The Try-Works

Peter Michelson, one of the few staunch defenders of Ward Churchill at the University of Colorado (and a damn fine professor, which I can attest from personal experience), has taken on the horseshit flap about Max Karson’s obviously satirical piece in CU’s student paper.  A piece which has now gotten Mr. Karson suspended from the paper.

Mr. Michelson’s dead on, of course.  Right down to his take on Boulder village idiot and hack muckraker, Heath Urie, who drummed up this mess.  The following is the full article from the Daily Camera.

To read the Feb. 21 and 22 Camera articles by Heath Urie on Max Karson, an editor and writer for CU’s Campus Press, one must believe that Mr. Karson is a mad-dog racist advocating that Asian students at CU should be “captured and ‘hogtied’” and “rounded up for a ‘reformation’” because “They hate us all … And I say it’s time we started hating them back.” While all these quoted words do appear in Karson’s now infamous op-ed column, Urie’s description of the piece is so “wrong” that it borders on criminal libel.

Still, Karson’s work not only “infuriated some students and past members of the Campus Press staff” but caught the indignant attention of the university chancellor, “Bud” Peterson, who contended that Karson’s column “was a poor attempt at social satire laden with offensive references, stereotypes, and hateful language” and was moreover “not properly labeled as either satire or commentary.”

The chancellor instructed the dean of the School of Journalism to “consider what steps are appropriate to account for what was published.” Given that the chancellor was careful to note that Karson’s “column is unquestionably protected under the First Amendment,” his charge to the dean was at the very least suggestively vague.

But one doesn’t get appointed to deanships by being slow on the uptake. Dean Paul Voakes promptly announced that in his “humble opinion, the student editors on this Asian piece got it wrong.” Imagine that: a humble dean and students’ getting it wrong! I taught at CU for 30 years and don’t recall meeting a humble dean or students ever getting it wrong. So this was some serious business. And the dean addressed it seriously.

First, as pedagogue, he distinguished between freedom of speech, “including freedom of despicable speech,” and material “so gratuitously offensive that its intention … is missed by the readers.” As teachers of literature know, students often go in the guise of readers, and their engagement with the famous “intentional fallacy” is tricky at best. Accordingly, the dean’s admonition was pertinent. As he put it, he and the student editors needed “to have a chat about that.” That being the acquisition of sufficient “sophistication” to “know where (the) line should be” between freedom of speech and, well, its antithesis.

The “chat” had quick results, where the public witnessed how the dean complemented pedagogy with his functions as scourge of poor attempts at social satire (the chancellor’s judgment), editors “getting it wrong” (the dean’s judgment), and mother superior of “diversity” training: Among other reparations The Campus Press editors “will work with” CU’s diversity coordinator and establish a diversity advisory board and take “a series of diversity awareness workshops,” and adopt a policy of standards of “acceptability” for op-ed pieces.

In the context of education these are plausible punishments. But the real lesson here is that free speech at CU — i.e. speech for which one will not be, as the Chinese have it, “re-educated” — is subject to the literary standards of a not particularly literate chancellor, the offensiveness quotient of a Student Diversity Advisory Board and anonymous “professional journalists of color,” and opinion standards of “experienced opinion editors.” If these journalists and editors of opinion were to include personnel from, say, The Washington Times, The National Review, and the Fox network as well as the tasteful local media, to say nothing of the Camera’s Heath Urie and CU’s own PR department, then the standards of vulgarity, mendacity, incompetence and offensiveness should not set the bar beyond the reach of even such a determinedly errant student writer/editor as Max Karson.

But then, how “wrong” was Mr. Karson? If one goes to the Campus Press Web site, one can read his column. Contrary to the chancellor’s characterization, it is clearly indicated as opinion and commentary, and it is conspicuously obvious as satire. Further, its satirical context reveals how the presumably professional Camera reporter’s description “got it wrong.” So why would the dean of the journalism school ignore the evidence before his eyes, precisely what the Campus Press faculty adviser had seen and apparently approved, and take up the chancellor’s righteously wrong-headed cudgel?

The real issue here is not whether Mr. Karson’s satire is poor or sophomoric. Nor is it an issue of “damage,” as the chancellor claimed. Whatever the resolutions of CU’s Student Union Legislative Council or the public “upset” for which Dean Voakes felt obliged to apologize, Karson’s article could not and has not damaged anyone or thing, including the reputation of the university. The real issue is that the chancellor feared or was told it was “offensive.”

Offensiveness is what accounts for how the reporter, the chancellor and the dean took a shot at Kid Karson’s epistle and “got it wrong.” A cult of offensiveness has developed out of a “feel good’ ethos, whereby everybody is supposed to have the right to feel good. Its ideology thrives on college campuses and even extends to the law. Serious legal scholars have proposed that First Amendment rights be measured by the offensiveness quotient of an utterance, that one’s right to speak be moderated by whether it offends Mrs. Grundy or the ACLU or the Moral Majority or the Muslim community or the Asian community or Chancellor “Bud” Peterson.

It will never be law, however, because the Supreme Court, no matter how conservative or liberal it might be, will never approve its manifest capriciousness, both as law and social policy. But it can weasel its way into practice if people who should know better, people such as Chancellor Peterson and Dean Voakes, validate “offensiveness” as the arbiter of free speech in university discourse. That is the kind of thing that really does do damage.

Max Karson, a Try-Works favorite, has struck again, penning an obviously satirical opinion piece about racial tension at CU entitled, “If It’s War The Asians Want . . .” Unless I’m missing something, the gist of the piece seems pretty clear: that peoples who still retain their own non-homogenized cultures will assuredly get them wiped out by exposure to the University of Colorado. The piece plays on stereotypes, but Karson rather unambiguously makes the point that CU will do its damnedest to reduce folks to the stereotypes held by the overwhelmingly white student body; not that said stereotypes represent inherent attributes of the targeted parties.

It ain’t nearly as funny as it should be, but the reaction sure as hell has been. It being CU, the irony-challenged administration and student body have been tsk-tsking like, well, a Boulderite at a William S. Burroughs reading. And even more delicious, the entire staff of the Campus Press has been ordered to undergo diversity training.

So, what started all the fucking fuss about an obviously satirical opinion piece penned in a student newspaper? Well, it turns out it was misreporting of my old pal, Heath Urie. This from the indispensable Michael Roberts:

The ball got rolling with a February 20 piece in the Boulder Daily Camera by staffer Heath Urie. The article had a few flaws: As noted in a subsequent correction, Urie improperly identified the column as an editorial representing the opinion of the Campus Press as a whole and misstated the tenure of past Press editor Stephanie Clary, who remarked negatively about Karson’s attempt at generating yuks. Nonetheless, the report was quickly picked up by other media outlets — among them the Denver Post, Channel 4, the Rocky Mountain News, and even FoxNews.com.

The rest.

Let me repeat that: “Urie improperly identified the column as an editorial representing the opinion of the Campus Press as a whole.”

Let me rephrase that: Heath Urie, a journalist gainfully employed by a respected mid-market newspaper, ACTUALLY THOUGHT AN ARTICLE THAT PROPOSED KIDNAPPING ALL ASIANS AND MAKING THEM EAT BAD SUSHI WAS THE OFFICIAL EDITORIAL STANCE OF CU’S STUDENT NEWSPAPER!

Now, I knew Mr. Urie was a beer or two shy of a six-pack upon meeting him, but after this I’m starting to wonder that he hasn’t accidentally lobotomized himself with his nose-picking finger. One has to wonder how many times the Daily Camera’s gonna let this barely literate little asshole embarrass them.

Michael Roberts is on a roll, checking in with another update about Ward Churchill and the Boulder Daily Camera.

A More Messages blog from January 30 includes an e-mail Q&A with Ward Churchill, who responded to a query about the dropping of charges against one of his supporters over an episode involving Boulder Daily Camera reporter Heath Urie. However, the final section of the communique was temporarily omitted because it made a separate accusation against the Camera that required a response from the paper. With apologies to Paul Harvey, here’s the rest of the story, which deals with the 2005-2006 period when the question of whether or not Churchill should be allowed to continue in his role as University of Colorado Boulder professor ate up huge chunks of newsprint at publications across the Front Range.

The concluding section of Churchill’s e-mail found him responding to an assertion that editors at the Camera couldn’t squeeze in letters or op-ed pieces from some of his most prominent defenders, including the University of Hawaii’s David Stannard – yet somehow space for attacks against him was always available. According to him, this claim is accurate. He wrote that the Camera “simply declined to run [Stannard’s] or any of a number of other pieces favorable to me submitted from scholars around the country, meanwhile finding room to run hostile material on a regular basis.”

“The Camera wasn’t alone on this score, BTW,” he went on. “The Colorado Daily did pretty much the same thing… and so did the Post. The Rocky, of course, was worst of all. The Boulder Weekly was pretty much the only Metro Area rag that even made an effort at retaining something resembling balance.”

In addition, Churchill wrote that a Camera representative told him that, “despite running editorial material about me every single day, their policy was that responses appearing under my name could not appear more than once or twice per month. They did allow, however, that they were aware that this placed me at a rather glaring disadvantage, and that this was undoubtedly unfair. That’s when it was suggested that I write responses under other people’s names, and that they’d run them with a wink and a nod, thereby letting me have ‘my’ say while still maintaining ‘appearances’ (of what was left a tad mysterious). My response to that proposition was to ask why, if they felt material arguing my case [could] appear under names other than mine, they weren’t publishing the material submitted by people like Stannard. I got no answer.”

Clint Talbott, the Camera’s editorial page editor, begs to differ. Here’s his take:

Thanks for giving us the opportunity to respond. My brief response is this: The charge that the Camera declined to publish letters and op-eds favorable to Churchill or from Churchill supporters is completely false.

We strove throughout the relevant time to include letters and op-eds from supporters, detractors and those whose opinions could not be easily categorized. Below, you’ll see a sample of letters from 2005 that defended Churchill’s right to speak, his scholarship and/or his blow-back critique in the “Eichmann” essay.” [This material has been placed at the bottom of the blog.] We also published op-eds from vocal defender Tom Mayer, local activist Ty Gee and instructor Ursula Lindquist that challenged the Camera’s editorial view (and the academic committees’ damning assessment) of Churchill’s academic practices.

For the record, the Camera consistently defended Churchill’s right to make provocative claims about 9/11 victims. His scholarship was another matter, to us, and to his colleagues at the university.

I have no record of receiving anything from David Stannard, and I am not familiar with that name. I know I have received suggested op-eds from [CU sociology department staffer Tom] Mayer (and perhaps others) that were far too long to print. I have not spoken to Churchill since sometime in the mid-90s. So this conversation, if it in fact occurred as he says it did, took place either between one of two former editorial writers, one of whom is deceased.

It’s easy to say we declined to print “any number” of pro-Churchill pieces. It requires more rigor to specify a number; just a wild guess that he did not specify so much as a ballpark figure. Similarly, it is easy to recount an alleged conversation with an unnamed staff member. It is more revealing to name the staffer (which, I’m inferring, Churchill does not do).

We do have a once-a-month policy on letters. And we do not bend it for public figures, even when they are in the national spotlight. I can certainly believe someone here told him that much. Beyond that, however, I guess you’d have to take Churchill at his word.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

Clint

What follows is nearly 7,000 words worth of pro-Churchill material – the sort of commentary that may resurface if and when the onetime CU prof’s lawsuit against the university over his July 2007 dismissal reaches the courtroom stage. By then, Churchill and the Camera will likely have plenty more about which to disagree.

The rest.

Of course, almost all the “nearly 7,000 words worth of pro-Churchill material” comes in the form of letters and open forum blog postings, rather proving Churchill’s point, and Mr. Talbott seems to have included anything that mentions Churchill in any sort of positive light by every letter writer in the last three fucking years.

So what’s missing?

Well, the obvious. During the period in question, the Boulder Daily Camera was giving space to every jackass, lunatic and rapist/murderer who’d ever had a bone to pick with Mr. Churchill. And then, as I understand it, was relying on their once-a-month policy to forbid any sort of rebuttal.

It’d be sort of like me, as a newspaper owner, calling Clint Tabott a rapist on the first of the month, printing his rebuttal, then calling him a child molester on the fifteenth and refusing to allow him to respond out of my sense of journalistic integrity.

An example?

How’s about when the Boulder Daily Camera, riffing on one of my favorite of the local media’s sleazy tricks, ran a Suzan Shown Harjo editorial accusing Ward Churchill of being an ethnic fraud, quoting Dennis Banks and Clyde Bellecourt to that effect.

Think it might have anything to do with anything that Ms. Harjo’s buddies, Dennis Banks and Clyde Bellecourt, have a longstanding feud with Mr. Churchill that ain’t got a thing to do with his ethnicity?

That maybe what really gets under their skin is that Mr. Churchill and others in Colorado AIM have been accusing them for about a decade of being involved in a particularly nasty bit of kidnapping, rape and murder?

And that said accusations seem borne out by the fact that one of their cronies has already been convicted of said rape and murder and another one’s been extradited from Canada to stand trial?

Now, don’t you think the Boulder Daily Camera might should give a little space to that kind of information? Even if it violates their once-a-month rule?

Seems like a fair question to me. But, hell, maybe rebuttals as regards that sleazy little maneuver were some of the ones “far too long to print.”

Or, maybe, just some more examples of correspondence the Camera doesn’t care for getting, ahem, lost.

Yeah, just try to imagine that.

Anyway, Michael Roberts has an update in today’s Westword about the Passion of Heath Urie.

