Reader Says: Churchill a Blowhard

My previous post mischaracterized reader Rob's position on Ward Churchill. He clarifies:

I said straight out that my comments weren't about Churchill. Dude's a blowhard, no doubt. All I was merely saying was let's not even talk about Churchill in the same breathe as academic freedom. Should CU fire him? My answer is, CU should do whatever they want and not be subjected to the will of others outside the faculty senate or whoever else makes that decision. I will say, though, that if I were in charge, I'd determine whether he's still contributing to the advancement of thought and learning on campus. I don't know...I doubt many people do. My guess is that he's not because he's too busy being a blowhard. So I'd fire him. So no, I'm completely against tenure being a carte blanche to do whatever and say whatever. Academic freedom can exist without tenure, I assure you. Assuming this is true, what purpose does it serve? Every professor should be judged by his or her peers on how much they contribute to the mission of the college or university. Those who continue to do so stay...those too busy being blowhards can go.