Churchill on the air

AP is reporting on Professor Churchill's interview with Paula Zahn. There is little news here. The Prof. refuses to apologize for his remarks, but insists he was misinterpreted: "I never called for the deaths of millions of Americans," he said [as if this is a defense]. Wheaton college has canceled a speaking engagement of his, citing security concerns. Gov. Bill Owens renews his call for Churchill's firing and the Prof. threatens to sue if he is fired. The whole thing is fading from the airways and is beginning to work its way through an [shudder] academic bureaucracy. If there is a firing and trial that will be something to see, but right now it is sinking into the bureaucratic swamp.

Here's a question: Is the bureaucratic/industrial model for secondary and higher education, which is essentially a product of the Progressive Era and which was bloated out of all proportion after WWII, still productive, or should we be taking a serious look at alternatives?

UPDATE:

John Kasich's show on FOX is covering the Churchill affair and presents interviews with Gov. Owens, Churchill's attorney, and one of his student defenders. It's worth a look.

UPDATE:

In today's Denver Post Bob Ewegen compares the current imbroglio over Ward Churchill with an earlier dispute (in 1974) over the hiring of Bruce Franklin. Franklin, a Maoist activist, had been fired from a tenured position at Stanford, then offered a position at CU. That offer, however, was rescinded in the face of widespread protest. On both occasions Franklin sued and lost. His firing from Stanford was not on account of his ideology, but because of overt acts of protest he committed. In the case of the CU lawsuit, Franklin lost because he had no inherent right to be granted employment by the university.

Ewegen notes that Franklin, unlike Churchill, committed overt acts for which he could be fired. On the other hand, Franklin was a competent and prolific scholar, while Churchill is not. CU has chosen to investigate Churchill in regard to his actions and statements, which are probably not enough to warrant firing, but has ignored the poor quality of his scholarship, on which grounds he might be vulnerable.