Class conflict: The October 18, 2007, Message revolved around Boulder Daily Camera reporter Heath Urie, who was prevented from entering a class taught on the CU-Boulder campus by firebrand instructor Ward Churchill. Back then, neither Urie, who pressed charges against Churchill supporter Josh Dillabaugh after the incident, nor the infamous prof commented on the matter. But a few weeks after charges against Dillabaugh were dropped, both are weighing in — and their viewpoints have absolutely zero in common.

Urie expresses regret that he became part of the story: “That’s something you never want to happen.” Yet he thinks he and his photographer, Joshua Lawton, acted in a professional manner throughout, and he defends his decision to call the police after his forcible ejection. In his view, “When somebody lays a hand on you, that’s when they cross the line.” He’s just as adamant that the accounts of the episode that emanated from Churchill’s camp bear no relation to reality. “They’re exaggerated, blown out of proportion and just inaccurate — and I stand for the opposite things as a reporter,” he says.

Churchill begs to differ. Via e-mail, he argues that charges against Dillabaugh should never have been filed in the first place, especially considering his contention that Urie initially identified his alleged attacker as someone else entirely: TryWorks blogger Benjamin Whitmer.

After the authorities declined to prosecute Dillabaugh, Whitmer suggested the Camera pony up an I’m-sorry, and Churchill concurs. “Apologies are owed by the Camera not only to Whitmer, and even more so to Dillabaugh, but to everybody in the room that night — including yours truly — and to its readers,” he writes as part of a Q&A at blogs.westword.com/latestword. “Any reputable newspaper would already have issued them. But, hey, we’re talking about the Daily Camera. So neither the word ‘reputable’ nor the word ‘newspaper’ really applies.” Churchill strikes the same chord when he’s asked how the Camera has treated him in general. “Truth is,” he responds, “I’ve received better treatment from the Klan.”

Guess that’s his burning cross to bear.

The rest.

Mr. Roberts also provides his full exchange with Ward Churchill and myself in his blog. As well as a quote from David Lane, who cuts right to the heart of the matter.

When contacted for his comments, David Lane, the attorney who represented Dillabaugh, was brief and to the point. “The charges against Josh were dismissed as they should have been because he never assaulted anyone,” Lane wrote. But Whitmer was much more expansive in the following e-mail exchange, conducted earlier in January.

Westword: What’s your understanding of the reason charges against Josh Dillabaugh were dropped?

Benjamin Whitmer: My understanding is the charges were dropped because the case couldn’t be proved — i.e., Mr. Dillabaugh’s lawyer talked to the DA, told them the Camera had a longstanding animosity towards Mr. Churchill and that if the case went to court, he’d run roughshod over Urie. Granted, that came to me secondhand, but that’s the way I heard it.

WW: Were you surprised by this decision? Or was it pretty much what you expected?

BW: It’s exactly what I expected. And what I’ve been predicting since charges were filed. I’ve been calling Heath Urie a liar from the outset, and that wasn’t hyperbole. He’s a lying little prick with a monstrous sense of entitlement. This was his attempt at retribution after going batshit when he was prohibited from entering the classroom. The only thing fucking dumber than Urie’s filing charges is the other lying asshole over at the Camera, [city editor] Matt Sebastian, implying [in a public statement] that Urie had been physically harmed. I’ve received rougher lap-dances than the treatment Urie got.

WW: When did you send your latest letter to the Daily Camera? [The letter demanded an apology from the Camera.]

BW: January 2nd.

WW: Was it posted on the blog right away? Or was there a delay? [A previous Whitmer letter didn’t appear online until after Westword contacted the Camera about it.] Did it also appear in the regular print edition today?

BW: It was posted on the blog right away. As to whether or not it appeared in the print edition, I have no idea. I’d rather gut myself with a rusty fishhook than read the Camera on a regular basis, so I don’t subscribe. [The letter was printed in the paper’s January 7 edition.]

WW: Have you heard from anyone at the Camera in regard to your demand for an apology? Do you expect to hear from anyone there in the future?

BW: No, I ain’t heard from anybody. And I won’t hear from anybody. To be honest, the only reason I sent the letter was in hopes they’d be dumb enough to “lose” it again. It was a stupid enough move on their part that it seemed worth seeing if they’d replicate it.

WW: What lessons should reporters at the Camera and/or other newspapers learn from what took place?

BW: Quit the mainstream media. The fourth estate’s populated by dribbling morons of which Heath Urie’s all too typical.

WW: Would you like to share any other comments about the resolution of the case?

BW: This is what the Camera does when it comes to Ward Churchill. This is typical. Like the Rocky, they hate Ward Churchill’s fucking guts, and they’ll pass up no opportunity to slime all over him. It’s this kind of sleazy horseshit that’s pissed me off throughout the so-called scandal, and it’s exactly what led to my attempt at giving them a taste of their own medicine on the Try-Works.

The only thing atypical about this incident is the stunning incompetence of Heath Urie. It’s one thing to attempt to smuggle in recording devices and rush a closed room to provoke a gotcha journalism incident. I expect no less when dealing with the Denver/Boulder media. But to file charges based on an insane, self-contradictory police report is something else entirely. I feel almost bad doing this, since Urie seems a beer or two shy of a six-pack, but I kind of owe him a hearty round of thanks. I can lecture about the hypocrisy of the local media until my eyes bleed, but it doesn’t have anything like the impact of Urie’s dipshit stunt.

A few days after this exchange, Churchill provided his own replies to a similar batch of e-mail questions:

Westword: What is your response to charges being dropped against Josh Dillabaugh?

Ward Churchill: There was never any basis for filing charges against Dillabaugh in the first place. Setting aside the fact that Urie was assaulted by no one – quite the opposite, actually (see below) — Urie described Ben Whitmer, not Josh Dillabaugh, as his “assailant.” Indeed, his identification of Ben was “confirmed” by a picture snapped in the hallway by the photographer who accompanied Urie that night.

WW: Are you pleasantly surprised that charges were dropped? Or did you expect them to be by virtue of witnessing the incident?

WC: Actually, I’d like to have seen it go to court. That way, the bald-faced nature of Urie’s lies would have ended up a matter of official record. And that, in turn, would have served to shed a bit of very useful light on the Camera’s editorial defense of the guy, as well as its broader editorial posture.

WW: Were you interviewed by representatives of the Boulder Police Department in relation to the charges?

WC: Nope. Nor by the campus cops, although I was standing within a few feet of the “investigating officers” at a couple of points while they were on the “scene.” That in itself would have made for some interesting testimony when I took the stand at trial, doncha think?

WW: Do you think charges should have been filed against Heath Urie, the reporter with the Boulder Daily Camera?

WC: Given the daintiness of the “standards” applied in bringing charges against Dillabaugh, Urie should definitely have been charged with assaulting Ben Whitmer. This is to say that when Urie came barging into the room, Ben put up his hand, palm toward Urie, and told Urie to stop. Urie then walked into Ben’s hand, and tried to keep moving forward (i.e., to push Ben backwards or out of his way).

