<p>nedad, I understand. I live in CA now, but moved from NY in '97. I have a dear friend whom I thought still worked in the WTC in '01 (he was in the building during the '93 bombing and was blackened and injured in the evacuation). I too was frantic until I was able to reach him two days later to learn he'd changed offices a few months earlier. I think I can understand what you went through. I will never lose the terror of that day either. Peace to you.</p>
<p>I also really felt very disturbed reading the article especially being a WTC survivor (od 1993 and 2001) and will forever ask why to a lot of questions. I have co-workers and friends who were lost on that day, some never recovered. Like Mr. Coppo, most of us were just there doing our job to support our familiesI am really trying to chose my words as it amazes me is that he has the nerve to be astonished to say that a three-year-old piece that has been spun mercilessly and distorted and he now has been victimized. Maybe his brain is distorted on many levels, and it is just time for hime ot sit down- I think U of Colorado will see that he does. </p>
<p>Voronwe,</p>
<p>It is good to see you back on the boards. I hope that your daughter is still doing well.</p>
<p>mattmom, I'm sorry you had that experience but Hamilton participates in the Posse Foundation which takes groups of underprivilged students and has them montored together. They work with each other and with sponsors. They all get full scholarships. Quite different from what you describe.
possefoundation.org</p>
<p>The more I think about it, the more I find it astounding that there has not been a controversy about, and dissection of, Churchill's remarks before now. It's long past time.</p>
<p>Peace to you as well, mootmom.</p>
<p>Apparently this "Ward Churchill" is a scholar of great distinction - the page on him at U. Of Colorado says his highest degree is an M.A. from "Sangaman State University," wherever that is! where he also got his BA, majoring in "Communincation!" (Alas, it apparently didn't take). And he is the CHAIR of Ethnic Studies!</p>
<p>This doesn't make me question Hamilton as much as it makes me question the U. of Colorado!</p>
<p>Thank you, Sybbie. It hasn't been easy.</p>
<p>I haven't read the article and I suppose I will get flamed but I dont expect to agree with all the ideas that I am presented with in daily life nor even all the ideas that my daughter is presented with in college.
I don't think that is realistic and being able to agree with everyone all the time, isn't what I would be looking for.</p>
<p>Hamilton's a great school. I have friends on the faculty there who are appalled at what Prof. Rabinowitz has wrought, first trying to bring a former Weather Underground member to campus, and now this Ward Churchill reprobate. It doesn't reflect on the college at all; it does reflect on the whackos in the womens' studies/ethnic studies departments. But that is a problem at almost any school you could name.</p>
<p>Voronewe, it was a state school in Illinois, no longer in existance. Very radical and different, is my impression, but I don't know too much about it. I guess it is exactly the sort of program you would expect Churchill to have attended. The views of the minority should be aired to the majority so that we do know what the are, as distasteful as the views may be to us. It is more dangerous to have our heads in the sand. That said, I don't think the venue of these views were appropriate, and not really presented as they should have been, so they are plain out offensive.</p>
<p>Emeraldkity (and this isn't a flame) - I don't think anyone who has posted would disagree with you. If you read the posts, the question is not about honest differences of opinion - even radically different opinions - that are reasonably argued, or somehow could be construed as reasonably warranted. Some might even agree that, for example, if America had had different policies, 9/11 might not have happened (I don't, but some might!).</p>
<p>Instead, it is about the difference between using critical thinking and civil language to honestly defend a belief, on the one hand, and viciously cruel name-calling, etc. on the other. This man writes extremely prejudicial rants, lumping everyone in the World Trade Center together as "braying" master-of-the-universe types who "deserved" to die. </p>
<p>On the other hand, my child was assigned a mildly vitriolic essay defending Palestinian suicide bombers, which he shared with me. We diasgreed with the author, and found fallacies in his reasoning, but there was at least an attempt to reason, to understand, and to explain. Not so with Ward Churchill.</p>
<p>There is civil discourse, uncivil discourse, and (as has been repeated often) a third thing, "venom-spewing" which does not fall under the heading of discourse at all. It doesn't seem to have a place at a university dedicated to REAL free speech. It is more like foaming at the mouth, like a mad dog.</p>
<p>NeDad...well put. Free speech is not the same issue as civil discourse. While I uphold hearing various viewpoints (particularly in academic settings), most in our country who do believe in free speech, would be against certain "hate" speech. Certain verbiage is not acceptable in a civil society. Yelling "fire" in a movie theater, is one example. A student telling a teacher "F you" is another. A person spewing hate...such as "people of X race are _____" or hate attacking words to those of a particular sexual persuasion, are simply not acceptable in our society. Someone can debate their point of view....ie., against a sexual lifestyle, or some such, but it is not ok to go out in public spewing hate or verbal attacks of certain segments of society. </p>
<p>I really feel for the young man who is a student at this college who lost his dad at the World Trade Center. Not only did he suffer this terrible unfathomable loss, but he has to withstand the hateful attacking words against innocent victims, good people of our society who earn a living for their families, in such an instance. It would be one thing if this professsor/speaker spoke of his views against our government's actions or whatever he believes might have brought on such terrorist acts, and we may or may not agree with him but to spew hate against innocent civilians in our society is just unacceptable discourse and not the same as simply proferring an opinion or point of view. It is an attack. </p>
