<p>PS if we took all the Americans who have made sickening anti-Muslim remarks or said something similar to "bomb them back to the stone age" or tried to justify or excuse Abu Graib etc. we would have a lot less people talking on campuses, too.</p>
<p>Rush likened Abu Graib to fraternity hijinks, let's ban him, too.</p>
<p>I do believe there is a responsibility to know what a speaker to your school has advocated and said in the past, and make the decision in an informed way . I remember when one of my kids was in kindergarten, a group was invited to give a talk on wildlife. Well, the group had not been vetted, and this was a very zealous pro wolves group that had some inflammatory info and videos. A lot of parents were offended, and the material was presents in a propaganda forum and not at the level that should have be used for such little kids. It does happen.</p>
<p>I have no inkling where the guy stands in Indian affairs, but will assume that he does have a perspective to share in his field of specialty. Having read his direct quotes regarding 9/11, I have to say that they were offensive and hurtful, particularly to families who lost loved ones in the attack. There are better ways of conveying his ideas than with those inflammatory and insensitive comments. I would not diss the college for this decision, but if I were an administrator I would question the judgement of the person who invited the guy. I don't think a college needs this kind of publicity and wanted to be linked to those remarks, and they will get both from this incident and spate of publicity that resulted.</p>
<p>The entire country is full of people who make sickening remarks, from the far right to the far left. No one is suggeating ANYONE be banned or censored- not Churchill, not Rush Limbaugh, etc. Obviously, the University of Colorado - which may have eliminated him from the chair position (after almost three years it was probably time to rotate him out anyway) but who allows him to teach, has given him a forum.</p>
<p>He has published many books and articles. His speeches are available on various websites.</p>
<p>So if you can understand that no one asks him to be censored (that is, not allowed to publish) or banned (not allowed to speak), then your issue is the university forum at Hamilton.</p>
<p>Try to look at it this way (and i say this as a free-speech advocate with over 30 years of activism under my belt): Should ALL forums ALWAYS be open to EVERYONE, ALL THE TIME?</p>
<p>That means every Catholic newspaper, magazine, and church bulletin would HAVE to allow atheists equal space. EVERY school newspaper would HAVE to allow the raunchiest porn. EVERY Garden Club Luncheon would be condemned by you if they didn't allow a speaker from the North American Man-Boy Love Association (yes, it really exists, and advocates for pedophilia). </p>
<p>I don't see how it can be made any clearer, and I am not going to try. If you want to argue that Garden Clubs, school newspapers, and church bulletins are not analogous to a University forum, I would partly agree but would say that universities are even MORE accountable - since they cannot allow EVERY SPEAKER a forum - to make CHOICES that are based on selecting quality scholars.</p>
<p>Not allowing every person with an opinion to speak everywhere for any reason on any subject is NOT disallowing freedom of speech.</p>
<p>"I think it is unfair to try to crucify the guy for a few sentences that I think can have a relatively benign interpretation."</p>
<p>"Benign?" