Free Speech & Petition in Support of Ward Churchill

[Iverson]

Gentlefolk,
Although today's insane political fashions may dictate otherwise, it is fundamental to our society and to our laws that the right to free speech stands independent of how acceptable to the mainstream the content of that speech might be.
The content of Ward Churchill's remarks from a few years ago, therefore, cannot be used to discover whether he enjoys the fundamental freedom of speech.
Free speech shouldn't be too hot for this underground(sic) group to handle, so I present here a link to a petition crafted by Rhetoricians for Peace in support of Ward Churchill's right to say things that may not soothe everyone.

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/wc1234/petition.html

Thank you for your consideration and, to those with an elementary grasp of liberty, for signing the thing.
- Clark Iverson

[earthside]

1. Free Speech-Yes: Churchill-NO!

All good Progressives, liberals ... Americans, really ... are for free speech. We defend Ward Churchill's right to say whatever he wants (as long as he doesn't criminally libel or slander some one).

But Ward Churchill is a goof.

The national Grand Council of the American Indian Movement has declared him a fraud.
http://www.aimovement.org/moipr/churchill05.html

And he may even be a plagerizer.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3540066,00.html

DUers of the left shouldn't get sucked in by Churchill's rhetoric ... He's a reactionary libertairan who advocates the use of violence.

[Iverson]

2. follow-up

Thank you for your response, earthside.

Whether Ward Churchill is a goof, etc. or not is entirely a separate issue.

That is why I started a separate thread that does not at all engage the content of his speech the way the other thread does. It's a fine topic to discuss, but the threshhold question of rights is the more pressing one, and the one that people across the political spectrum chould consider a no-brainer.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

87. Agree. Churchill is an asswipe.

nt

[Freedom_from_Chains]

3. Thany you for posting the link

It is always refreshing to find those who grasp the fundamentals of liberty and a free society, particularly in these times when both are being swept away.

I will be sure to sign this petition immediately.

[Zuni]

8. If Ward Churchill made racial comments

then no one would have a problem with him fired. The University has a right to find him unsuited to teach---and I think this guy is whack job who probably affects the learning environment negatively with his whacked out views

I'm sorry. A guy or gal working a desk job in the WTC is NO way comparable than the head of RSHA Section IV (Gestapo) Bureau B4 (Jewish Affairs)SS Lt. Col. Adolf Eichmann. That man ran, on a day to day basis, an extermination campaign. He reportedly told people "I will jump into my grave laughing, for I have 5 million souls on my conscience."

His employer has every right to say to Ward Churchill that he has overstayed his welcome and brouht shame on his University.

[earthside]

4. "Superior Firepower"

Here's another little revealing piece about Ward Churchill.

He is not a 'man of peace'.

"Another controversial Churchill essay is his Pacifism as Pathology, a treatise contending that nonviolent protest is ineffective and a sure loser. His defiant stance is underscored in big and small trappings of his life; on the side of the refrigerator in his kitchen, along with more mundane items, is a small patch bearing the silhouette of an assault rifle, and the words, "Peace Through Superior Firepower."

Rocky Mountain News
February 5, 2005

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3525488,00.html

[Dhalgren]

11. So he only gets the right to free speech if he is a pacifist?

Why should that be?

[Zuni]

5. Ward Churchill is an ass of the first order

And if a state university wants to fire him for being a complete dick, then they can. He is not being arrested for his speech. His employer (the university) can decide his actions are inappropriate and fire him. If he made racist remarks in school, you would all line up to have him fired.

[Iverson]

6. incorrect

The extent to which Ward Churchill is an ass cannot be used to discover whether or not he enjoys his rights to free speech.

The state university cannot fire Churchill for being an ass or, more to the point, for uttering an unpopular opinion.

Speculation about what most people here would do in a parallel case is also irrelevant. Either we support free speech or we do not. Selectivity based on our degree of comfort with the utterance is no principle at all.

If you disagree with the Bill of Rights or the notion of academic freedom, then don't sign the petition. If you are on the side of free speech and open exchange of ideas in a free society, then I urge you to sign it.

[Dhalgren]

Thanks, Iverson,

for making such a clear cogent statement. An for cutting through the crap of "America firsters" indignation. This issue isn't about Churchill or what he said, it is about what kind of country this nation has become. Thanks, again...

[Zuni]

12. It has nothing to do with this country

Churchill has no absolute right for the University to employ him. If the University thinks he is disruptive to the learning environment than they can fire him.
I do not think Ward Churchill can just say whatever he wants and still be trusted to educate children any more than a radical right wing teacher should.

[K-W]

19. You are wrong in everything you say.

Churchill has a constitutional right to speek without fear of being fired by the government.

If the University thought he was disruptive to the learning enviroment they shouldnt have given him tenure.

[Zuni]

31. He has a constitutional right to TEACH CLASSES?

That is new to me?
I'm gonna get me a class and teach it now, since it is my constituional right

[Iverson]

35. problem quoting?

I believe the comment to which you responded was "Churchill has a constitutional right to speek without fear of being fired by the government."

I don't see teaching classes anywhere in there.

If you agree that Churchill enjoys the right to free speech, then I urge you to sign the petition. If you don't agree, then don't.

[Zuni]

43. Churchill has an absolute right to say whatever he wants

But, that does not mean the University should employ him to TEACH CLASSES.

The University now feels he is disruptive to the LEARNING ENVIRONMENT. A University is a place where people GO TO SCHOOL. If Churchill can't ACT RESPONSIBLY then the University has no obligation to let him TEACH CLASSES.

[Iverson]

47. OK...

Churchill is hired as a professor, so his course load is probably determined by contract. His right to teach classes is really, then, an obligation to teach classes.

As long as you agree that he has the right to say whatever he wants, the we are in agreement on the important issue of rights, and all subsequent stuff is for debate over the content of his speech, which I am not engaging here.

[Zuni]

50. Yes. Churchill can say he loves Hitler and Sean Hannity and

anything else he wants---the more power to him.

I am saying that he has no absolute right to be allowed to teach classes, which is what he is employed to do.

[Iverson]

55. um...

If you feel that the question of an absolute right to teach classes is a serious issue, then I encourage you to start a distinct thread about it.

If you have separated your distaste for the messenger from the right to make the message, then I hope you will sign the petition that cited in the opening note of the thread.

[K-W]

48. He was already employed.

The cant fire him because of this.

[K-W]

36. I never said that.

Is this all a bit where you do to me exactly what the media did to Churchill?

The constitution says the government cant take his exercising his right to free speech into account in deciding his empoloyment status. This isnt even a borderline case.

[Zuni]

44. Where does the constituiton say that?

[K-W]

46. The Bill of Rights

If you arent going to take this conversation seriously, please end it.

If you truely dont know that the government isnt allowed to punish people for speeking freely I question your confidence in your opinion here.

