News
Churchill to speak at UW-Whitewater
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Sundeep Malladi:
- In-Depth: What's affected by budget cuts? (September 1, 2005)
- In-Depth: Backing up going down (September 15, 2005)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
The University of Wisconsin-Whitewater has decided to allow controversial University of Colorado-Boulder professor of ethnic studies Ward Churchill to speak March 1 about “Racism Against the American Indian.”
UW-Whitewater Chancellor Jack Miller decided Thursday Churchill would be allowed to speak despite an earlier cancellation at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y. That cancellation has resulted in national turmoil over various issues, including First Amendment rights and human sympathy.
Churchill was not allowed to speak at Hamilton after university officials discovered an essay written in 2001 called “Some People Push Back,” in which Churchill describes the victims of Sept. 11 as “Little Eichmanns.” The analogy refers to World War II Nazi Adolf Eichmann, the man responsible for implementing Hitler’s “Final Solution.”
Hamilton was forced to end Churchill’s appearance after more than 100 death threats were sent to the school. In one incident, an anonymous caller said he would bring a gun, according to Hamilton Communications Director Vige Barrie.
In a statement, Miller said he accepts the decision to allow Churchill to speak at Whitewater, although he acknowledged it will be met with dissent.
“I side with the First Amendment principles, and with my faith in our faculty, staff, students and community members as to whether to listen to Mr. Churchill and how to judge his comments,” Miller said.
Still, he had difficulty making the decision, considering the situation.
“Personally, I find the decision to be repugnant because of the offensive nature of his remarks,” Miller said.
However, Miller’s decision to give Churchill a podium comes with strings attached.
According to Thursday’s statement, Miller will not allow Churchill to speak should he not meet six stipulations.
The most important of those stipulations is the guaranteed safety of Miller’s campus, considering the earlier incidents at Hamilton.
Miller’s second requirement stipulates the state will not fund Churchill’s travel expenses or speaker’s honorarium.
“All funding for this event will come from either private gifts or student fees allocated by the Student University Fee Allocation Committee (SUFAC),” according to the statement.
Churchill’s attendance at the university would also depend on the outcome of a review by UC-Boulder, where the school’s Board of Regents is currently debating whether to dismiss Churchill from the university.
The statement said the university would also provide views contrary to Churchill’s. Finally, Miller demanded a clarification of Churchill’s “Little Eichmanns” remark.
Despite UW-Whitewater’s requirements, some state officials have already begun firing condemnation in the school’s direction.
State Rep. Steve Nass, R-Whitewater, said the university wants to hide behind free speech.
“It is still hateful speech, and that is a problem,” Nass said. “With that kind of criteria,
that means that anybody would be able to come to Whitewater and speak, [even if] it was Saddam Hussein.”
Nass drafted a joint resolution calling for the Legislature to submit its opinion of Churchill Thursday.
“This is not a question of free speech; this is stopping a person who uses hateful, disgusting speech,” Nass said.
While the dissension from the state has been evident, there has been some support from others.
UW law professor Gerald Thain said despite Churchill’s absurd statements, Miller has made the right decision.
“I’m sure had advice from First Amendment lawyers and other academic people,” Thain said. “I’d be surprised if he would have made a different decision.”
UW political science and law professor Donald Downs said he was surprised Whitewater made the decision to allow Churchill to speak. Downs added he was afraid what Nass’ remarks about the Churchill case could mean for citizens who listen to the lawmaker’s criticism.
13 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Muckrakers
President’s Visit Marked a Speech to One of the Last Groups Not Critical of Him
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
And I thought I had it bad going to UW-Madison. I could have gone to UW-Whitewater and had to put up with some race-baiting asshole who only claims to part Indian coming to campus and spewing his hatred of an entire nation.
Of course, I’m sure there are some student organizations here who are now trying to get him to speak here.
I see little difference between Timothy McVeigh’s sick view that murdering innocents was “collateral damage” to punish the government for Waco and Churchill’s views. As a matter of fact, I see no difference at all. Its the exact same argument. Sure, Churchill has a right to free speech. Yet, academia has a responsibility not to legititmize extremist apologists for mass murder in the name of “discourse.” Do I really need to pay [fill in the blank extremist] to come and speak at my univerity to know their ideas should be rejected? If Hitler were alive, would we really need to “hear the man out” before we rejected his ideas?
Academics seem to have the most poorly calibrated bullshit detectors of any segment of our society.
The difference between Churchill and McVeigh is quite profound. McVeigh was himself using the people as “collateral damage”, but Churchill’s claim is that an attack of 9/11 proportions is inevitable based on America’s foreign policy. churchill’s argument is much deeper and complex than the news is covering. For sure his arguments are controversial, and I don’t think I can claim to even agree with most of it, but this debate would be much stronger if people actually read his comments instead of relying on the news and second hand republican sources.
Yeah, but the state isn’t paying for it. Private donations are, and the equivalent of seg fees are. Seg fees are an entirely different topic, but they DO seem to go towards crazy causes. Still, sifting and winnowing and all that. The answer to hate speech is not censorsip- it is more free speech.
Jon needs to recalibrate his bullshit detector. No, there is not a “profound difference” between the two worldviews. He was not simply arguing that the terrorist events are an inevitable consequence of American foreign policy. He was justifying the the murders on the basis that the victims were “Little Eichmanns.” That is soooooooo “deep” and “complex” (if you are a dummy). I have read his piece in its entirety and it has all the nuance of a turd in a punch bowl.
Can we have one that kicks your ass while sipping tea and writing haikus? Because that would awesome.
Yes, this is hate speech. But it is no more hateful than what spews out of Mark Baumgardners mouth. What Churchill said was repugnant and baseless, that we all seem to agree upon. Then why is that every week when Baumgardner writes half the posts run to justify hatred in the name of religion. Churchill justified hatred in the name of anti-imperialism, whats the difference. I have no need for people like Churchill, just like I have no need for people like Baumgardner, Phelps, Farwell, or any of their religious right ilk.
UW-Whitewater grabbing for a little free publicity on the national stage?
Jon, we did read his comments. That’s why we despise him. We also despise morons like you who think he’s right.
“Yes, this is hate speech. But it is no more hateful than what spews out of Mark Baumgardners mouth.”
And we shouldn’t have to put up with Mark’s bullshit either.
Yes, I can tell you are a good reader, since you read my post so well. I think my words were “I don’t agree with it.” But the vast majority of people who are posting coments only know what the news has told them, and in that case no true debate can be had.
Daniel Pipes being invited to speak at UW-Madison in 2003 should have put an end to the discussion of whether extremists have the right to amplify their voices with microphones.
Every body shut up!
Daniel Pipes is hardly an extremist just because he disagrees with you, dumbass!