward Churchill, Jim Zumbo. The two names are included in one article because both were fired from their jobs seemly over First Amendment issues.
I pointed out, twice, that Churchill was NOT fired for what he said but what he did, according to the University of Colorado. Most people would have thought that Churchill should have been fired for what he said. In this case, according to law, he is protected and can say whatever the heck he wants.
According to the same interpretation of the law, Jim Zumbo could not be protected under First Amendment rights because he was under the employ of a private business with whom he must answer.
This is not OPINION, it is what the legal representatives are declaring to the the law in these two cases.
I in no way am trying to make readers think that Jim Zumbo and Ward Churchill are two peas in a pod.
We live in a land of laws, whether we like them or not. Readers in both cases have become emotional over the issues and failed to look at the legalities of both Jim Zumbo and Ward Churchill. Many accused Outdoor Life of illegally firing Zumbo because he spoke his mind. Legally we find out that Outdoor Life can do that, whether we like it or not.
In Churchill’s case, people are refusing to listen to the charges and are just saying he was fired for speaking his mind.
In a nutshell. Jim Zumbo and Ward Churchill are not to be compared in any way other than how the First Amendment may or may not have played a role in their firing. Churchill’s lawyer believes that his firing was an indirect result of what Churchill has said in the past.(That would be First Amendment issues)
NOW FOR MY OPINION. Ward Churchill is a moron and I hope he never teaches again. Jim Zumbo spoke his mind, of which I did not agree with and he lost his job accordingly. I would have handled the case differently than OL did but I don’t own OL either. I think it is unfortunate it ended that way.
Here is some more of my opinion. If you think that this information that can clearly affect all U.S. citizens that I spent several hours putting together is likened to that of an old woman and a gossip session on the telephone, I’m truly sorry.
Perhaps this is one of the reasons I have trouble reaching more outdoorsmen in my effort to incite discussion and deeper thinking of the issues that effect us all. Maybe we outdoorsmen don’t think that issues concerning First Amendment have any bearing on whether or not we shoot accurately or bag a trophy buck.
Not everything I write will be of interest to all readers. This is why I try to be diverse in what I write in hopes that I can engage a few. Maybe we need to look beyond the cross hairs of our telescopes and see a bigger picture.
Personally, I think it is pretty big news to discover that according to the ACLU they believe that when someone, anyone, it could be you or me, represents a private institution, you no longer have protection under the First Amendment.
I guess I have a right to say this because I own my own company.
Blogs are not purely opinion. Blogs can be and many are but not all.
I spend time in the field gathering my own stories. I study issues, make contacts and write my own news. I may or may not add my opinion to it.
If you think that all blogs are just opinions and/or should be, you are wrong and may be missing out on some very good writing and other information.
This is one of the challenges facing “citizen journalists” and that’s the impressions of readers. For readers to think that a blogs only purpose is a place to express opinions then readers are seeing only part of the potential.
Wow! What a mess. I understood your point probably because I know you. For those who don’t probably felt you were spouting off. The other thing is people comment on what they feel is important in the article. Sometimes the main point isn’t necessarily a reader’s main concern.
As far as blogs there are so many kinds of blogs these days to classify them all as the same is like saying all animals are the same or all guns are the same. I read blogs where the author tells me about their cat Fluffy and how it choked on a hairball and needed to be rushed to the vets. I have read blogs that cover up to the second news and are better news sources than CNN. There are barriers in traditional media but are good for certain things. Blogs allow people to report the facts and then comment on them. People assume just because someone has an opinion it stinks and must cease to exist.
Tom, your article made perfect sense. There was no comparison between Jim Zumbo and Warch Churchill.
I agree that blogs aren’t and don’t have to be strictly opinions. I read a few blogs that are strictly news sources. Most blogs in my RSS feed, though, do freely include the opinion of whomever wrote the post along with relevant news and other facts. Sometimes I agree and sometimes I don’t, but for me it is what makes blogs (as a medium) appealling and interesting.
I certainly don’t read all the blogs I come across. I’ve encountered some that do feel like gossip columns (ole woman on the phone feel)- which isn’t for me. However, there are plenty of people that love to read those types of blogs, too.