[Zuni]

49. The Constituion never says that

It says the Government will pass no laws prohibiting Free Speech

It does not say your employer cannot fire you

[K-W]

51. If your employer is the government, that is exactly what is says.

As I said, this isnt even a borderline situation. Go do your homework on the freedom of speech.

[Iverson]

52. sort of

The literal words you cite are indeed not in the Constitution.

Rights, however, while in some cases made explicit like in the First Amendment, are presumed not to be delineated.

The message "restrict your speech to comfortable utterances or else we'll fire you" is exactly a restriction on free speech.

The fact that it comes from a university adds a layer: it is also a restriction on academic freedom, and by people who should know better too!

[K-W]

54. It is a state owned university. this is definately constitutional

The ACLU has threatned action if he is fired.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Iverson]

61. "man enough" you say

I am not sure that machismo is the best lens through which to examine this situation.

Isn't it just barely possible that there are other more important considerations such as academic freedom and the First Amendment to the Constitution?

Just asking.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Iverson]

64. could be

I happen to think that you raise a good point, insofar as Churchill should have had a more thorough understanding of how his rhetoric would be understood by an emotional citizenry that barely has the attention span to read a scrolling Fox News headline.

However (and this is the thrust of this thread), such stuff is about the content of his speech, which is utterly beside the point of his right to make controversial or unpopular utterances. There are other threads devoted to looking at content. My intent for this one is that it focus on rights.

Unless we argue that his right to speak is dependent upon the content of the speech, then we should support basic liberty including Churchill's right to make public utterance without threat to his life or his employment x number of years later.

Thus, the petition. Please sign it if you agree.

[K-W]

62. Yah, victims are such whiners. EOM

[earthside]

14. More Incorrect!

See, this is why progressives and liberals are having trouble making political headway in this country these days.

You can be absolutely committed to the First Amendment and Free Speech, but that doesn't mean you have to go out and sign petitions and wave protest signs and write letters-to-the-editor supporting a reactionary militant like Ward Churchill.

I support David Horowitz's Freedom of Speech, too. But I'm not circulating petitions for him when he runs into controversy on college campuses.

We need to use some discretion and keep our larger goals in mind. Ending the war and saving the planet depend upon our right of Free Speech, too. We undercut our own credibility when we rush out to defend a malcontent like Churchill.

Let Ward Churchill fade into obscurity where he belongs ... Then those of us who are serious about moving this nation in a progressive direction can get on with our important work.

[BurtWorm]

16. Not everyone has to be on the same page, so to speak.

If you don't want to sign the petition, fine.

[Iverson]

20. not at all

You are mixing issues of political tactics and principles.

If Horowitz faced dismissal from his position on the basis of his godawful comments, I would defend his rights to free speech with vigor.

However, the issue here is not the wisdom of one political strategy or another, how well we like one guy versus another. It is an issue of basic liberty. "Malcontent" is in the eye of the beholder, and I am not inclined to strategically sacrifice someone else on the basis that it will benefit me a little longer.

We are talking principles here, very basic principles. Not speech content, not political strategy and tactics: principles.

[K-W]

21. If you dont stand up for the free speech of others,

who will stand up for yours.

Have some courage and defend your fellow citizens rights even when you dont agree with them.

[Zuni]

22. I'm with you Earthside

I am not about to sign petitions for Ann Coulter or Karl Rove to speak at colleges, so why should I care wether Ward Churchill, a man who lied about his ancestry to get the position, gets to speak either.

I don't think a teacher can do whatever he wants and still be allowed to educate children.
Churchill can say what vere he wants, but he has no right to have control over other people's children.

[Iverson]

23. easy

Once you cease personalizing the issue, it becomes quite clear.

Liking someone or not liking someone is not a way to discover whether or not they enjoy a right to speak. Is there a way, perhaps through rephrasing, that I can make this clearer?

[Zuni]

27. It has nothing to do with my opinion

YOU are saying he has an absolute right to TEACH CLASSES.

Churchill can say what he wants, I don't give a damn.
But you are saying he has a right to TEACH OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN.

[Iverson]

30. missed the mark

My main point has nothing to do with Churchill's teaching career. I only suggested that you look into tenure and academic freedom a little more in order to avoid coming out with whoppers that make you appear uninformed. Either way, that is a side issue.

I am saying that Churchill has a right to utter an unpopular opinion without threat to his career (or to his life, by the way).

Do you agree with me or not?

[Zuni]

34. Yes, Churchill can say what he wants without threats (teaching was my issu

I would be different if he worked for the Post Office. I would say the Postal Service has no right to fire him. If he was a non-teacher, I would say that he has an absolute right to his job.
I am saying is that the University does not need to keep him teaching if he is disruptive, period.


I am not saying the University should fire him---but they do not have to give him a teaching position.

[Iverson]

39. problem

One cannot just assert that a teacher is disruptive because he holds a controversial or objectionable opinion and then use that as a pretext to fire him. Who's next? You? Me? People of a certain religion?

For better or for worse, teachers enjoy the same rights as everyone else.

I would go further and argue that teachers have a particular obligation to challenge comfortable beliefs, but that too goes beyond the question of whether Churchill can be penalized for saying upsetting things a few years ago. He has the same right as you or me or a postal worker to make unpopular utterances.

[K-W]

25. Some of us support the freedom of speech.

You apparently dont.

[Zuni]

28. YOU ARE SAYING ANYONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO TEACH

that is what I am arguing with.
The University thinks that this man is no longer able to TEACH OTHER PEOPLES KIDS

I DON'T GIVE A FUCK WHAT WARD CHURCHILL SAYS ON CAMPUS. I DO NOT THINK HE HAS AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO TEACH CHILDREN. IF THE UNIVERSITY THINKS HE IS DISRUPTIVE, AND PARENTS WHO PAY TUITION FEEL HE IS INNAPROPRIATE THEN THEY HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO KEEP GIVING HIM STUDENTS TO TEACH.

[Iverson]

32. separate issue

"The University" is more than just Regents who are politically motivated. Fitness to teach is usually considered a matter for faculty governance, with tenure review conducted both by peers inside and outside the institution, and by administration.

The claim that there's an argument that Churchill has some absolute right to teach is a red herring. No one has made that claim.

[Zuni]

37. My point is

if he was a Postal Worker or any other government employee, then I would be with you.
But he is a teacher, a teacher who lied about his ancestry to get the job and one who apparently has been making wacko claims. If a teacher started teaching the Bell Curve or Neo-Nazi racial theories, he could be removed from his teaching position, correct? What gives Churchill any more right to escape censure and teach even though his comments were in many ways equally disruptive?

[K-W]

40. Because nothing he said was academically unsupported.

It seems that like most people you dont even know what he actually said.

As a professor he has done nothing wrong, certainly nothing anywhere near big enough to justify losing his job when he tenured.

[Iverson]

41. no

If he started teaching Bell Curve tripe, he could not be removed from his position. The answer is not to suppress speech but instead to engage weak or unsupportable argument with better argument.

That is at the heart of academic freedom and open discourse in a free society.

