<p>Ward Churchill resigned his position as chair of the Department of Ethnic Studies today.</p>
<p>sounds like he wasn't very well researched before he was hired to speak but that doesn't surprise me.
Our local urban district hired a firm to research the 4 finalists for superintendent recently and they didn't discover that virtually all of the finalists had major problems. One had had, the remainder of her contract bought out by the district and another had votes of noconfidence by the local unions. All the firm had checked was to see if they had criminal records, nothing about their work history! Guess it wasn't relevant?
One by one all the finalists dropped out as reporters discovered their flaws, so no it doesn't surprise that someone who was hired for a day got under the wire.</p>
<p>Churchill retained his teaching position however, even though he resigned the chair. So he will presumably be in a position to "teach" students to articulate thoughts and shape arguments in the same way he does. And as far as holding a school responsible, I do think a school's upper administration (both Colorado and Hamilton in this case) has some responsibility to try to teach students about legitimate debate and strong disagreement and more important to teach them that such disagreements can be voiced without crossing the line into hate speech and irrational filth. Controversial speakers come to campuses all the time, and that's part of an educational process. But a school that puts itself in the position of defending a teacher and speaker who has demonstrated the degree of insensitivity and hate that Churchill has makes it harder for honest controversy to survive.</p>
<p>Tenure rules make it difficult to force a teacher from a teaching position (unlike administrative ones, which have term limits and are at the discretion of the university administration). So Ward Churchill will continue to be able to teach. That does not mean that students will HAVE to take his courses, and I expect lots of them will vote with their feet. </p>
<p>As for Hamilton College, I don't think that college administrations can or should monitor who gets invited to the campus. Faculty and students alike are free to invite whomever they wish, and do not clear the invitations with deans or presidents--nor should they. I think it is truly unfortunate that Churchill was given a platform from which to spew his venom, but I also think the president of Hamilton did the right thing; once an invitation has been issued, it would have been a denial of free speech to rescind it. We may all agree that Churchill's views are abhorrent; but what about guest speakers offend some but not others? Would we want to ban someone speaking on euthanasia? on birth control (either for or against?) on cruelty to animals? on issues which Mini raised, such as the corporate responsibility for disasters such as Bhophal or Agent Orange? The list could go on. </p>
<p>I hope the Hamilton students will take Churchill to task, politely and cogently. It should be easy to demolish his argument. I saw a quote by him explaining:
"The overriding question that was being posed at the time was 'why did this happen, why did they hate us so much,' and my premise was when you do this to other people's families and children, that is going to be a natural response."</p>
<p>Even if we were to agree that ""you do this to other people's families and children," (and that is a very big if to swallow), the "you" he is referring to here is a collective "you," the US. But the people who died in the WTC were not the US; they were individual men and women. By using the pronoun "you" so promiscuously, Churchill seeks to foist collective guilt onto all of us, and more specifically on those who died on 9/11. This should be resisted. If all are guilty, then none is guilty. In this context, I find his reference to "little Eichmanns" terriblly ironic.