My own view is that this is all chickenshit, pure and simple. But, since Urie, the cops, and the DA all opted to play by such rules, Urie should have been charged with assaulting Ben and possibly Dillabaugh.

He should also have been charged with menacing me (he was headed directly towards me when he ran into Ben’s hand), harrassment (he came charging right up into my face later, during the break, despite having been repeatedly told that I didn’t wish to speak with him), trespassing (he entered a closed session in a reserved room after being told he was barred from doing so), and something on the order of creating a disturbance (demanding his “right” to interview me right in the middle of my trying to deliver my lecture).

WW: Benjamin Whitmer has asked for an apology from Camera representatives in the wake of the charges being dropped. Do you think the newspaper should issue a formal apology? If not, how do you think the paper should respond?

WC: Apologies are owed by the Camera not only to Whitmer, and even more so to Dillabaugh, but to everybody in the room that night — including yours truly — and to its readers. Any reputable newspaper would already have issued them. But, hey, we’re talking about the Daily Camera. So neither the word “reputable” nor the word “newspaper” really applies.

WW: How would you characterize your treatment by the Camera?

WC: Truth is, I’ve received better treatment from the Klan.

WW: Are you teaching your class at CU this semester? Do you feel that the first class last semester was a success?

WC: It’s a year-long deal, so we’ll simply pick up during spring semster where we left off in the fall. And, yes, I’d consider the fall semester to have been a resounding success. It was, moreover, a genuine delight.

The rest.

Mr. Urie can wax philosophical all he wants, but charges have been dropped. His version of events has been found lacking by Boulder’s DA. And she’s known to buy just about fucking anything.

Update: Just noticed that Mr. Martin’s whining because he didn’t manage to worm his way into this story. Hey, maybe next time, you fucking parasite.

Update II: I like Michael Roberts a lot, but c’mon, don’t tell me that lapdance line shouldn’t have gone in the print edition. That motherfucker was solid gold.

Jessica Corry, who you’ll remember from my reaction to a spectacularly fucking dumb article in the Rocky Mountain News, has a new spectacularly dumb fucking article over at New West. I’m used to columnists from the Independence Institute not being the brightest of the bright, but in Ms. Corry’s case, I have to wonder that her brains don’t dribble out her ears with every keystroke.

This is my favorite:

To make their extremely debatable point that Christopher Columbus was a murderer, rapist and slave trader, they splashed fake blood peppered with doll heads onto the streets. They then blocked the street, at which point 80 people were arrested.

The rest.

What the fuck’s debatable about that? Have you done any research that didn’t take place at your keyboard in your fucking jammies, Ms. Corry?

The historical record’s pretty clear on Columbus. He traded slaves, you need read no further than his own writings to verify that. He also raped Indians — or at least kidnapped woman and gave them to his underlings to beat and rape — we’ve got diaries to that effect written by the motherfuckers sailing with him who were doing the raping. As to whether or not he was a murderer, again you don’t have to dig too deep to find evidence of it. No deeper than Bartolome de Las Casas, who sailed with Columbus.

That’s one source for each of the points you consider “debatable”. There are plenty more. You can argue that what Columbus did was worth the human cost because of the ensuing colonization of the Americas — it puts you on the same moral plane as Hitler, but you can argue it — but you can’t fucking argue that Columbus was not a murderer, a rapist and a slave trader. That train’s left the station, dear. At least amongst those of us who visit, like, libraries for our historical information.

Really, where the fuck does the Independence Institute come up with the mudheaded idiots?

Anyway, as much fun as it is to poke fun at Ms. Corry’s monolithic ignorance, I should be kind. After all, she did provide me with the heartiest belly laugh I’ve had in some time.

By continuing on, Lane and his radical clients have done nothing to help their cause, especially in my household, where my two-year-old daughter is now deeply afraid of American Indians.

Her fear is not the result of some bigoted Hollywood movie production. Rather, it’s because of the radical activists themselves. On a morning walk with my husband not far from our home in downtown Denver on the day of the last parade, my daughter heard the sound of drums and wanted a closer look. As she leaned forward in her stroller, protestors jumped out in front of her, splashing their “blood” onto the street.

Nearly four months later, she still talks about the event. Every time she hears the sound of a drum, she says “boom, boom, boom. Indians scare me, Mommy.”

I’m pretty sure that’s supposed to be some kind of hamhanded attempt at irony, but, hell, I can’t help but take it as an imperative to action.

See, I’ve always been a little ambivalent about the fake blood, but now I plan on demanding it for each and every protest I attend.

Anything that scares the shit out of yuppie spawn has its fucking place.

And, gosh, just imagine how scary it must’ve been for those real flesh and blood brown babies getting fucking butchered by Columbus.

Or, for that matter, those flesh and blood brown babies being butchered in Iraq.

With the open encouragement of the Independence Institute.

Update: Interesting, by the way, how variable Ms. Corry’s tender sensibilities are. Fake blood on the street has her torturing prose into purple, yeah?

But being married to a fucking convicted rapist doesn’t seem to phase her in the least. (Scroll down to the comments.)

Another apology for the entirely gratuitous Joyce reference. But, for fun, I sent the following to the Daily Camera.

Dear Editor,

A few months ago one of your reporters, Heath Urie, barged into a Ward Churchill teach-in which he had been informed several times he would not be allowed to enter. When he barreled into the room, I put my hand on his chest to stop his advance towards Ward Churchill, and another gentleman, Josh Dillabaugh, took Mr. Urie’s arm to escort him from the classroom.

Mr. Urie had been told repeatedly he would not be allowed in the classroom. Ward Churchill’s lecture was a student-organized private event, allowing attendance to be restricted by the students. This was confirmed by CU spokesman Bronson Hilliard in an October 6, 2007 article penned by Jessica Peck Corry in the Rocky Mountain News, and in an October 18, 2007 article penned by Michael Roberts in Westword.

Mr. Urie’s actions were a delightful example of the gotcha journalism tactics perfected by the Denver/Boulder media as regards Ward Churchill. This in itself is hardly noteworthy. The Daily Camera’s longstanding animosity for Ward Churchill — especially as evidenced by the content of the editorial pages controlled by Clint Talbott — is a matter of record.

However, Mr. Urie was not content to end his harassment there. Instead, he filed a police report claiming I assaulted him. When that allegation became untenable, he changed his story, claiming that he had been assaulted by Josh Dillabaugh, and filed charges. Then, in a press statement, Daily Camera City Editor Matt Sebastian implied that Mr. Dillabaugh and I had “physically harmed” Mr. Urie. For his part, Mr. Urie has refused to comment, stating in an October 3, 2007 Campus Press article by Rob Ryan that, “we’re gonna let the police report speak for itself.”