[Zuni]

53. But do you think ANYONE should be allowed to teach?

Everyone can say what they want, period. There is no argument.

My opinion is that Churchill has no absolute right to teach at a college.

[K-W]

56. If you want to go back in time and write letters to them to not hire him

fine, im glad you have a time machine. But since he was already hired an tenured, and nothing he said in any way impugned his ability to do his job nor was in any way new, you have no argument that he should be fired.

And yes, even radical liberals are capable of teaching at college. I still strongly think you are mistaken as to what he said.

[Iverson]

57. since you asked ...

I think it's important to remember what happens in teaching at colleges and universities.

Many, even most, sections are taught by adjunct faculty or graduate teaching assistants. They have very little academic freedom, since they can be let go for no reason, and they would be hard-pressed to prove that it was linked to their public statements.

Then there are tenure-track faculty who don't yet have tenure. Most of them are cautious about offending people because they understand that they may be out of a job if their public statements make too many people uncomfortable.

A minority of faculty are full-time and tenured.

As for your direct question about my opinion on who may teach, I think that the person needs at least to have an advanced degree in the subject. Especially for a full-time position, other qualities are desirable such as publication in the field, teaching experience, and a host of other factors that tend to vary between institutions. Qualifications are usually evaluated by a hiring committee of faculty (and sometimes administration) who themselves are, of course, experts in their fields.

I do not think that a manipulated public or a politically motivated governing board is in the best position to make that judgement.

[K-W]

38. Nobody is arguing that he cant teach anymore. That is idiotic.

He published these remarks years ago. He has had similar opinions since before he was tenured.

This has nothing to do with his job competency, and no, the fact that parents pay tuition does not give the government the power to fire someone for exercising thier constitutionally protected rights.

The point of free speech is that you have to put up with people saying things you dont agree with because they have the right to say it.

[BurtWorm]

26. Other people's *children!*

:wtf:

[Dhalgren]

7. You are wrong.

And this thread is about freedom of Speech - not your baseless opinions.

[Zuni]

9. No, it is not.

Churchill is not being arrested for his speech. The University, his employer has every right to fire him, as they would another teacher making inappropriate comments. If Ward Churchill made racist or sexist comments, he could be fired. Teachers are fired all the time for making inappropriate comments.

[Dhalgren]

10. Academic freedom, to you, means no more than it did

to the old Soviet commissars. Your idea of intellectual lock-step is completely Un-American - at least in the old America...

[BurtWorm]

13. The university has no such right.

There's a principle called academic freedom. Professors with tenure are supposed to be protected from arbitrary firing by the university, especially where issues of academic freedom are concerned. Of course not all universities have the nerve, backbone and integrity to live up to the principle. But if UCB is allowed to fire Churchill for his 9/11 remarks, it sets a very dangerous precedent.

[Zuni]

17. I am not familiar with this protocol

But it sounds like this Churchill is a real goon. I wouldn't have hired him in the first place though.

I have trouble understanding why this guy is college professor in the first place.

[BurtWorm]

18. I don't know enough about him to care one way or the other.

I've heard worse garbage coming out of college professor's mouths, frankly. At least what Churchill says stimulates thought as well as reaction.

[Iverson]

15. incorrect

The issue is not whether Churchill faces arrest for his words from three years ago.

Also, "inappropriateness" is not the test of free speech; it likewise raises the question of who gets to decide what is appropriate.

You also need to learn a little bit about tenure and academic freedom before making futher erroneous comments about the university's right to fire a faculty member who utters offending words.

Even in today's crazy political environment, people generally understand that free speech is not limited to comfortable mainstream blandness. I hope that you will be able to set aside your feelings about the content of the speech when looking at the principle of free speech. The latter is very much the point.

[glaeken777]

81. Indeed...

I suggest you begin yourself... by readin the AAUP's Statement of Principle re: academic freedom. Academic freedom is exercisable under the classifications of teaching and research.

"Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject."

Ergo, if Churchill read his 9/11 screed to one of his ethnic studies classes, he could be told to shut up with impunity by the university. I highly doubt Churchill himself could or would argue that his screed has direct relation to American Indian history or whatnot. Hence, he'd be asked to desist, or politely shown the door.

Likewise questionable would be an appeal to academic freedom as it relates to research. Churchill's 9/11 screed has precious little relevance to his chosen field of research. It's simply his opinion on geopolitics, and since he ain't a political scientist, he cannot drape himself in the banner of academic freedom in this matter. It doesn't cover him in this specific case.

[Iverson]

95. you are simply wrong when you assume

First of all, I have read the AAUP's statement, so that sort of takes the sting out of the condescending pose.

You seem to be arguing (it's not completely clear from your writing, thus "seem") that if you decide Churchill's content of speech amounts to a screed, then he is out of a job.

I couldn't disagree more, and I believe that the AAUP is with me here. I don't believe for an instant that the AAUP would sacrifice the principle of faculty governance to administrative whim, nor is a piece of sensible advice intended to be a warning about summary firing.

The First Amendment and academic freedom are intimately bound. By threatening Churchill's career (three years later) for making unpopular utterances, as well as the threats on his life, the unmistakable message is that he should confine himself to statements that right-wing Regents approve.

This is a threat to both free speech and academic freedom, and I therefore stand by my statement.

Perhaps if you were not overwhelmed by the desire to focus on the content of Churchill's speech ("screed"), the principles at stake here would be clearer.

Perhaps you still disagree. If so, no one will force you to advocate for free speech.

[RevolutionaryActs]

86. .

[diamond14]

24. First, hitler removed PROFESSORS from the Universities....

this was a MOST IMPORTANT first step for hitler, to get rid of any dissenting opinions at the University level....

bush* is close to accomplishing that now...with University professors replaced on C-span and PBS by bush* 'think-tank' so-called experts (American Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute, Heritage Institute, etc. etc.): we no longer hear from University Professors, the CENTER of thought and ideas in our country.....many books have been BANNED under bush*......... lynn cheney published her book that targets specific University Professors for removal and quotes the professors' remarks that warrant their removal....and NOW, Professor Ward Churchill has ALREADY been forced by bush* to step down from his high level position as the Ethics Director, many of his lectures have been cancelled under ATTACK by bushites, and Churchill will soon be REMOVED from his post at the U of Colorado...this is first-order nazi attacks....


WAKE UP AMERICA !!!!




http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/history.html


Hitler began to restrict the Jews with legislation and terror, which entailed burning books written by Jews, removing Jews from their professions and public schools, confiscating their businesses and property and excluding them from public events.

[bloom]

42. Political party members were also among the 1st to go.

"On 27th February, 1933, someone set fire to the Reichstag....

Adolf Hitler gave orders that all leaders of the German Communist Party should "be hanged that very night."Paul von Hindenburg vetoed this decision but did agree that Hitler should take "dictatorial powers". KPD candidates in the election were arrested and Goering announced that the Nazi Party planned "to exterminate" German communists.