Among those who died some not even US citizens. Little attention has been paid to the fact that many of those who died were janitorial staff. The Brazilian community in the Boston-area went into mourning after 9/11 because so many who died were Brazilians who worked as cleaners in the WTC. For someone involved in ethnic studies to forget this aspect of 9/11 is sloppy scholarship on top of moral bankruptcy.</p>
<p>I only reacted with emotion when I read the professor's comments, thanks for making a logical argument against it.</p>
<p>Marite, your post is so "on" in my view. I do hope that now that he IS speaking there, that this opens up dialogue. I can hardly imagine anyone who aligns with the hateful viewpoint that he espouses. It is not really the same as debating issues in my mind as much as an attack on the victims here. And I agree with you that someone who is in ethnic studies...how strange to not even recognize the people from ALL walks of life who were working inside the WTC that day!</p>
<p>I also read the president's statement from Hamilton and I agree that she handled this situation well. She could not cancel him at this point and she spoke out against his views but did not want to limit free speech at this point once he was hired. Hopefully, his appearance will bring out positive debate and thought.</p>
<p>Mattmom, I agree that this guy's views are not really discourse as much as hate speech. But I think now that he is speaking, it will bring light to the fact that hate speech is not tolerable and he will be standing alone on this. </p>
<p>Susan</p>
<p>"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>
<p>I agree wholeheartedly, mini, and have spent most of my life -sometimes volunteer, sometimes through work, working to educate and/or attempt a miniscule of correction about the things you wrote of.</p>
<p>But I still thought this was an interesting conversation! There's plenty of righteous indignation to go around! Besides, really bad "teaching" like Churchill's can have serious negative effects way into the future....by creating hatred in impressionable young students who may go on to do who knows what....</p>
<p>The more I think about it, there is irony here.....this man is a scholar in ethnic studies.....wouldn't someone interested in that field be against hatred aimed at "categories" of the human race? This I don't get.</p>
<p>There is even more irony in this story. Last night on TV I saw in interview with one of Churchill's fellow profs at Colorado. He said that Churchill was arrested last fall for disrupting the Columbus day parade. His rationale for his action: the people who were participating in the parade did not have the right to free speech since they were celebrating a person who brought ruin to the native Americans.</p>
<p>What a jerk! For somebody who does not believe in free speech to enjoy tenure is even more ironic since it was established to protect free speech. It makes one wonder what the department and the school saw in him when they hired him. Logical, coherent thinking does not seem to be his strong suit.</p>
<p>Marite, you go girl ;-). I wish you could be on the panel when this guy speaks at Hamilton. I mean it is hard to take him seriously with these contradictions. Knowing your own scholarly intellect, I just wish you were there to contribute to the dialogue the day he speaks. But ya know, it is almost good that he is speaking at Hamilton, because it will bring out others who will speak up for integrity and for intellectual and rationale reasoning and discourse! If anything, I would not worry about Hamilton which will have sort of a platform there for speaking out against this guy but I do worry about U of Colorado who has chosen to have this type of person as a teacher. </p>
<p>Susan</p>
<p>this is the same university of colorado that suspended its football coach for saying about a female player who said she had been raped by a meber of the football team.."the problem was that she was a girl and she was a horrible kicker" now if that remark will get the coach suspended for more than 100 days then what should this drivel from a professor draw.
Just what kind of cesspool are they running at university of Colorado</p>
<p>Some of the things Prof Churchill go my blood boiling and shows his prejudices in a very bright light. The statements are just plain stupid and hateful. He can spin them any way he wants, but there is no way they can be used to better understand the events of that aweful day.</p>
<p>However we have a thing called free speech in this great country which allows people to make jackasses of themselves. But when the do, they must also realize that there may be tangible consequences. Accomplished scholarly speech will get one that coveted full professorship. Assinine speech will get one personal ridicule and a professional deadend.</p>
<p>However determining when speech crosses the line between reasonableness and bigotedness can be very subjective. Columbia is going through this with their Middle Eastern studies program. Rashid Khalidi is the Edward Said Professor in that department and he is, in my estimation, a thoughtful and brilliant scholar in the area of the Palestine-Israel conflict. His views on the road to peace need to be listened to. However he and the department have come under a whithering attack by an independent film maker who is very critical of the department. The film makes several claims which, if true, are indeed troubling. But the question is, should either of these vioces be quieted? Of course not. But the film maker wants to quiet some voices and I am sure some in the department would want to relegate the film to a fiery archive.</p>
<p>So let Chruchill babble on. He deserves all the ridicule heaped on his head. But let him make a jackass of himself in the process and suffer the consequences of his bigotry.</p>
<p>Is there a link to the entire speech? I find that so often such things are quoted entirely out of context that I no longer make judgements without reading the entirety of the remarks. (Another example of this is Larry Summers' recent faux-pas: no one knows EXACTLY what he said--all we've heard is others' interpretations.)</p>
