NEWS
UW-Whitewater assesses speaker
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Sundeep Malladi:
- In-Depth: What's affected by budget cuts? (September 1, 2005)
- In-Depth: Letter and the law (October 13, 2005)
Related Stories:
- Churchill to speak at UW-Whitewater (February 11, 2005)
- Churchill to remain at Colorado (April 1, 2005)
- UW Whitewater gets ready for Churchill (March 1, 2005)
- Colorado president resigns (March 8, 2005)
- Lawmakers call to cancel speech (February 24, 2005)
Share This:
by Sundeep Malladi
Thursday, February 10, 2005
After gaining national attention, the controversy over University of Colorado-Boulder ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill has arrived in Wisconsin, raising issues of First Amendment rights. Churchill is scheduled to speak at UW-Whitewater Mar. 1.
Controversy surrounding Churchill began in late January at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y., where he was expected to speak Feb. 3. However, Ward never made it to the panel because a Hamilton faculty member uncovered a controversial essay written by Churchill in 2001, called “Some People Push Back.”
The essay describes the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center as a reflex reaction to America’s past bombings in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, asserts the victims were “technocrats of society” and calls many of the corporatists who worked there “Little Eichmann’s.”
The phrase refers to Adolf Eichmann, the man Adolf Hitler turned to during World War II to implement Hitler’s “Final Solution.”
Consequently, Hamilton College’s initial plan to allow Churchill to speak was not overturned on the basis of his viewpoints. The decision was made after more than 100 death threats were sent to Churchill care of the university, according to Hamilton director of communications Vige Barrie.
“The final thread was when we got an anonymous caller [who] said he would bring a gun into the presentation,” Barrie said.
The decision to cancel Churchill’s speech came as a victory signal to some, but to others it was signal of deterioration.
“The cancellation of the event … was an educational loss,” Hamilton President Joane Hinde Stewart said in a statement. “Our students and faculty will not have the opportunity to confront and challenge Mr. Churchill’s views.”
After a large amount of criticism from both his state and university surfaced, Churchill resigned Jan. 31 from his position as chair of ethnic studies, and Colorado’s Board of Regents is currently debating whether to allow Churchill to remain at the university.
“As I have said, I personally find the statements in Professor Churchill’s essay to be repugnant and hurtful to everyone touched by that tragedy. And I know that many of you share those feelings,” CU Chancellor Phil DeStefano said in a release.
However, DeStefano also emphasized the important weight that could be carried with their decision.
“Even as the debate continues, we must understand the serious nature of actions to terminate or suspend a professor on the basis of conduct that includes political speech,” DeStefano said. “Before such a decision could be made, the university must observe due process as required by the U.S. Constitution and the Laws of the Regents.”
Still, academic institutions from around the country have faulted the Board of Regents for considering the firing of Churchill based on his opinion.
According to UW professor of law and political science Donald Downs, the entire debacle has a “witch-hunt mentality.”
“He’s offering his view, however controversial, however offensive,” Downs said. “If free speech means anything, it means the right to do that.”
UW law professor Gerald Thain said there is a serious danger that First Amendment rights could be broken with Churchill’s dismissal.
“I think there’s a real danger of Freedom of Speech being infringed upon,” Thain said. “Obviously any other citizens are entitled to state their opinions — it’s just a matter of opinion.”
UW professor emeritus Gordon Baldwin also agreed with Thain.
“[Churchill’s] probably a jackass, but that doesn’t [matter],” Baldwin said. “If he is invited, he’s got a right to speak, but you don’t have a First Amendment right to be respected or to be agreed with.”
The academics also emphasized the grave need to allow Churchill to speak at UW-Whitewater.
“It’s much better to have different viewpoints,” Thain said. “Even one that is odious.”
According to a UW-Whitewater statement, Churchill’s visit will be reviewed through various sources, including First Amendment lawyers, students, faculty and police.
Anonymous (February 10, 2005 @ 7:36am):
It would seem responsible for the BAdger Herald to report what Churchill himself said in his defense rather taking things he said out of context. Here is an excerpt from what he wrote:
"I mourn the victims of the September 11 attacks, just as I mourn the deaths of those Iraqi children, the more than 3 million people killed in the war in Indochina, those who died in the U.S. invasions of Grenada, Panama and elsewhere in Central America, the victims of the transatlantic slave trade, and the indigenous peoples still subjected to genocidal policies. If we respond with callous disregard to the deaths of others, we can only expect equal callousness to American deaths."
The link to his full response is here:
http://www.counterpunch.com/churchill02032005.html
Removing someone for political speech is a bad bad idea and one that I as a true conservative, not a member of the religious and blindly patriotic members that seem to dominate our party now, find absolutely abhorrent. I don't agree with everything this guy says by any means, but he deserves to be able to say it without being removed. I feel his words were chosen poorly but he was deliberately trying to be provocative so that those ignorant Americans who believe the Neo-con rhetoric would start to think about how our policies abroad might actually have an effect on other real people like you and me that live abroad.