Well, it has. And, as of last week, all charges have been dropped against Mr. Dillabaugh by the Boulder DA, and none were ever filed against me.

As such, I demand a public apology from Mr. Urie and Mr. Sebastian on the part of myself and Josh Dillabaugh. Mr. Dillabaugh and I were asked to provide security for Ward Churchill during the student-organized event. We neither assaulted Mr. Urie, nor, as implied by Mr. Sebastian, caused him any physical harm. Mr. Urie’s attempt at gotcha journalism was spectacularly stupid. His following attempt at retaliation upon being thwarted bordered on the inane. That the editorial staff at the Daily Camera publicly implied violence on our part makes one wonder if the editors are competent to keep saliva contained in their collective mouth. Mr. Dillabaugh and I demand an apology.

Thank you,
Benjamin Whitmer

It goes without saying that there’s no way in hell I’m letting the Daily Camera slide for their horseshit lies. Clint Talbott, Heath Urie and Matt Sebastian have all claimed, in one way or another, that Mr. Dillabaugh and I assaulted Heath Urie. They’re fucking liars, and I will be demanding an apology; I’m just contemplating the form of that demand.

As I predicted, all charges have been dropped against Mr. Dillabaugh as regards our ejection of Daily Camera hack Heath Urie from Ward Churchill’s guerrilla class. The Boulder DA’s official stance is that it would be impossible to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

I’ll agree with that.

Y’know, because Heath Urie’s a lying little asshole, as evidenced by his coverage of the non-incident, as well as the inane police report he filed. (Oh, yeah, and his bosses, Clint Talbott and Matt Sebastian, are lying assholes as well.)

As I’ve said from the get-go, there was no physical harm done to Mr. Urie. Nor was there any violence. Hell, there was scarcely an incident at all. There was only a lying little asshole working at a barely literate small-town rag who attempted to make his own news with a stupid fucking stunt, and then, when that didn’t work, tried to intimidate Mr. Dillabaugh and I to cover his ass.

The best part is that Mr. Urie and his dipshit bosses over at the Camera have been repeating ad nauseum that they wouldn’t comment on the case, insisting that our vaunted judicial system would prove the truth of their story.

Well, it has. You’re a fucking punk, Mr. Urie, and you’re all fucking liars.

Merry Christmas.

Mr. Martin was kind enough to do what I’m too fucking lazy to do: procure lying asshole Heath Urie’s statements from CUPD.

You’ll be shocked to note that they’re the kind of self-contradicting horseshit which one usually associates with Mr. Urie’s journalism.

The first statement specifically names me as the guy who assaulted Urie. (At least I’m assuming he means me; the haircut and shirt color’s right, but he’s off on my height by four to five fucking inches.)

Urie stated that he wanted to press charges against the man who assaulted him. Urie stated that the man who assaulted him was about 5-7 to 5-8, white male with facial hair and either shaved head or very short hair, and possibly wearing a green shirt. Lawton added that the male had an accomplice present, a taller male with a pony tail. Lawton showed me an image of the male who allegedly assaulted Urie which he had taken with his digital camera. I could see in the image that the male had a green button-down shirt and short [hair].

So, in the first report, Urie’s so sure I assaulted him that he provides the cops a detailed description. Not only is he sure, but so is Lawton, who was a witness. In fact, Lawton’s so positive of the fact, that he took a picture of me and showed it to the cops.

But then in the second statement, Urie does an about face. Claiming that it was actually Mr. Dillabaugh who assaulted him. And this after he claims Mr. Dillabaugh blew smoke in his face. (I know: the horror.)

One can only assume that, it being Boulder, the tender darling was so affronted by the presence of cigarette smoke that he decided to change his story, naming Mr. Dillabaugh as the principle.

Or something.

Of course, both accounts are ridiculous. But the fact that Mr. Urie and Mr. Lawton are changing their story to fit whomever pissed them off last, speaks volumes about their journalistic ethics.

Boy, I can’t wait for this to hit the courts.

And, it’s the damnedest thing, but my memory’s getting a little overwhelmed by all the conflicting accounts. See, in the heat of the moment, when faced by two sniveling little media pricks, I can’t recall whether it might’ve been me that took Urie by the arm in the first place.

Update: I can’t stop chuckling at Mr. Urie’s oft-repeated assertion that he’ll let the police report speak for itself.

Well, yeah, I guess it does. In a nigh-psychotic, split-personality kind of way.

Updated: Post edited to make a little more sense.

There’s a piece about the so-called scuffle reported by the Daily Camera’s Heath Urie at the Ward Churchill guerilla class in today’s Westword. There’s one typo, just so you know. I’m quoted as saying that Mr. Dillabaugh took Heath Urie by the “arms.” That should be a singular “arm.” I told the Westword reporter, Mr. Roberts, the exact same thing I’ve told everyone else: “I put my hand on [Heath Urie] to stop his advance towards Professor Churchill, and the gentleman I was with took him by the arm to escort him out. If that’s Mr. Urie’s idea of assault, I suggest he might be a little too tender for the role of hardened journalist on the mean streets of Boulder.”

But other than that, the article’s just chock full of fun.

Take, for instance, this excerpt, wherein lyin’ asshole Joshua Lawton offers up the kind of ignorance of the rules argument for his shenanigans that makes one begin to wonder if the Daily Camera might be seeking a new photographer in the not too distant future.

Later, Lawton goes on, Urie asked the three men described by Whitmer as young Republicans to take in his recorder, only to learn afterward that this was forbidden.

Ah, so Mr. Lawton only learned “afterwards” that trying to sneak recording devices in the classroom might be a fucking problem. Funny, I thought we’d made that no recording nor media stipulation pretty fucking clear. Y’know, after telling him and his lyin’ asshole partner, Heath Urie, about a dozen fucking times that, well, no media nor recording would be allowed.

Good God, Mr. Lawton, it’s no wonder the Daily Camera put a gag order on you two idiots. If for no other reason than to save you from drowning on your own saliva as you stumble and choke for excuses for your dipshit behavior.

By the way, I still find it pretty interesting that Mr. Urie didn’t mention his shenanigans in his Daily Camera article. His exact line was: “Two men who identified themselves as event organizers turned away three male CU students at the door, calling them ‘agitators.’” No mention ‘tall about his own ploy to sneak recording devices into the room.

But, hell, thanks for admitting it, Mr. Lawton. And consequently, of course, pointing out that your cronie Heath Urie is — all together now — a lyin’ asshole.

That ain’t nothing on their lyin’ asshole boss, though. See, I told Mr. Roberts that I’d sent a letter to the Daily Camera directly after Mr. Urie’s article appeared to set the record straight. And I also pointed out that, even though the Daily Camera pledges to post “all appropriate letters . . .in the spirit of openness” mine never made it. Well, here’s the Daily Camera’s editorial-page editor’s explanation.