Thousands of members of the Social Democrat Party and Communist Party were arrested and sent to Germany's first concentration camp at Dachau, a village a few miles from Munich. Theodor Eicke was placed in charge of the first camp and eventually took overall control of the system.

Originally called re-education centres the Schutz Staffeinel (SS) soon began describing them as concentration camps. They were called this because they were "concentrating" the enemy into a restricted area. Hitler argued that the camps were modeled on those used by the British during the Boer War. {and also the treatment of Native Americans}

After the 1933 General Election Hitler passed an Enabling Bill that gave him dictatorial powers. His first move was to take over the trade unions. Its leaders were sent to concentration camps and the organization was put under the control of the Nazi Party. The trade union movement now became known as the Labour Front.

Soon afterwards the Communist Party and the Social Democrat Party were banned. Party activists still in the country were arrested and by the end of 1933 over 150,000 political prisoners were in concentration camps. Hitler was aware that people have a great fear of the unknown, and if prisoners were released, they were warned that if they told anyone of their experiences they would be sent back to the camp.

It was not only left-wing politicians and trade union activists who were sent to concentration camps. TheGestapo also began arresting beggars, prostitutes, homosexuals, alcoholics and anyone who was incapable of working. Although some inmates were tortured, the only people killed during this period were prisoners who tried to escape and those classed as "incurably insane"."

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERconcentration.htm


The Fargo 42 & the Ward Chuchill deal should make everyone think about whats going on around here.

[gottaB]

29. I wouldn't put my name to that petition in its present form

The final paragraph is something I would agree to, and I would encourage others to do the same. It could benefit from a few minor changes, but it essentially captures my sentiments on the matter.

I would wholeheartedly condemn the Colorado legislature and Governor Owens for their actions which have undermined freedom of expression and academic freedom. I would not accuse them of slander. I would not criticize other citizens (the 9/11 families) who have expressed outrage at Churchill.

I would not attempt to defend or clarify Churchill's opinions.

[carolinayellowdog]

33. Dahlia Lithwick has a good article in Slate today

He should never have been hired in the first place, certainly not given tenure. But do we want to give O'Reilly the right to dictate to universities?
http://slate.com/id/2113358/

[DinahMoeHum]

45. Does Churchill deserve criticism? Hell, yes. But firing him? No way.

And if we can't handle criticism like this, then eat shit. That's the price we all pay for a free and open society.

:bounce:

[Iverson]

58. a modest kick

After all, signing a petition may be the only think that some of us do in defense of free speech. Here ye go.

[Iverson]

59. la te tum ...

another kick for free speech

[Iverson]

98. tarum bump tarum

You know what to do.

[Iverson]

65. for the nighttime crowd

a kick

I bet that there are free speech advocates who weren't logged on earlier.

[Iverson]

66. It's Saturday ...

... and the witch hunt is still there.
So is the petition.

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/wc1234/petition.html

[Disturbed]

67. He has a right to his opinions, period.

He did not teach the things in his classes that he was talking about in his article. He is a tenured Prof. and until now none seemed to have any problems with him at his university. The RW discovered something that he wrote several years ago and decided that he would be a good target to start their purge of any professors that did not tow the RW party line. The RW wing has made him controversial. Had they not attacked him on TV most Americans would have never heard of him. The RW have an agenda, a Fascist agenda.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

68. Ward Churchill Is A Right Wing Tool..

He allows reactionaries like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to turn ALL liberals into cartoons...He's the best thing to happen to them since they learned John Walker Lindh had liberal parents...


And the fact that some folks of good will here have taken the right wingt bait and defended the content of his speech illustrates my point....


To the larger question...


He has a right to speak but parts of his speech were odious....

[Iverson]

69. indeed

Therefore, on the issue of rights to free speech, I urge you to keep seperate the matter of the content of that speech.

There is more than one broader issue in play here too. I argue that one of those broader issues is the assault upon academic freedom. The right wing wishes education to be a commodity, and they wish faculty speech to be limited by administrative fiat.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

70. I Have Consistently Seen The Difference...

He's a tenured professor and tenured professors can't be fired without cause...


What's distressing to me is this whole episode has become a media event and the larger discussion of our Middle Eastern policy is obscured....

Some folks buy into Bush' bromides that the terrorists hate us for our freedoms... Some folks buy into the notion that the truth is way more complex and that some of the terrorists grievances are legitimate if not satiable... And some folks are torn between the two schools of thought... By shouting at these people we will never win them over to our cause...

Some folks just want to vent and say who cares...Well as long as America has a kill ratio of 1,000 or so to 1 we should all care...

The road to greater understanding goes through dialogue and not monolgue...

[KittyWampus]

71. Churchill Needs To Undergo Pschyological Evaluation

[Iverson]

72. let's explore this

Let us assume for the sake of discussion that your thesis is correct.

Do people who need therapy enjoy the same Constitutional rights as people who do not?

As you ponder your answer, remember another country, not so long ago, that insitutionalized its thinkers when they had political opinions that were branded insane by those in power.

[KittyWampus]

73. Sure, And Until He's Found Fit... He Should Be Suspended With Pay

[Iverson]

74. suggestion

You seem to be having trouble separating your desire to castigate an individual from the real issue here, which of course is Churchill's right to make statements that a majority may not like.

I suggest that you develop your thoughts beyond the limits of a headline or title if you truly are interested in discussing the principles at stake here.

If you wish to confine yourself to the content of Churchill's remarks from three years ago, there are other threads devoted to that.

[Tinoire]

75. Signed. Another victim of the Gestapo's "Campus Watch"

Ward Churchill - another victim of Daniel Pipe's right-wing gestapo group "Campus Watch"

Fucking rightwing neocon Gestapo snitches trying to hush-up diseenting voices that won't play ball with the murderous, trasonous right-wing agenda.




Little Churchills
by Malcolm A. Kline
Accuracy in Academia - CAMPUS WATCH
February 2, 2005
http://campusreportonline.net/main/articles.php?id=285

Americans were understandably upset to learn that University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill compared the victims who died in the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center to "Little Eichmans," likening them to the infamous Nazi war criminal. These same Americans should know that there are a platoon of "Little Churchills" in colleges and universities throughout the United States. Here are just a few whose activities Accuracy in Academia's Campus Report has covered:

There's University of Texas journalism professor Robert Jensen, who accused the U. S. of pre-9/11 terrorism and rhetorically asked an Austin crowd in November of 2001, "What makes the grief of a parent who lost a child in the World Trade Center any deeper than the grief of a parent who lost a child when U. S. warplanes rained death on the civilian areas of Iraq in the Gulf War?" This, by the way, is a point that was made not only by Ward Churchill but Saddam Hussein.

(snip)

When Dr. Hatem Bazian called for an Intifada in the United States on his home campus at the University of California at Berkeley, the talk got some national attention. Less widely noticed were the thoughts he delivered to a Canadian audience:

"The Iraq occupation has more to do with ushering in a new American empire. The empire has to be resisted both internally and externally. The Iraqis resisted and we must also resist, as it subjugates people around the world."