I will readily admit that I read Jim Zumbo’s articles for his opinions. IF Jim had strictly been a news guy, I probably would have never started reading him.
The Jim Zumbo issue seems to be behind him now since his show is being air regularly on the Outdoor Channel.
I think more & more, the gun & hunting industry will embrace Jim once again, for the vast knowledge he possesses.
Like him, watch his show. Don’t like him, change the channel.
Tom, I think this is one of the best outdoor blogs there is….whatever a blog is. To me blogs are related news and opinions. Am I right? And some ask for the readers opinions, but when I speak my mind I get jumped…well I guess that’s the risk I took. Yes you do own the company and I am not a professional writer such as yourself. I can’t even type as fast as the comments are pouring in. I believe this is going to be a hot topic. Even with the question marks it seem to me you are comparing the 2 people to each other. They where not fired for speaking there personal beliefs they where fired for dragging there employers into a lime light they didn’t want to be in. The rest is just legal jargon to get rid of them, now then again this is just my opinion.
As for my personal opinion, Jim is right on the money! Those kind of rifles (AK’s and AR’s)are only made for one thing and thats to kill people. They are a very accurate rifle. But they have no business in the field (in true sportsman’s hands) it’s to temping for the average Joe to start shooting away like a mad man. And as for Ward Churchhill the school wanted to get rid of him for many reasons, he is an embaresment and I for one don’t know why the BIA lets him hide behind there skirt. It’s on record he has no Indian blood in his body.
[...] Ward Churchill Fired, Jim Zumbo Fired….Same Reason? [...]
“Those kind of rifles (AK’s and AR’s)are only made for one thing and thats to kill people. They are a very accurate rifle. But they have no business in the field (in true sportsman’s hands) it’s to temping for the average Joe to start shooting away like a mad man.’
What? Do you own an AR, AK, FAL, etc.? If not, don’t comment on the subject. Your babbling demonstrates your ignorance on the subject.
“”Zumbo does not own one of these weapons and had no experience with them. Therefore he was not qualified to comment on their usefulness for hunting.”"
“”What? Do you own an AR, AK, FAL, etc.? If not, don’t comment on the subject. Your babbling demonstrates your ignorance on the subject.”"
Ithica, Have you ever had to point one of these rifles AT A HUMAN and squeeze the trigger??
Have you ever had one of these rifles pointed at you? Have you ever been shot by one of these rifles?
If your answer is no can I them tell you to shut up because YOU are not qualified to speak on such a topic?
There are people out there who do have a “qualified” opinion, who HAVE BEEN IN COMBAT with these rifles.
Before you tell someone “NOT TO COMMENT ON THE SUBJECT BECAUSE THEY DON’T OWN ONE” is radicalism, liberalism or just plain stupidity.
I tend to agree with Paul’s statements above in that there are a whole bunch of people who, just because they have one will blast up the woods, BECAUSE I HAVE SEEN IT while trapped in a treestand while I watched this idiot spray a 30 round clip ‘into the woods’.
Your RIGHT to believe in the “2A” ( as you put it ) does not give you the RIGHT to infringe on someone else’s RIGHT to free speech.
Like I have said before, you can only go so far right before you’re back on the left!
I do not have to have been in combat to comment on a particular weapon (that I own) system’s suitability for hunting.
You are keep accusing me of liberalism. Because I do not conform to your ideas does not mean I am a leftist. What you are advocating can just as easily be described as fascist. If you knew me you would know I am not a leftist, but a minarchist. You can only go so far right before you are fascist.
Stupidity?!? I am not even going to touch that. You don’t know me, so don’t ever call me stupid.
If you think I am a radical because I understand and value my right to ensure freedom from tyranny, fine.
Maine has a magazine capacity limit for hunting, as do most other states. I have witnessed idiots blast through their 5 rounds as quickly as they could pull the trigger because they weer shooting a running deer. I hear several of these every deer season.
I am not infringing on anyone’s 1st amendment rights. Based on your response, I assume you do not own one of these firearms wither. Since when did hunting become combat?!?
All I ask is that you don’t tell me what to hunt with and I won’t tell you.
