The Badger Herald

NEWS

Lawmakers call to cancel speech

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Rachel Patzer:

Government group announces research guidelines (April 27, 2005)
JFC scales back Doyle's hunting, fishing license fees (April 28, 2005)
High court hears cap arguments (April 28, 2005)
Green to run for governor (May 2, 2005)
Edwards tours city's family center (April 4, 2005)

by Rachel Patzer

Thursday, February 24, 2005

State legislators approved a resolution Tuesday requesting a cancellation of the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater speech by controversial University of Colorado professor of ethnic studies, Ward Churchill.

The resolution, AR 8, was approved 67-31 in the state Assembly across party lines. Legislators will now send the measure to UW-Whitewater Chancellor Jack Miller with hopes he will cancel Churchill’s speech, which is scheduled for Tuesday.

Churchill’s ideas have come under fire across the nation with the discovery of an essay he wrote immediately following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks called “Some People Push Back.” The essay described victims of the attacks as “little Eichmans,” referring to World War II Nazi Adolf Eichman, who headed Adolf Hitler’s plan to murder Jews.

State Rep. Steve Nass, R-Whitewater, author of the resolution, was pleased with the bipartisan support for condemning what he calls the anti-American ideas of Churchill.

“It’s pretty clear Churchill is not a person who is credible,” Nass said. “He has used hate speech in the past in his writings and that is not the caliber person we want to come here and speak on a campus funded by state dollars.”

While the original proposed resolution included a request for the UW System Board of Regents to conduct an extensive review of hiring and tenure procedures to make certain the “honorable academic standards of conduct” are met, the resolution that was passed did not include such measures.

Nass said he does not think this is an issue of free speech or academic freedom, as his opponents believe. UW-Whitewater is guaranteeing a forum with a podium and a place to speak which is not right according to Nass.

“There is a difference between free speech and hate speech — the university hides behind free speech, but the Constitution does not provide [Churchill] a forum,” Nass said.

UW System Director of Communications Doug Bradley believes the issue does concern free speech, and it is very important to value freedom of expression on campus.

“Members of the legislature felt … they needed to vote their conscience, and we felt we needed to abide by our conscience as well,” Bradley said. “We have a great concern for freedom of expression on our college campuses — the issue speaks to the very heart of the university.”

Although we find his ideas “fairly repugnant,” he was invited and has the right to be heard, Bradley said.

UW-Whitewater College Republicans Chairperson Steve Maio agrees Churchill should be allowed to speak on campus as well, even though they do not support what he has to say.

“We believe [Churchill] has the freedom to speak, but we believe he doesn’t represent the majority of Americans.”

The piece approved by the Assembly is a privileged resolution, according to Nass. This only requires one house to approve the resolution, so the state Senate will not be voting on it.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (February 24, 2005 @ 9:13am):

He does not have "the right to be heard". Stop saying that, it is not a legitimate argument.

Anonymous (February 24, 2005 @ 10:07am):

Exactly. He has a right to speak, but having that right does not garauntee an audience to hear you.

Anonymous (February 24, 2005 @ 10:07am):

Exactly. He has a right to speak, but having that right does not garauntee an audience to hear you.

Anonymous (February 24, 2005 @ 11:47am):

"There is a difference between free speech and hate speech."

I beg for a citation fron the Bill of Rights that illustrates the difference.

Above posters: you are quite right. The first ammendment guarantees the right to free speech, but does not compel people to listen, nor does it grant government funding to do so. But it also guarantees the right to assembly. Will we next have our lawmakers deciding what books your professors assign?