(snip)

Professors in other departments than those that focus directly on the Middle East have weighed in on the 9-11 attacks and the war on Iraq. For example, Dr. Mahmoud Mamdani, from the Department of Anthropology at Columbia, blames the attacks on the Reagan Administration, engaging in some relativism that hopefully even the greatest critics of the late president will find immoral.

"In another decade, the center of gravity of the Cold War shifted to Central America, to Nicaragua and El Salvador. And so did the center of gravity of U. S.-sponsored terrorism," Dr. Mamdani wrote. "The Contras were not only tolerated and shielded by official America; they were actively nurtured and directly assisted, as in the mining of the harbors."

And then, in a class by himself, there's the legendary left-wing historian Howard Zinn. Last year we reported that Dr. Zinn told an audience at Southwest Missouri State University that

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a danger because he's been captured but President Bush is because he hasn't been."

Defenders of the academic freedom of all of the above might be on more solid ground if:

a.) They weren't addicted to taxpayer funding and tuition and fees collected from parents and students that behooves them to remember their benefactors' sensibilities.
b.) They showed the same willingness to protect the academic freedom of others, such as the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) that can only gain admittance to 20 percent of the campuses in the United States.

http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1608

===
When Churchill spoke at an environment and indigenous rights conference at the Univ. of Vermont in late October/early November of 200—soon after 911 and the attack on Afghanistan, the local Campus Republicans— a bunch of self-righteous mostly wealthy young men and women who had already punched out an ISO member and encouraged attacks various antiwar activists in town— led a campaign to get Churchill’s engagement cancelled. They organized call-ins to the university administration, local news organizations, and the local Gannett rag, all with the intention of banning Churchill. Fortunately, the university admin refused to cave in to the pressure and defended the first amendment rights and academic freedom. Through conversations with one of the Campus GOP members— a young military vet from a middle class background (unlike the wealthier backgrounds of his cohorts)—I learned that the local group had received coaching from folks connected to CampusWatch, AIA, and other neocon organizations. Indeed, this young man even went to a conference later that school year where he attended workshops that laid out methods local campus GOP clubs could use to chase antiwar and leftist groups off campus. Later that same academic year, the UVM Campus GOP tried to get the local ISO group “unrecognized” as an official student group. They failed, thanks to support from a variety of individual students and groups stepping up to defend ISO’s right to be on campus. In short, it is more organized than it appears.

Ron Jacobs (e-mail)

Not surprising, in fact something I have long suspected, considering the agenda of Campus Watch and AVOT (Americans for Victory Over Terrorism, or more appropriately victory over the Bill of Rights as it applies to those they disagree with). Campus Watch claims to be “Keeping an Eye on Professors Who Teach About the Middle East,” but obviously their anti-democratic, proto-fascist agenda (making sure all academics agree with their right-wing politics—or lose their jobs) is directed against not only Middle Eastern scholars and academics, but all academics who they consider “anti-American,” that is to say it is directed against those who disagree with the Strausscon view of foreign policy (in a nutshell: Islam is evil, Zionism is good, and the United States, against its better interests, needs to wage “World War IV” against Israel’s Arab and Muslim enemies).

“AVOT will encourage scholarly research into various aspects of Islamic theology, history, and culture,” reads the AVOT Statement of Principles. “AVOT will hold such scholarship to a serious and rigorous standard,” in other words, those who hold a contrary standard will be purged. “To expose the internal ‘threats,’ AVOT has compiled a sample list of statements by professors, legislators, authors, and columnists that it finds objectionable,” writes the New York Library Association. “The strategy appears similar to an earlier, much-criticized effort to monitor war dissidents by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), a group founded by Lynne Cheney, the wife of Vice President Dick Cheney, and neo-conservative Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman.”


(snip)
http://www.pej.org/html/print.php?sid=1770

(excerpt)

Despite many public calls for Churchill's visit to be cancelled, including a Wall Street Journal editorial calling on Hamilton alums to boycott the college's capital campaign, Stewart initially stood by the event, citing free speech concerns.

"But there is a principle at stake, for once the invitation was extended ... and accepted by Ward Churchill, it became a matter of free speech," Stewart said in a Jan. 30 statement.

But Feb. 1, two days before Churchill's scheduled visit, Stewart canceled the event due to "credible threats of violence."

Churchill has since resigned his position as chair of Colorado's Ethnic Studies Department but stayed on as a faculty member. He has received threats of personal violence.

http://www.browndailyherald.com/news/2005/02/10/CampusWatch/Hamilton.Still.Engulfed.In.Speaker.Controversy-859241.shtml?page=2

==

Churchill was tarred and feathered as demands for termination of his tenured position grew to a roar. The attack shifted from the words of his essay to the body of his writings and even to scrutiny of his professed Indian heritage. It immediately became clear that the Right was hunting far larger game than just a radical critic of US imperialism named Ward Churchill. They were exploiting the controversy in an effort to advance their ongoing Culture Wars whereby they seek to demolish free speech rights, liberal and left values, and the academic tenure system which in their view protects an army of crazed radicals corrupting the minds of youth.

(snip)

The critique from the Right went far beyond addressing the substance of Churchill’s essay, however, to launch vicious ad hominem attacks on his character and ethnic background, to distort his intention and meaning, and to demand that he be fired from a tenured position designed to protect academics from ideological persecution. Conservative politicians and media pundits demonized Churchill as a “madman” and “cheerleader for terrorists” who spews vile “hate speech” tantamount to treason. Gleefully pouncing on their favorite target—the alleged hegemony of the “academic Left” (an absurd myth as any vulnerable and marginalized progressive professor can attest to)—right-wing pundits like Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Joe Scarborough exhorted their benighted media flocks to flood Hamilton College, the University of Colorado, and Colorado politicians with vociferous letters of complaint demanding that Churchill be fired.

(snip)

Right-wing pundits whipped up such an Orwellian hate fest that Churchill received 140 death threats within a four-day period after the story broke on national media. Politicians eagerly took the bit to promote their Culture War against liberal and left values. Along with a bevy of republican and democrat state lawmakers, Colorado Governor Bill Owens excoriated Churchill and demanded termination of his tenure. The Colorado House of Representatives released a Joint Resolution in support of the 9-11 victims’ families and vilified Churchill for striking “an evil and inflammatory blow against America’s healing process.”

(snip) College Republicans denounced Churchill and organized a petition drive for his dismissal, student supporters denounced the furor as a McCarthyesque witch hunt engineered to silence a progressive member of their community. Showing logical fidelity to their philosophy of freedom, some College Republicans chastised their right-wing peers and formed the organization Republicans for Churchill in support of his First Amendment rights. As the mob’s furor grew, the American Union of University Professors and the American Civil Liberties Union came out strongly in favor of controversial speech and Churchill’s First Amendment rights.