When asked via e-mail about the letter on October 11, Clint Talbott, the Camera’s editorial-page editor, responded that it had been omitted because of miscommunication between him and the blog overseer. Before long, Whitmer’s screed appeared above a comment by Talbott that reads, “The Camera disputes this version of events and stands by its reporting.”

A miscommunication that just happened to occur as I called bullshit on Heath Urie’s article? A miscommunication that was reconciled as soon as a Westword reporter asked ‘em about it? That’s the kind of sniveling little assholism that doesn’t even deserve the trademarked Try-Works sneer.

As big a set of lyin’ assholes as those may be, however, they’ve got nothing on the Daily Camera’s city editor Matt Sebastion, who released a statement about the incident that read, “[w]e fully support a journalist’s right to do his job without being physically harmed for asking a simple question.”

Physically harmed? What, did we muss up Mr. Urie’s arm hairs? Bruise his tender ego?

The lyin’ little asshole wasn’t physically harmed. He wasn’t assaulted. He’s a pushy little prick with a head full of entitlement who burst into a room that he wasn’t allowed in, and was told to leave. That’s it.

There was no scuffle, no fracas, just one lyin’ asshole’s foiled attempt at gotcha journalism. And now, being the lyin’ little asshole he is, he’s trying to get revenge with a fantasy assault.

Here’s the same challenge I issued the Daily Camera in my letter:

You said I shoved you, Heath Urie. CUPD pulled me out of the classroom, told me that’s what you said, and that you would be filing assault charges. They had my description; I was the person in question.

Where’s my warrant, you lyin’ little asshole? Either file charges, or admit you’re a lyin’ little asshole.

Update: John Martin’s wormed his way into Michael Roberts’ coverage of the so-called scuffle over on the Westword blog. There’s not much to say, except what’s already been said: i.e., given Mr. Martin’s behavior towards Mr. Dillabaugh’s wife on the day in question, I think Mr. Dillabaugh was more than restrained in his treatment of the creepy little shit.

And, as I just noticed, even the Westword readers ain’t real confused about the issue. Take this comment left by Kane:

wow. If you go to that guy’s blog, it’s pretty clear that he is obsessed with Churchill, essentially to the point of being a stalker. They’re painstakingly detailing all aspects of his life, plus posting photos of pictures of students seen in his vicinity with their names.

They probably have a right to be alarmed by these people if they’re actually creeping up to them in public. I really don’t buy that the kid telling him to f#*k off was making a threat. What did the blogger guy do just before that attracted the attention. Probably hundreds of people watching the O’Reilly factor or listening to radio sent Churchill death threats, so why wouldn’t he feel wary about people coming up in public.

Seriously, everyone else was amused during the week that the Churchill made the news, and wrote a nasty email or two, but everyone with a life has moved on to other things.

By the way, anyone else noticed how tender these little darlings are? John Martin stalks Josh Dillabaugh’s wife, and Mr. Dillabaugh rightly tells him to get fucked, sending Mr. Martin into a frenzy of whiny outrage that still hasn’t ended; Heath Urie gets kicked out a meeting he had no right to be in, and he invents assault charges.

It’s a wonder these poor dears don’t just melt away in the sunlight.

Who the hell is Heath Urie you ask? Well, he’s the reporter from the Daily Camera who showed up last night at the Ward Churchill class organized by CU students. I can count about six lies throughout his article, but the biggest comes at the end.

Two men who identified themselves as event organizers turned away three male CU students at the door, calling them “agitators.”

One of the men watching the door, who did not give his name, became physical with a Camera reporter who tried to enter the room — grabbing his arm and pushing him — prompting a report to police.

The rest.

I was one of the two men, and according to Mr. Urie last night, it was I who pushed him, and the other gentleman who grabbed his arm. He was so sure of this, he sent several CUPD officers down with a description of me and the other gentleman, and an elaborate fantasy of being assaulted. Again, with me doing the pushing, and the other gentleman doing the grabbing.

Nice to see he’s already changing his story, don’t you think?

The real story as follows.

There were several reasons the Daily Camera shitheels weren’t let in. One damn good one is that the Daily Camera photographer, Joshua Lawton, had already violated Professor Churchill’s trust once, snapping a picture of one Churchill’s students during the initial scandal, and publishing it on the front page, after being specifically told to keep his camera off the students. But the main reason is that this was a student-organized event, and the student-organizers didn’t want ‘em there. They have the right not have these little pricks poking cameras in their faces and recording every word they say. And, as Churchill’s syllabus made very clear, the class ain’t a media event. (That said, an exception was made for two members of the CU student press. They’re students, and they still have the opportunity to set right their lives, and pursue an honest profession.)

The two Daily Camera shitbirds, Mr. Lawton and Mr. Urie, were confrontational from the get-go. They were waiting outside the classroom, and immediately jumped in Professor Churchill’s face as he arrived for class. He told them several times he had no comment for them. They then asked if they could attend the class, and were told no. (Although, that was later modified; Professor Churchill told Mr. Urie he could attend next week, without camera or recording devices, if he could show that he’d read the material. Having met Mr. Urie, I find it unlikely he could read the denser portion of his own newspaper, let alone a full-length book.) They did their required share of whining, bellowing, and etc., trying their damnedest to get someone to react to them. They were summarily ignored, of course.

Then, the little shits got busted trying to slip a digital recorder to three students entering the class. (Sound familiar? Why is it that these media types are so fucking inept, anyway?) Those are the three students turned away to which Mr. Urie refers. (Funny, how he left that part out.) When they were turned away, a whole new furor of shrieking and hair-tearing on the part of the Daily Camera crew ensued. Which, again, was ignored. And we all entered the classroom, sat down, and got to work.

Next thing we knew, Mr. Urie barged into the classroom, and strode towards Professor Churchill, shouting. He was holding a digital recorder in his hand, and obviously trying to provoke an incident. I and the other gentleman in question stood and approached him. I put my hand on him to stop his advance, and told him he had to leave. The other gentleman took him by his arm to escort him out, telling him the same. This set him into one of those panicky, arm-flailing, epileptic-type fits which seem so endemic amongst the local media and bloggers (no link), so I turned and asked another of the organizers to call CUPD. But when I turned back around, Mr. Urie had already decided to exit of his own volition. That was your grabbing of the arm and pushing.

About ten minutes later, CUPD showed up to inform us that Mr. Urie was set to file the aforementioned assault charges against us. We laughed, told them the story, and returned to class. Twenty or so minutes later, they returned to let us know that they’d spoken to Mr. Urie, informing him that he needed to act like a professional, that he wasn’t allowed to enter the classroom, and that he wasn’t allowed to harass people outside the classroom; he could politely request comment, but if told to get lost, he needed to leave his target alone. That seemed eminently reasonable to us, and we told CUPD as much.