Anonymous (February 10, 2005 @ 8:00am):
Ward Chruchill is an aging hippy nutcase who deserves all the hell he's getting. He also claims to be part American Indian, which he clearly is not. Even real Native Americans totally despise him. Of course, he's surely be welcome to speak here at UW-Madison, since there are so many imbeciles like him already here.
I watched the entire three-part video of Ward Churchill speaking in response at the UC-Boulder campus in Glenn Miller Hall, to an audience of mostly stupid kids who hung on his every word. For a minute there, I thought he was actually speaking here in Madison
Go ahead and support him if you want, but the man-insofar as he can be said to be a man-has nothing intelligent or meaningful for say. Sorry, but I'm easily impressed by every "scholar" who claims he knows it all, especially when half the things he says are just plain crap.
Anonymous (February 10, 2005 @ 9:03am):
""[Churchill's] probably a jackass, but that doesn't [matter]," Baldwin said. "If he is invited, he's got a right to speak, but you don't have a First Amendment right to be respected or to be agreed with.""
The university also has every right to uninvite him on the grounds that he is offensive. Freedom of speech doesn't give him the right to be invited to a campus to give a speech, or the right to come anyway despite being uninvited.
Anonymous (February 10, 2005 @ 9:28am):
Correct there is no First Amendment right to be invited to speak. But once you do invite him, the University has an obligation not to uninvite him because the majority wants as much. This is just a formal way of "shouting down" speakers which is prevelant at institutions of higher learning.
Anonymous (February 10, 2005 @ 9:43am):
By the way, it has been widely reported that the "death threats" were made up. The people who made them up have admitted to it.
Thanks for being ahead of the curve BH!
Anonymous (February 10, 2005 @ 10:14am):
The fact that someone admits to a death threat does not mean it is "made up." Making up death threats would mean that they never occurred. Since people admitted to them, that implies that they at least happened irrespective of their legitimacy.
Anonymous (February 10, 2005 @ 10:28am):
I have no problem with allowing him to speak, I just wonder if he should be paid and/or encouraged.
I have to agree with professor Campos:
http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/opinions/story/2093005p-10176038c.html
Anyone who reads widely in the collected works of Churchill, and especially anyone who listens to his speeches, will, if they are not blinded by certain ideological commitments, recognize the essentially fascist tendency of his work. If a white American were to speak of any foreign people or nation in the anything like the way Churchill discusses America and Americans, the fascist character of his work would be obvious to everyone.
This point is only underlined by the behavior of Churchill's supporters, who, while not actually wearing brown shirts, did a quite convincing impersonation of fascist thugs at a recent meeting at the University of Colorado. All this was merely par for the course for Churchill, who believes that a Columbus Day parade is an incitement to genocide, and therefore something that he and his followers have a legal right to disrupt.
But while the question of whether a brilliant scholar with a fascist streak ought to be considered for a place on a university faculty retains at least some academic interest, it has nothing to do with Churchill, whose writings and speeches feature an incoherent farrago of boundless paranoia, wildly implausible theories, obscene celebrations of murder and atrocious prose.
***
Speaking truth to power, giving a voice to those who have been silenced, pursuing controversial and unpopular ideas in an intellectually rigorous way - these are all things that the university in general, and this university in particular, has done and continues to do.
That through whatever combination of negligence, cowardice and complicity we have allowed Ward Churchill to besmear those ideals by invoking them in the defense of his contemptible rantings is now our burden and our shame.
Anonymous (February 10, 2005 @ 2:07pm):
I think ever sane person can agree this man's comments were completely out of line, to say the least. Yes, I agree that he has the right to say them, and to say he doesn't owe anyone an apology for them. However, having a large forum to say them in is not a right. If universities decide they don't want him, they aren't infringing on 1st amendment rights. He can spout his idiocy all he wants, that is his right, but we don't have to listen... that's ours.
Anonymous (February 10, 2005 @ 2:48pm):
Free Speech is Free Speech -- as much as his calling my 4 friends who died in 9/11 'technocrats.'
Anonymous (February 10, 2005 @ 3:34pm):
I don't think there is anything idiotic about what he said. All he said was "don't expect to mistreat foreign countries with an imperialist foreign policy and have people there not react. "
He clearly says that he doesn't condone violence. I don't know how much clearer you need it than that.
His basic message is if the US consistently ignores human rights violations in other countries in favor of trade, then we shouldn't be surprised when people want to target us as part of the oppressive system that violated their rights.