(snip)

Free Speech—Except for You

(snip)

The methodology of Churchill’s persecutors is to seize on the inflammatory sound bite about little Eichmanns, pump it up into alleged “hate speech” against America, and scrub it from its context where he analyzes some of the root causes of terrorist attacks against the US. (snip)

(snip)

Churchill’s critics self-destruct in their own contradictions. It is a blatant inconsistency for someone to say that they support the First Amendment, but then want to punish someone for exercising First Amendment rights for ideas that they do not like. Whereas Churchill has said nothing that amounts to hate speech, his vituperators routinely spew hate speech against him in the national media. Being a critical and independent thinker rather than a Pavlovian jingoist, Churchill exemplifies what it is to be an American, whereas those trying to silence him and trample on his constitutional rights shame themselves as the real anti-Americans traitors.

(snip)

Right-Wing Nation

(snip) As a part of their ongoing culture wars, the right has vociferously attacked Churchill in order to advance large agendas that include their hostility to radical ideas, the “academic Left,” liberal values, and free speech. (snip) the demise of the Constitution will take a bit longer and will depend on how citizens respond to cases such as this.

http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/best02102005/


MAYBE IF THAT ARTICLE WERE WRITTEN IN GERMAN AND DATED 1936 ??!

“First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.

Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out.

Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.

And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”

- Martin Niemoeller

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/niemoeller.html

[Iverson]

76. thank you, Tinoire

Of course I can count on you for an intelligent look at context.

I would argue, though, that even if the situation were exactly reversed, Churchill's rights would be the same, and the threat would be the same, since a bad precedent threatens us all in theory (and lefties much much more in practice).

[Tinoire]

78. Yes even if reversed, the rights remain the same.

This is all about rights and it's most distressing to see any American supporting this.

If we don't protect the first amendment, there's no point in anyone dying for freedom, is there :shrug:

Thank you for the entire thread.

[Swamp Rat]

79. Isn't amazing?

Even DUers are posting nasty and uninformed statements about Churchill, thus doing the work for the NeoCons. Amazing! :(

This thread asked folks to sign a petition to support the 1st Amendment for one of our citizens, yet some have decided not only to attack him, but also call for the end of his livelihood and professional career. Why not concentrate on RW nutjobs in their own community? x(

I'd rather go after the assholes that are bringing death and destruction to the world: :D

[Tinoire]

83. It is. I find it stunning

but in this new age. everyone seems to be ok with rights not applying to those who dare say the emperor has no clothes. I guess this is to be expected in an age where right-wing pundits determine what will be said and how it will be spun...

First they came for Ward Churchill....

PS... That's a really nasty pic :)

[Swamp Rat]

88. thank you

:)

Not only does the Chimporer have no clothes, the elephant is sitting in EVERYONE'S living room watching TV with the family. Some of us are actually underneath the elephant, searching for the remote control in his colon. :think: ... I think I have an idea for a new pic :D

[Tinoire]

90. My first real laugh of the day! Thank you

:)

[Swamp Rat]

92. Bienvenu n/t

:)

[DemonFighterLives]

106. Thanks for all that great information

Their are some in our society that don't understand our freedoms. Or don't care.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

77. Signed. To hell with the fascists who wish to silence dissent.

Thanks Iverson.

[Iverson]

97. They hate us for our freedoms.

In fairness, though, it's not just the fascists but rather all the different varieties of totalitarian nationalists. Cheers.

[MamaBear]

80. Signed.

Mike Malloy had a long conversation with Churchill Friday night during the second hour. It will be up at http://www.whiterosesociety.org in a couple of days. Churchill sounded a little prickly, and Malloy said he found the essay disturbing, but Churchill sounded sane to me. Either way. we had this same problem with anti-war professors in the Vietnam era. We need to be vigilant.

Thanks for the opportunity.

Edited to fix link.

[Tinoire]

84. It's a comfort there are so many of us and that we can communicate

instantaneously. Are you going to the big protest in March?

[MamaBear]

85. Depends on the state of my health...

...and my courage. :) I am seriously concerned about that noise weapon they threatened to use in NYC this summer.

[Tinoire]

89. There's a lot to be concerned about these days

Scary times. Very scary times.

I hope it all works out and we see you there :hug:

Well on a brighter note... We have Dean at the helm of a more populist DNC!

[not systems]

91. I would be prickly after what he has been through...

he did sound sane and the more I have read from him
the more convinced that he is spot on with much of
his analysis.

[MamaBear]

93. Right.

I didn't find him off the wall; definitely left though. He did remind me of controversial teachers from my university days in the late '60s. I've heard (and read) Chomsky and Zinn, and he has some similar ideas. Gore Vidal, too. Not that those men couldn't find a great deal to disagree about.

I forget sometimes that I'm officially ancient now, and that I was exposed to things in college that evidently aren't that common any more. It's a shame; I read Atlas Shrugged, The Trial, The Autobiography of Ben Franklin, the Autobiography of Malcolm X, and Stranger in a Strange Land in my freshman year. I think that represents a variety of views. ;)

[Susang]

82. I'm signature #337

If they can go after him for his views, it can just as easily be you or anyone else here on DU.

Most of us have written things here on this board that many "rational people" would consider treasonous. Put emotions aside and think about that when you make your decision about signing.

[WillowTree]

94. He definitely has the right to free speech.

But rights come with responsibilities and, more to the point of this conversation, consequences. Does Ward Churchill have a right to his opinions and to voice them, no matter how repugnant they are? Sure he does. But that does not mean that, when he does voice them, there will never be any consequences.

Blanket statements to the effect that firing someone from his or her job because of something that they said somehow violates the First Amendment is just plain lunacy. Case in point: I heard recently that someone that I used to work with called the AVP of Systems a fuckhead. I can assure you, there is not a single person in that organization who ever had to deal with that man (including the CIO, who fired said AVP a couple of weeks later) who would disagree with her assessment. Nonetheless, she was fired for it, pretty much on the spot. That's not a violation of her right to free speech, it's a consequence of her injudicious exercise thereof. Had she waited until she got home and said the same thing to her husband, or had she waited and expressed the same opinion to a co-worker over drinks after work, or at least until her break where she could speak her mind privately, the outcome would have been different. She, however, chose to say it in front of other employees and when the fuckhead was within earshot. That's not so much the exercise of free speech as the exercise of weapons grade stupidity.

Personally, I wouldn't have any problem if Ward Churchill met a similar fate..........

EXCEPT

There is more at play here.

First of all, he has tenure, a contract, if you will, and that restricts a university's ability to apply consequences. It can be debated from now until the turn of the next century whether or not he ever should have been given tenure, but that point is moot now. He was.

Depending on the specific terms of tenure at a given institution, I suppose that a case might be made for trying to find a way to circumvent tenure in the case of a blowhard such as Churchil..........