Of course, at the break, Mr. Urie ignored these directives entirely, and began to harass Professor Churchill again. To his scant credit, we only had to remind him three or four times that he was out of line before he stalked off.

So, there you have it. According to CUPD, Mr. Urie is attempting to file assault charges, and detectives may contact us to pursue the matter.

They won’t, of course. Mr. Urie is a corny little asshole who tried his best to provoke an incident to fabricate a story. He couldn’t, so he did the best with what he had. It’s trumped up horseshit for his National Enquirer knock-off rag. But I’ll keep you updated.

Update: I still haven’t been charged with anything. Nor contacted by anyone. But word is that police are trying to serve the other gentleman with a physical harassment warrant. Which is, as I understand it, a misdemeanor up there with smoking in a public place. Heath Urie is still a lying little asshole, of course. His initial allegation was that I assaulted him. He’s now changed his story entirely, putting it all on the other gentleman.

Update II: The Campus Press has a pretty good article penned by Rob Ryan. Including a quote about whether the organizers have the right to refuse media from someone who might actually know what they’re talking about.

“It’s fairly common in discourse that private people are subject to the First Amendment. They’re not,” [CU Law Professor Richard Collins] said.

Collins did suggest that some states may have statutes that forbid secret meetings in any form, such as the Sunshine Law in Colorado, but that these laws typically do not apply to students.

“I’d be startled if students were subject to Sunshine,” Collins said.

The rest.

Update III: A Try-Works commenter has another idea on how we should approach this. Namely, that we should take the Daily Camera to court.

In my experience the only thing that will stop anyone from attacking others in the manner the Camera did is civil lawsuits. I have had police urge me to file civil lawsuits as they said that I would most likely win and that was the safest way to seek justice. This does not mean I am lawsuit happy. In fact, I would rather not have to take anyone to court. Unfortunately the harassment gets so bad that I have had no other choice but to file lawsuits and criminal charges in certain cases.

Let’s look at the facts of this incident. Judges love facts backed up with hard evidence. You have witnesses that a Camera reporter barged in and made a bee line for Ward. You have witnesses that would testify that it appeared the reporter was going to attack Ward physically by the way he rushed towards Watd in a threatening and angry manner. You have witnesses that can prove the reporter seemed very agitated and angry and that it appeared that Ward was going to be physically attacked or verbally threatened to the detriment of Ward and also other students in the class.

You prevented that attack in a careful manner and it appears to me the Camera reporter filed a false police report. The police have a duty to bring charges against the reporter. You have witnesses to him barging in. You have witnesses that he was causing trouble and harassing both Ward and students who support Ward and his philosophy. The Camera allegedly prevented people from learning in a safe and non-threatening environment and that is against the law.

Here is what you do sir: get written statements from the students who were asked to hide recording devices in their back-packs. Get signed statements from people who witnessed the reporter bum rush Ward. Get written statements that the reporter allegedly acted in a threatening and belligerent manner towards Ward and students and USA citizens attending the class.

Obviously you can take care of yourself physically and so can Ward but that does not give the reporter the right to endanger your safety and the safety of other students by barging in like he did. With written statements you have a case in civil court that would be tough to beat in my opinion. Remember the truth is on your side. Justice is slow but the truth always makes it worth seeking. You were gentle on the reporter and acted in a cautious and careful manner when escorting him out of the room. Other students saw this so get statements from them and present your case to a judge. Gather all that hard evidence and then pursue civil and criminal charges against the Camera.

Look for a lawyer who works on a contingency bases. With enough written statements saying students felt threatened by the reporter barging in the police have no choice but to file charges against the reporter. That reporter created a hostile environment in my opinion and that is a violation of federal law as people have the right to learn in a non-threatening environment.

CU gets federal money and so federal laws apply as well as state and local. Do not be scared of the Camera. As citizens of the USA and especially on a college campus we have the right to learn and listen to speakers without malcontents barging in and threatening people. The reporter headed straight for Ward in a threatening manner. He basically broke into the room when he was told specifically to stay out. In my opinion the reporter broke many laws including a few federal one as he endangered students who were there to learn.

The rest.

Update IV: There’s already one letter to the editor in at the Daily Camera regarding their horseshit coverage of Ward Churchill’s guerilla class at CU. The writer ain’t confused in the least about what the reporter was up to. Nor has anyone else been that I’ve been hearing from.

I still haven’t had any charges filed against me, but I am begging you to file them, Mr. Urie. We will take it to trial. We’ve got dozens of witnesses to back us up. We will run fucking roughshod over you.

The Daily Camera misrepresented Tuesday’s on-campus lecture by Ward Churchill. Out of curiosity I attended the lecture, and what I witnessed was not as The Daily Camera reported. To begin with, The Camera underreported attendance by over half (attendance was closer to 70 people, rather than 30). More importantly, they reported that three students were turned away for being “agitators” and that a reporter was “grabbed and pushed… prompting a report to police”. This is spin. The three students were turned away for attempting to sneak in a recording device given to them by a reporter. The reporter, out of options for recording inside the room, entered the classroom and refused to leave, effectively disrupting the beginning of the lecture. The police arrived later because the press was causing a ruckus and disrupting classes.

This series of incidents demonstrated exactly why Professor Churchill did not want reporters inside the lecture to begin with. The Daily Camera, mistaken again, thought that this was the most significant aspect of the evening, the sub-headline reads, “Controversial prof bars press”. The reporting focused on the press’ own role. They created a controversy, falsely reported the incident, and then suggested that the real news was that they were barred.

What the press missed entirely was the real significance of Ward Churchill’s new lecture series. What happened on Tuesday was an experiment in academic freedom, a course sponsored entirely by students, free of charge and open to all who come to learn. The justifications given in July for firing Professor Churchill included that he falsified information, how ironic that the reporting of his continued presence seems to do the same.

The rest.

Update V: I can’t believe I missed this, but according to the Campus Press, the Daily Camera release a statement in response to my take on the evening’s events, as follows.

We believe that our reporter, Heath Urie, acted ethically and responsibly while covering Ward Churchill’s class (Tuesday) night. He simply was attempting to ascertain why another news organization, the Campus Press, was allowed to have reporters and a photographer in the class, while all others were excluded. We fully support a journalist’s right to do his job without being physically harmed for asking a simple question.

The rest.

That’s a lie. We’d already addressed Mr Urie’s concerns about the Campus Press being allowed in the classroom. We’d already explained why. He was trying to disrupt the class and provoke an incident, pure and simple.

Update VI: I just sent this letter to the Daily Camera. We’ll see how open their new letter-to-the-editor blog feature really is.

I was one of the two men, who, according to your reporter, refused to allow student “agitators” into the Ward Churchill class on October 2nd. The reason being that your reporter, Mr. Urie, was using them to smuggle in a recording device after being expressly told they were disallowed.