He also says that only some people in WTC were "technocrats" and many of them were. They knowingly conducted business in such a way as to exploit the people who attacked us. He is not arguing that the janitor was guilty, but that our actions have ethical implications which Americans are only too happy to ignore and that the 9-11 attacks should force us to examine our policies, not steam ahead and aggravate the situation like Bush and crew are.
Anonymous (February 10, 2005 @ 4:00pm):
To whom it may concern:
I find it necessary to point out a minor mistake for the simple reason it has been done numerous times before in your publication. The University of Colorado-Boulder was correctly labeled in the story, however, in the cutline, it read Colorado University. There is no such thing as Colorado University, it is the University of Colorado. Though the abbivation is "CU," it is still Univ. of Colorado, not Colo. University. Why? Because the Big Eight Conference decided it necessary to switch letters because there were already so many U. of (letter). For example, "KU" is the Univ. of Kansas and UK the Univ. of Kentucky. UC is Columbia Univ. and Clemson, NOT Colorado. "NU" is the Univ. of Nebraska. For natives of the west, this is a glaring problem that needs to be fixed. Please, correct yourselves for the accuracy and respect of your paper.
Anonymous (February 10, 2005 @ 4:53pm):
A counterpoint to an above statement that said, "I don't think there is anything idiotic about what he said. All he said was "don't expect to mistreat foreign countries with an imperialist foreign policy and have people there not react. "
You're right about what he's trying to say. However, what you just said and the way in which Churchill conveyed that statement are tragically different. Calling victims of any disaster "Little Eichmanns", is a historic inaccuracy and an insult to those who perished in 9/11. Additonally, Churchill is a man of academia, he above most people should know the implications of his words.
Anonymous (February 10, 2005 @ 4:58pm):
Ward Churchill and the demented idiots who support him are just another indication of how desperate liberals are, now that they have completely lost their status. It's no surprise to me that they would stoop to such a low level. No brain, no gain.
Anonymous (February 10, 2005 @ 5:07pm):
"Ward Churchill and the demented idiots who support him are just another indication of how desperate liberals are, now that they have completely lost their status. It's no surprise to me that they would stoop to such a low level. No brain, no gain."
This is simply a comment that says "I hate libereals" utterly lacking in any logical or factual merit. Please don't make the rest of us conservatives look bad. We are not all ignorant morons like you.
Anonymous (February 10, 2005 @ 5:26pm):
"Please don't make the rest of us conservatives look bad."
You're not a conservative, you're a liberal. Now go back to your own dorm room and use your own damn computer, Dick!
Anonymous (February 10, 2005 @ 11:21pm):
Churchill is a Nazi!
Anonymous (February 10, 2005 @ 11:22pm):
This isn't a freedom of speech issue. It's an issue of taxpayers not wanting our tax dollars to be used by UW-Whitewater to give a forum to a man spouting nothing but hatred and lies.
Anonymous (February 11, 2005 @ 9:09pm):
The issue of Free Speech is confused by some professors with the right to say anything, anywhere.
The review of the case of Ezra Pound who was indicted by US government on charges of treason, found incompetent to stand trial by his jury, and incarcerated for 13 years in a Federal institution, is very relevant in this situation. Ezra Pound's ideas were not even as inflamatory as Ward Churchill's: in his letter to the Attorney General of the United States, Pound presented himself as a citizen of the US, having rights under the constitution, and abiding by that Constitution, merely speaking as a citizen concerned with the machine of war of its government. Ward Churchill has gone a step further, clearly stepping aside from those perimeters. Furthermore, the courts ruled in the World War II treason cases that the "act of speech" is indeed an act, as much as that of throwing a brick is, and that the only legal difference between legitimate dissent or treason is "the intent to betray."
In my view, Ward Churchill has crossed that line.
Professor C. Montjou, Anthropology
Anonymous (February 23, 2005 @ 1:21pm):
i feel, that ward is intitled to state his views. he is known for his opinions, and it is in this country today we need such peopel to send this voice. we, as a country have become stuck, and lost in time with what happened 9/11. the racism, and once again focusing on a slect group of peopel ie, arabians, has done severs damage to this country. we have lost allies that we hand made, and contries that once were our friends. all over fear. fear is and has penetrated the core of this country. and terrorism is the weapon used to instill this, and to control the masses. i feel that, ward is a voice that will only get snuffed out, becosue people are afraid of the truth, and controversy. we, the united states, are very conservative now. boat rockers are being silanced.
thank you,
claudia
Anonymous (February 26, 2005 @ 12:11pm):
It is indeed a serious offense to the collective spirit of America, the respect due to its dead, and not negligibly to the respect due to American Indian history, to allow the well-known fraud that Ward Churchill is in the eyes of scholars in American Indian Studies to speak at an event which is supposedly part of the celebration of Native Pride on White Water University Campus. Shame on all those who remain blind to the serious breach of ethics involved in such misrepresentation.