EXCEPT

We're talking about a State university here. Now, my personal opinion is that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights, they meant precisely what they said and that the wholesale interpretive expansions of the terms of the First Amendment are not a good thing but, sadly, no one asked me. So the fact that this is a state university makes for a much more complicated can of worms to deal with in a case such as this, particularly in Colorado where the Board of Regents (or whatever the governing body that oversees the state university system there is called) are elected officials.

Bottom line is that I don't think that Ward Churchill ought to be fired for the despicable (in my opinion) things that he's said. Considering all of the factors involved, it ultimately must come under the protection of the First Amendment. I do, however, think that he should be fired for misrepresenting himself and his background to the university and the public in general. And the fact that no one, apparently, was questioning his heritage etc. until he shot his mouth off, again, just in my personal opinion, ought to come under the heading of So Sad, Too Bad. Consequences, pure and simple.

And, in the end, and particularly if he does wind up getting fired, his right to continue to spew his vitriol will continue to be protected by the First Amendment and he will become far more wealthy and have a far larger audience for his views via books and public speaking engagements than ever could have been afforded to him as a university professor.

Ain't America wonderful?

[Iverson]

96. thanks to those who have signed

Thanks also to those who have commented here.

Those who go back and visit the petition may notice the influx of juvenile attempts at disruption.
You'll note that no one is calling to revoke the Constitutional rights of those fools, nor to end their lives.

I think that it is important for people of good will to make an effort to counter these anti-liberty righties.
If anyone here could spread the word about the petition in a way that is likely to attract advocates of free speech, and unlikely to attract nascent brownshirts, I'd surely appreciate it.

[Iverson]

99. ... and then all of a sudden ...

... free speech got a kick to page one.

[Vladimir]

100. Churchill's rights should be protected

precisely because he didn't engage in 'hate speech', i.e. his speech was not an incitement to further attack or even really an applauding of the 9/11 attacks, rather he offered an analysis of the causes of the attacks rooted in context and reality. But we must keep a clear distinction between analysis, which deserves protection from whichever end of the spectrum it comes, and incitement to hatred or violence, which should not in any case be protected (well, one can 'support' a call for revolution but then one is engaged in de facto illegal activity anyhow). This seems to me a distinction too often lost in the wails of "1st Amendment! 1st Amendment!" which accompany every issue of this kind...

[Iverson]

101. them belly full but we hungry

It's true that there is a point at which the content of the speech affects the context, that being approximately the exercise of freedom in order to deny freedom to others. The most commonly used example is that one may not shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Clearly the present case is not about speech that infringes upon others' liberty, but instead is about speech that some of society's powerful elements just don't like.

Hopefully, it's worth enduring the noisome wails of "First Amendment!" in order to oppose the much more damaging wails of "Fire him for what he said!" or even "Kill him!"

[rovespuppet]

103. Ward is still an employee of an institution

attempting to make a profit. If the Univeristy of Colorado determines his rhetoric is causing potential students to go somewhere else they can surely fire him. At that point it would be a business decision instead of a right to speech decision. I think the university has the right to stand up for free speech and the right to demand a quality staff. A staff that does not embarrass the university like the football coach did. But if they kept the coach they might as well keep him.

Either way I think he is a detriment to the cause......

[Iverson]

104. multiple errors

Public universities are not private corporations that exist for profit.

The simple assertion of economic damage is not a sufficient reason to silence those who make unpopular utterances.

"The university" is more than right-wing Regents with a political agenda.

Please think the matter through.

[rovespuppet]

105. The university is not a private corporation but

certainly attempts to make profits in order to upgrade facilities and increase pay to faculty, etc....

"The simple assertion of economic damage is not a sufficient reason to silence those who make unpopular utterances."

From a Chancellor standpoint, I would think economic damage is sufficient because without students paying the tuition the university could not succeed. If the university's faculty is embarrassing the university then the whole university suffers. You certainly cannot assert that the university is happy having negative perceptions regarding the faculty from people across all spectrums.

"The university" is more than right-wing Regents with a political agenda."

That's ridiculous. Basically, you are saying only the right-wing Regents were upset by his pitifully un-American speech. The day the left-wing truly accepts his "unpopular" rhetoric as the norm is the day we are all sunk.

I will always defend his right to speak like a moron, but to say the
UofC can do nothing about it is not correct. Hopefully his 15 minutes are almost up.

[Iverson]

108. "that's ridiculous"

"certainly attempts to make profits in order to upgrade facilities and increase pay to faculty, etc...."

What a public university attempts to do is to operate within its budget. If it incidentally enjoys a surplus in one fiscal year, it is not suddenly a for-profit corporation that can be about the business of retroactively silencing its faculty.

"From a Chancellor standpoint, I would think economic damage is sufficient..."

Of course you would. When one begins one's inquiry with the primacy of the whims of the governng board, that is where one ends. No surprise. When one begins with the principles of the First Amendment and academic freedom, the conclusion is quite a bit different.

"You certainly cannot assert that the university is happy having negative perceptions regarding the faculty from people across all spectrums. "

This is irrelevant. It is not the job of the faculty to make Regents happy with their every public comment. Perhaps that was true in the worst cases in the old Soviet Union and other totalitarian states, but it is not supposed to be true here.

""The university" is more than right-wing Regents with a political agenda."
That's ridiculous. Basically, you are saying only the right-wing Regents were upset by his pitifully un-American speech."

No, your myopic objection is ridiculous. Obviously a university is its faculty and students above all else, and also its administration, its staff, its alumni. Neither you nor one upset Regent gets to speak for the whole.
Your other incorrect point shows an inability (or refusal) to separate your own reaction at the content of Churchill's speech to the very basic principles involved here. I happen to know that others were also upset at his comments, especially when they were taken out of context, but it is the right wing that is leading the charge to deprive the man of his career and, less formally, making death threats.

"The day the left-wing truly accepts his "unpopular" rhetoric as the norm is the day we are all sunk."

Another irrelevancy. Either you defend free speech or you do not. Either you ask the nation's faculty to be little Lysenkos or you do not.

"I will always defend his right to speak like a moron,..."

Ah, finally you concede the basic right. That is indeed the point, and I hope that you will act upon it.

[ulysses]

102. signed, btw.

:hi:

[Pushed To The Left]

107. Not a Churchill fan, but I signed it!

I'm #391. Free speech should apply to all people, even those that I don't agree with.

[Iverson]

109. gratis

Then I would argue, sir, that you "get it."

[anaxarchos]

110. A tale of two (free) speeches...

At approximately the same time that Churchill was being "outed", a Marine general got caught on videotape talking about how much fun it was to kill... "people" (he didn't say it but he might well have - "ragheads").

Three things come to mind:

1) The General, unlike Churchill, has recourse to real actions to supplement the "power" of his words.

2) While there may be a debate over whether Churchill fully enjoys the protection of free speech, there is no question that there is no such thing as "Free Speech" in the military.

3) Our Marine just shot his mouth off in the last few weeks and not 2 years ago like Churchill.