I was also involved in ejecting your reporter from the classroom. He’d been told repeatedly he wasn’t allowed in the classroom, and he barged in after class had begun, and advanced on Ward Churchill, shouting. He had no questions we hadn’t already answered. His sole purpose was to disrupt the class and provoke an incident he could then write up in the Daily Camera. I don’t know what kind of tactics are considered acceptable by the Daily Camera’s editorial staff, but Mr. Urie’s would be scorned by the National Enquirer.

Moreover, his claim of being assaulted is a joke. I put my hand on him to stop his advance towards Professor Churchill, and the gentleman I was with took him by the arm to escort him out. If that’s Mr. Urie’s idea of assault, I suggest he might be a little too tender for the role of hardened journalist on the mean streets of Boulder.

Mr. Urie has also changed his story at least once, claiming to CUPD that I shoved him, and that he would be pressing assault charges against me. Of course, I did no such thing, which is probably why those assault charges have never materialized. But I eagerly await them. I have at least three dozen witnesses who saw what happened, and I would like nothing more than to take Mr. Urie to trial. I demand Mr. Urie live up to his word and file assault charges against me immediately.

Benjamin Whitmer
Instructor, Ethnic Studies
University of Colorado

Update VII: Thanks to Michelle Malkin, I now have a new quote for our list of citations. “Thuggish as ever,” it is.

Update VIII: Everybody’s jabbering on about whether or not the students have the right to close Ward Churchill’s class. CU’s rules and regulations are real clear. Students have the absolute right to “set their own policies concerning opening or closing their scheduled activity to the public and news media.”

It ain’t an open event. That’s been made abundantly clear. Attendance is at the discretion of the students. No one else gets a say. When a weaselly little shit like Mr. Urie barges in the classroom, he’s trespassing. It doesn’t what his reason is. In my opinion, we were more than restrained in our treatment of him.

Policy on the Use of University Facilities

V. Open Meetings

Those who qualify to schedule the use of University facilities may set their own policies concerning opening or closing their scheduled activity to the public and news media, and such policies shall be stated at the time of scheduling. If such scheduled activities are closed to the public, they may be open or closed to the news media at the discretion of the sponsoring user. If such scheduled activities are open to the public, they are open to the news media. Unobtrusive use of still and motion picture cameras and recording devices is permitted during any open meeting. The presiding officer shall be the judge of whether such use is obtrusive and may, at his/her discretion, request persons to stop using their cameras or recording devices in a fashion which he/she deems to be obtrusive.

The rest.

Update IX: As of last night, October 6, no warrant for the arrest of either myself or the gentleman I was with has been issued. Another lie from the Daily Camera.

Update X: As poot and WTF have pointed out in the comments, some little idiot by the name of Jessica Peck Corry, from our local faux-libertarian group, the Independence Institute, has weighed in at the Rocky Mountain News.

To Churchill’s misguided minions, he remains a hero in the crusade for academic free speech. Too bad they believe the First Amendment only applies to those who support their shared perspective. At a Tuesday evening lecture, titled ReVisioning American History: Colonization, Genocide and Formation of the U.S. Settler State, only those with favorable perspectives were allowed to attend.

Two male organizers who doubled as bouncers turned away at least three male students, calling them “agitators.” At least one of the organizers also scuffled with a Boulder Daily Camera reporter who tried to enter the lecture.

Ultimately, only 30 or so attendees — mostly bright-eyed followers drinking way too much of the Churchill Kool-Aid — made it past the screening process and inside the door to the classroom in CU-Boulder’s Eaton Humanities Building.

In a written introduction to Tuesday evening’s lecture, as reported by the Camera, Churchill was not compensated for his time leading the first of what he hopes will be an ongoing course. It will carry no academic credit and, according to the introduction, is “in no sense bound by the rules supposedly governing courses offered in the university catalogue.”

While Churchill’s actions as a disgraced former professor are certainly free from the confines of a simple course catalog, they are not free from the requirements of university policy governing public accommodations. CU specifically prohibits discriminatory actions by those hosting events anywhere on its taxpayer-funded campuses.

University spokesman Bronson Hilliard emphasized to the Camera that the event was “private” — which is allowed under university policy — and yet the exclusionary tactics used Tuesday night raise serious concerns about the actions of Churchill and his supporters.

First, even if the event was booked as “private,” university policy still dictates that event organizers must not discriminate against people on the basis of a variety of protected characteristics — including their creed or basic set of core beliefs. And second, while “private” event organizers are allowed to ban the media, why would they? What has Churchill got to fear by respecting the free speech rights of others, including reporters? If he believes in the power of his positions, he should welcome all willing to hear them.

This all reminds me of a lesson that CU should have learned years ago. In 2003, the university came under public scrutiny after the Independence Institute revealed that CU students were using university rooms to host racially segregated events. While the discrimination then was based on race — and Tuesday’s was based on ideology — the intent of organizers remains the same: Segregation is OK as long as they’re the ones perpetuating it.

Ultimately, students of all perspectives can — and should — be able to host controversial on-campus events at public universities, including the University of Colorado. In doing so, however, they are rightly prohibited from excluding those who might look or believe differently than they. Perhaps this is a little detail that Churchill left out of Tuesday evening’s syllabus.

For those who missed out on Tuesday’s event, there is good news. According to organizers, he will be back at least three more times in the next month, with future sessions focusing on colonialism, genocide and racism. But if you happen to disagree with him, just hope that you can get a foot in the door. Body armor may be a good idea.

The rest.

In order. For the thousandth time.

1. As even Bronson Hilliard has “emphasized,” the event is private. If you don’t like how the organizers are determining enrollment, sue CU.

2. No one was turned away because of their “core beliefs.” The three young men who were turned away, were turned away because they were trying to smuggle in a recording device for Heath Urie. We’re not giving quizzes on core beliefs at the door. We’re turning away the media and known entities — i.e., bloggers who have tried to smuggle recording devices into other events held by students — and we will be ejecting disruptive influences. That doesn’t have anything to do with ideology, it has to do with a bunch of whiny little shits who can’t obey the stated rules. The rules ain’t gonna change.

3. And, yeah, private organizers are allowed to ban the media. If you want a hell of a glimpse as to why no one wants the fucking media around, take a look at Heath Urie’s little gotcha journalism stunt.

4. Kool Aid? I know you rightwing loons like your clichés, er, tried and true, but good God, that one’s been a dead metaphor since calling college students “bright-eyed.”

Oh. Right.

Must be the “critical thimking” these fuckers are so proud of.

Shit, did it again.

Just call me a “useful idiot.”

Update XI: The Campus Press has an interview with me here. The student journalists are a hell of a lot better than the so-called professionals, but there ain’t nothing you haven’t already heard.

Update XII: The aforementioned little idiot Jessica Peck Corry has a blog. There’s no place for comments as far as I could tell.

Update XIII: Heath Urie didn’t show this evening, no warrants were served, even I’m bored of this post.