<p>By the way, I feel sorry for this college and do not associate this with the school at all. If the person who asked him to speak knew of these statements, that was a poor choice but I can't generalize about an entire college over one person's decision. It is weird that this statement is being dredged up now and nobody seemed to hear of it at an earlier date. I truly hope this is not taken out on the college but that this man's appearance brings on good discourse as to what is acceptable in society and also brings out those who support and sympathasize with the innocent victims on that fateful day. No matter who one blames for that incident, I cannot fathom any sane person blaming the people who worked in the building! This man's words only show the kind of person HE is and I think there would be no support for his statement on this matter. Being against our governments' actions is not the same point as blaming the civilians who lost their lives. I sure hope the debate there separates that out. I think the person who selected him to speak has a right to her views about the government or the "whys" of that day but I cannot imagine her aligning with the hateful venom toward the victims. </p>
<p>I hope the student there whose dad lost his life will feel tons of support from his fellow students who oppose such vitriolic language.</p>
<p>Sooz said:
"By the way, I feel sorry for this college and do not associate this with the school at all. If the person who asked him to speak knew of these statements, that was a poor choice but I can't generalize about an entire college over one person's decision."</p>
<p>Agreed. There is a specific faculty member who is making these poor choices. I expect that she will, at last, be dealt with.</p>
<p>Both the 60s activist/felon and Ward Churchill are programs of the Kirkland Project. From what I have read, the director of the Kirkland Project will soon be leaving that position and the future of the Kirkland Project will be "reviewed" by a Hamilton committee.</p>
<p>I am sorry a college of Hamilton's reputation is being tarnished by the selections of one person/committee.</p>
<p>This thread seems very unfair to Hamilton College. Colleges and Universities throughout time have hosted extremely controversial (and, yes, even obnoxious) speakers. It is nothing new. Just do a search on Harvard Controversial Speakers. Or go to collegefreedom.org. Does it lower one's opinion of a school? Well, maybe if it makes the New York Times. Otherwise, it is forgotten in about a week.</p>
<p>The streaking team article in the Times a few months ago was better press for Hamilton - time for an update.</p>
<p>I have changed the title of this thread to "Controversial College Speaker" so as to focus on the issue at hand and not on this particular college. I am trying not to add to the negative association to the college or at least not draw attention to the college in the subject heading.</p>
<p>Thank you collegemom. This seems a much more appropriate title. Not fair dragging the whole college down with this issue.</p>
<p>Excus me why wouldn't you blame Hamilton College for allowing this lunatic to spew his hate? They after all are the ones paying him an honorarium and providing him a forum. And they are the ones who supposedly have the experience and wisdom to guide the hungry mind in its quest for knowledge. This is not a "free" speech issue at all it is a paid speech issue. When you want to know why college costs so much and the schools administration says well it is because you get all of this.... reflect on just exactly what the "this" is. If you want to hear the mad ravings of a psychopath you can visit any state asylum for the criminally insane for free and it is a corporal of mercy to boot. However don't expect to come away from the experience more enlightened than you went in.</p>
<p>What Churchill said is disgusting, and indefensible, and I look forward to seeing him take his lumps at his public appearance at Hamilton.</p>
<p>And having just returned from India, and more attuned again to what is happening in the Third World, I am rather more aware for better or for worse, at how folks can be quick to hold colleges and universities responsible for faculty speech, and not for the actions of those who provide these same institutions with tangible support. There are the Union Carbide/Dow Chemical scholarships at a dozen major colleges and universities, the same Union Carbide/Dow Chemical that knew about the dangers of their plant at Bhopal years before the explosion which killed thousands, maimed tens of thousands, and has left the area a toxic waste. The same Union Carbide with Warren Anderson as President and CEO, who India has been trying to get extradited to stand trial on criminal charges for more than a decade, but who sold the company to Dow Chemical without any accounting of liability for cleanup. When is the last time anyone heard about a college denying a Union Carbide/Dow Chemical recruiter on campus? Or Alcan (I picked them because they are Canadian), which has turned much of eastern Orissa into a chemical desert?</p>
<p>Or Coca-Cola, whose bottling plants have left chemical slurries all across Asia and destroyed watertables previously supporting hundreds of thousands of people? Heard a peep out of Emory lately? (Let me make it clear: local governments, usually bribed by multinational companies, are equally responsible.)</p>
<p>Or the American sporting goods manufacturers in Pakistan who, through proxies, bought and sold six-year-old slaves to sow soccer balls (for $180), boys and girls who were blinded so they wouldnt escape? Anyone had an athletics scholarship lately? Dont get me started on the American food industry I brought pictures home with me, with beautiful green rice paddies on one side of a road, and land (former prawn tanks) that looks like the Gobi Desert on the other, and the now-starving children living in villages by the side, their houses collapsing from the chemical seepage.</p>
<p>My list could be very long, and Ill stop. Ill get off my high horse. I am, I repeat, disgusted by Churchills remarks. I would feel easier if I knew folks would save some of their righteous indignation for that which truly results in tangible human misery.</p>