Yet... does anyone detect a difference in the way the two stories were handled? Is it me, or is the demand for sanctions a little bit louder in the case of Churchill? Does anyone else detect a different standard of outrage?

If this isn't about free speech, I don't know what is...

[Iverson]

111. "... but some are more equal than others."

"Yet... does anyone detect a difference in the way the two stories were handled? Is it me, or is the demand for sanctions a little bit louder in the case of Churchill? Does anyone else detect a different standard of outrage?"

Of course.
If you hate the right people, you can say anything.

I'm afraid that I see little difference between that model and the one applicable to any totalitarian regime.

[Iverson]

112. Deleted Message

Friends, it's too important to let free speech become a deleted message.
Act as you can.

[Iverson]

113. link to commondreams article

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0215-20.htm

An excerpt follows:

It’s clear to me now that Ward Churchill was playing a Role. I can almost imagine him pulling on a Shakespearean cloak as he walked those few steps to the podium. I don’t suggest for a moment that Churchill isn’t genuinely outraged by the cruelty he has meticulously documented in our nation’s history. Certainly he is. But he makes that outrage a visceral thing, incapable of being ignored. I think his lectures at the University of Colorado must be memorable indeed.

They have to be memorable. Consider what he’s up against: His students have absorbed roughly twenty years of American television. They are steeped in a consensus mythology in which the Cowboy is always good, and America is always the Cowboy. A committee of Texas moralists wrote their high school textbooks. (Remember the Alamo!) So if they remember anything at all from their high school history courses, it probably wasn’t true to begin with. It’s not exaggerating to say that what they know about U.S. foreign policy is roughly equivalent to a Superman comic book: The good guys always win, and we’re always the good guys. The credulous among them believe these things. The more sophisticated believe nothing, and aren’t prepared to believe anything new. History? It’s just something to be endured until tonight’s pledge party.

How does one reach such students? What does it take to jolt them off their pedestals of privilege and complacency? It takes the academic equivalent of a flying tackle. Will they remember a lecture filled with sad statistics about Native American death rates in the eighteenth century? Probably not. Will they remember the professor who told them they were complicit in genocide and probably deserved to be hanged? You bet they will. Sure, they’ll try to squirm out from beneath that withering gaze. Flushed with denial, they’ll distrust the statistics and decide to verify them independently. So they’ll add up the numbers themselves, and follow a footnote or two back to the primary source. Against all instinct, they’ll find themselves doing actual history.

[Iverson]

114. interesting response to Churchill

Since this is an open letter, reprinting it in full should not be a problem. Note that the writer engages Churchill on the level of ideas, rather than calling for his career or his life.

An Open Letter to Ward Churchill: My Brother, the 'Eichmann'
by Michael Faughnan

An open letter to Ward Churchill:

My brother Chris was a 1985 graduate of the University of Colorado, the father of three young children and a compassionate, respectful and generous man. He stood in defense of our environment, volunteered his time and money in support of human rights, and gave unselfishly to help disadvantaged, vulnerable members of our society. He spoke openly against unjust government policies, and followed a private ethic of compassion. Chris was also a U.S. government Treasury bond broker for Cantor Fitzgerald, and therefore by your definition was a "little Eichmann."

At 8:46 a.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, you claim that my beautiful brother Chris, a "technocrat" in your words, received his "befitting penalty." While Chris rarely used a cell phone in his work (much less self-importantly brayed into one), he did make one call that fateful day. At about 8:30 that morning, Chris bantered back and forth with his 4-year-old daughter to get her to say that she loved him — she was the last of his family to talk with him.

Mr. Churchill, what I want you to see is the human face behind the rhetoric. Human beings are not symbols, and your essay's dehumanization of the victims of 9/11 reduces them to mere symbols — drones in a capitalist machine. In this way, you are guilty of what you claim to condemn, that is the dehumanization of individuals. It is the inability to see the human face of "the other" that allows the horrible violence in this world to continue.

>From what I understand after reading your essay, you wish to give the American people a view of the suffering of the Iraqi and the Palestinian peoples, and provide insight into why the attacks of 9/11 may have occurred. This is noble and legitimate. We do need to see and understand the consequences of the actions of our government and the exportation of our culture, and also do what we can to right the wrongs that have been committed. But to make this point is it necessary to forget the individual humanity of those who died in the attacks and reduce them to mere stereotypes?

Recently, our family has been discussing what would be a befitting, honorable tribute to his life. Ironically, your essay arrived with its own recognition of Chris's memory — as a faceless technocrat who deserved to die.

Chris's wife now lives in the Boulder area and continues to raise his children based on the creed he followed throughout his life: respect, appreciation, honesty, benevolence and love. So the media coverage of you and your writings resonates loudly with our family, and clarification of your writings is critical to us.

Mr. Churchill, we have the right to ask you, in fact, we are obligated to ask you publicly. And you, sir, we feel, are obligated to answer us publicly and unequivocally. In your view, was my brother's death justified? Yes or no? Did it right any wrongs that have been committed in this world?

Whether you answer, and how you answer, I believe is critical to the greater message I believe you seek to espouse. Behind the painful rhetoric you use, I sense a nobler goal, the desire to tell the American people that we must be aware of ourselves in the world, take responsibility and work to understand and change the wrongs that have been committed. If this is your greater message, my brother Chris would have agreed with you whole-heartedly. And if this is your message, please state it clearly, and abandon the dehumanizing rhetoric and the pathetic metaphors. If you cannot make your point this way, it is you who is "braying," playing the role of provocateur and not speaking from any coherent moral conviction.

Regrettably, you, like many of those who are zealously attacking you — political leaders, talk-show hosts, those who profess their views around the office water cooler — disgracefully use the victims of 9/11 to advance your own cause. In the view of this family, your grossly inappropriate characterization of Chris and the other 9/11 victims has been surpassed in vulgarity only by the misinformed advocates of aggression who used those beautiful innocents who perished on 9/11 as propaganda for immediate and misguided violence and destruction.

Our family is seeking to steer a course through these two extremes to find some truth in our brother's death. We are concerned that the majority of the public discussion has moved away from the message you are trying to convey, to attacks on your pedigree, your integrity, your scholarship and your right to speak.

We believe in free speech, but also know the truth of the phrase "with great freedom, comes great responsibility." Shame on the University of Colorado, certain political leaders and others who attack you personally, while side-stepping a deeper understanding of the views that you appear to be raising. We would like you to use your right to speak and your privileged position to be clear on our brother's death so that we can better understand your message. Are you capable of rejecting the language of hate and engaging in real constructive dialog to explore realistic solutions to our real world problems, without pitting one group of victims against another?

Mr. Churchill, my family is not ensconced in an ivory tower. We do not have the luxury that you have of pontificating at arm's length on the causes behind the events of 9/11. The reality of that day has been cemented in my family's life forever.

Was our loss justified? Did it right any wrongs that have been committed in this world? We await your clarification.

Michael Faughnan of Denver wrote this on behalf of the family of Christopher Faughnan.