<p>I can't remember exactly when I ran across this situation: anti-American remarks made by a commentator were reported by someone who was appalled--but the commentator turned out (when I checked it out) to be talking about what had been said about us by another commentator on Al-Jazeera.</p>
<p>It is true that free speech is allowed in our American Society and this is a great thing. So this is not about censoring ideas that others espouse. However, most folks in our society do not tolerate bigotry or hate. Thus, while that is "allowed", it is often shunned. So, people are allowed to be a bigot and say what they want, but it does not mean we have to tolerate such behaviors in our society.</p>
<p>I agree with Soozie, and would go on to say that we sometimes fail to make distinctions when talking about free speech and censorship. We too easily get hysterically emotional and call any reasonable discernment "censorship." For example, if a school wants to assign some hack writer's slasher/murder/porno book for a 9th grade English class, people would rightly protest - they can read that stuff on their own; why not assign, say Toni Morrison or Melville, etc. Yet there will ALWAYS be someone who screams that this is "censorship" (which it isn't - as long as the book has the right to be published, where's the censorship?).</p>
<p>As a former card-carrying member of the ACLU, I feel the same way about free speech. Sure, anyone at all has the right to believe or even say that every person not a member of their race/ethnic group etc. deserves to die - but this isn't about free speech. It's about discernment. Colleges are places for reasonable debate from opposing viewpoints, even radically opposing viewpoints. But jeesh - have a little discernment!</p>
<p>Just saw on Fox News that he's been disinvited to speak at Hamilton and will hold a press conference tonight.....Board of Regents at UC is also convening to decide what to do with him.</p>
<p>I very reluctantly read what I believe is the entire essay, titled "Some People Push Back" On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. He supposedly penned this essay on September 12, 2001, so it was a very emotional and spontaneous piece, and it was written over four year ago.</p>
<p>I would provide a link, except I am not sure if the website copies are complete or authentic. He begins, and spends a lot of time, ranting about the death of 500,000 Iraqi children, which he blames entirely on U.S. sanctions against Iraq. Rather than claiming that the WTC casualties were not innocent victims, what if he had stated that they were no more innocent than the dead Iraqi children? </p>
<p>I thought he made some very good points, but I also object to his characterization of WTC workers as "Eichmans" and dispute his blanket claim that they were not innocent. Media reports incorrectly claim he said, "WTC workers deserved to die" I think it is valid, in fact important, to hear an opposing point of view, not that we got what we deserved, but that in his opinion there are consequences to U.S. foreign policy and that U.S. citizens share responsiblity for this policy. </p>
<p>I am not defending his position, but I disagree with the view that he is merely spewing hate and therefore does not deserve a forum to express his views.</p>
<p>NJres...I don't think the issue being discussed here has to do with someone's viewpoint as to US foreign policy and whose fault 911 was, etc. I think it is healthy in our society to debate both sides of such issues. What I think is happening here, however, is that while this man may hold views about US Foreign Policy and how it related to that terrorist attack....and some may or may not agree with that viewpoint....but the problem arises more with the characterization of the innocent workers in the trade towers and putting blame on them. Also he generalizes about this group of people (on cell phones, etc.) as if everyone there was from one walk of life or even nationality...not that it matters but that is how far he goes. I'd much prefer to listen to a viewpoint about consequences of US foreign policy and discussing the innocent victims in both Iraq and the US but when he is attacking certain innocent people using hateful characterizations, that becomes objectionable and intolerable and his otherwise point of view about the terrorist attacks and policy get ignored because he has gotten into bigotry. He would have been wise to have kept to his point of view on policies and so forth. Those are things to debate. All views should be heard, even if unpopular. But there is no place for hate and bigotry in our society. </p>
<p>And it is repugnant, I'm sorry, to make an analogy of innocent victims to Nazis. I'd much rather have heard his message had he tried to make an analogy of innocent victims in the US with innocent victims in Iraq (not saying if I agree or disagree but this is more an argument, not spewing of hate). </p>
<p>Also, I do not think the issue here is about being anti-American...as there is a place for those views in our society. You can be against our government's actions. But hateful bigotry toward segments of our society is not what America stands for either.
Susan</p>
<p>From Hamilton's website:</p>
<p>Kirkland Project Panel Cancelled
Public Safety Cited
Contact: Mike Debraggio
February 1, 2005</p>
<p>February 1, 2005, 11 AM</p>
<p>Cancellation of Panel Discussion on Limits of Dissent</p>
<p>We have done our best to protect what we hold most dear, the right to speak, think and study freely.</p>
<p>But there is a higher responsibility that this institution carries, and that is the safety and security of our students, faculty, staff and the community in which we live. </p>
<p>Credible threats of violence have been directed at the College and members of the panel. These threats have been turned over to the police.</p>
<p>Based on the information available, I have made the decision to cancel this event in the interest of protecting those at risk.</p>
<p>Joan Hinde Stewart
President</p>