As for the “Those kind of rifles (AK’s and AR’s)are only made for one thing and thats to kill people.” The 30-06 was designed solely for military use, should we allow it? The Bolt action rifle was designed for killing people, should we allow it? Firearms were designed for warfare, should we allow them at all? How about bows, they were built to kill people, are they acceptable?
Finally, you guys don’t know what you are doing. This is how the VPC defines civilian sniper rifles which they want banned:
* a bolt action or semi-automatic
* having a two-stage trigger
* having a free-floated barrel
* having a”bull” or “target” barrel
* having a fluted barrel
This describes most target and varmint rifles, not mention many big game rifles.
Zumbolites such as yourself play right into their hands with your hunter elitism.
Look, I am a hobby gunsmith, ballistician (excuse me if I say quite experienced but it is relevent to the discussion), hunter, target shooter and “multiple firearms of all types” owner.
Arguing over a “type” of firearm is a pointless exercise. What defines a suitable “hunting” firearm is a matter of ballistics, not the color or material of the stock. To say any particular firearm should be banned from the hunting field because it is designed to kill people is very short sighted. Nearly every rifle I have in my collection was initially designed to kill people and I own some of the true classics. If you could try telling Parker Ackley that rifles designed to kill people should be banned from hunting he, being the solid down-to-earth fellow he was (and rebuilder of numerous ex-military firearms), would roast you.
The behaviour of people during the hunt depends on their integrity and brains, just as it does in any other human activity. If we want to see common-sense in the hunting field we should control hunters, not their firearms. To suggest anthing else is to put yourself in the position of anti-gunners in general with their dream that by banning guns they will succeed in controlling crime.
“I tend to agree with Paul’s statements above in that there are a whole bunch of people who, just because they have one will blast up the woods, BECAUSE I HAVE SEEN IT while trapped in a treestand while I watched this idiot spray a 30 round clip ‘into the woods’.”
Oh you poor thing. I guess it would have been better and less scary for you had it been a 15 shot handgun, or a guy using speed loaders and a 8 shot revolver. Maybe it would have been less scary if he had a 8 shot shotgun and was spraying the woods.
Just because you met an idiot in the woods, you want to ban an entire class of weapons based upon looks? Do you want to ban Corvettes when one races past you on the highway too? How about airplanes? They crash and kill hundreds of people at a time… we should ban those too, they are after all, pretty darn scary to many people.
This knee jerk reaction libtards have to ban everything under the sun the moment someone acts like an idiot is, well, idiocy itself. Military style semi-auto firearms account for less than 15% of the guns used in crime. If you want to ban something, go ban .22 handguns since they kill more people every year than AK’s do in this country. But it’s not about facts, the truth or even doing something beneficial for “the children”… as libtards often claim. No, it’s about political agenda’s and having your way, trying to get at the opposition in a political debate and using “slash and burn” tactics on our Constitution.
Grow up.
“Military style semi-auto firearms account for less than 15% of the guns used in crime.”
It’s even less than that.
It’s even less than that.
I wonder how many people that complain about black rifles have:
-Used a bolt action rifle for hunting: Just about every modern bolt action in production is a decendent of the mauser 98- originally designed to kill people.
-Used cartridges that are or had parent cartridges of 30-06, .303 brit, .308 win, 45/70: all cartridges originally designed to kill people.
-Have used semiauto rifles such as the Browning BAR or Remington 7400- both use technology from military rifles, one even carries the same moniker as a Squad Automatic Weapon used in WWII
-Use remington, mossberg, or Benelli shotguns- The military uses these exact same shotguns for ‘assault’ purposes.
http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_102302.asp
I really think this is both a case of shooter and industry overreaction, but Zumbo being out of touch is kind of surprising. I would think if the clips were limited to 5-7 rounds in the field, he would have never made this comment.
In most states, they are. For instance, here in NC, you can hunt deer with a civilian AK variant, as long as you use a 5-round hunting magazine instead of the standard 20 or 30 rounders.
Hunting configuration:
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/index.php?automodule=gallery&req=si&img=268
Target/competition/HD configuration:
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/index.php?automodule=gallery&req=si&img=589
[...] Tom Remington, of Black Bear Blog fame, recently posed the question “Should we have to give up our First Amendment rights under certain circumstances, like while working…†[...]