In case you missed it | As the Ward turns

0
none
Phil DiStefano

Read the quote below very carefully. It was part of a statement released Monday by CU in response to Ward Churchill losing his court appeal to get his teaching job back at the university.

“It is vital that what is published and what is taught in the classroom be based on research and scholarship grounded in honest, accepted and time-tested methods. This was always what was at stake in this case for the university, and the winners today are our faculty and students.”

— CU Chancellor Phil DiStefano

Based on this quote, Phil DiStefano has committed an offense that is worthy of his being terminated. At least that’s true if he holds himself to the same standard he is apparently setting for Ward Churchill.

Think about it, DiStefano is blatantly rewriting the history of the Churchill case and in so doing, is himself guilty of publishing false information that is not based on “research” or “grounded in honest” anything. To imply, as he obviously is, that Ward Churchill’s scholarly track record is what “was always at stake in this case for the university” is simply not true, it is low-quality revisionist history at best.

So listen up CU students. Your chancellor is trying to trick you into thinking that your school did nothing wrong when it fired Ward Churchill and that it was only trying to protect you and your education from his evil scholarly ways.

In 2009, as DiStefano is painfully aware, the courts found that Ward Churchill was wrongfully terminated by the University of Colorado for exercising his right to free speech. Apparently the chancellor’s scholarly research failed to turn up that fact. Or maybe he just has a different standard for his time-tested method of teaching …or should we say marketing.

ROMNEY FLIPS, THEN FLOPS

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney flip-flops more than a sandal store. By all rights he should lose the unearned nickname “Mittens” and get a new one: “Crocs.”

Ignore the many moderate positions Romney the Governor once held that now clash with the views of Romney the Candidate. Watching Romney zoom from one side of an issue to another this past week alone has been like watching a tennis match from the net, only with more whiplash.

Take his health care debacle. During a Sept. 9 appearance on Meet The Press, Romney said he would preserve two major parts of the Affordable Care Act, namely coverage for pre-existing conditions and letting children stay on their parents’ plans for longer. Then, once his handlers realized he had contradicted everything the GOP has stood for in the past two years, he issued a statement clarifying the “marketplace,” not a President Romney, will provide those two things to the public. (Except, obviously, it hasn’t — hence the need for the law.) Then a Romney aide re-clarified the clarifying statement to say that he would insure that Romney would make sure that “discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage is prohibited.”

Follow that? Romney reversed his position and supported parts of the federal health care law (the same parts he championed while passing a similar law as governor of Massachusetts) then flipped around and said he didn’t support them, then flopped to the other side and said that he would.

At this point, it’s hard to know what Romney believes regarding health care. He seems to wish his years governing Massachusetts could be forgiven, as if the term he spent revolutionizing health care in the state was merely a youthful dalliance, like buying a Backstreet Boys CD or sporting a Jheri curl. But like so many other issues (gay rights, gun control and abortion), Romney’s true beliefs on health care are proving difficult to pin down.

But who knows what the future will bring. Maybe Romney will soon clarify, with finality, his positions on the issues important to America.

Then he’ll probably release a statement reversing his previous positions.

Respond: letters@boulderweekly.com