I find it sadly stereotypical that a person who holds a title like "vice president of the CSU College Republicans" would object when a non-Republican uses inflammatory language like "Enemy of America" to score cheap points. Unfounded, unsupported, inflammatory statements are mainstays of Republicanism (Remember "flip-flopper")? Yet I've never heard a Republican accept the tactic with humility when it's turned around.
But I'm off-topic. The reason I'm writing is to clarify some misunderstandings that many people seem to have. (1) The issue in the Ward Churchill scandal is not free speech but one specific tenet of it, academic freedom. The danger in firing a tenured professor over a controversy like this is that new ideas are hard to come by when people are punished for publishing unpopular ones (like suggesting that the earth is round).
(2) There has been a lot of rhetoric about "holding educators responsible" since they're paid with tax money. What that boils down to is that professors should reinforce mainstream opinions since they're tax-funded, and if you don't see why that's crippling you need more education.
(3) Ward Churchill's writings are not by definition anti-American. He suggests that terrorism is a foreseeable consequence of conducting ourselves the way we do, and while he is critical of many actions by the U.S. government and U.S.-owned business, I've never heard him condone terrorism.
Computer Science Major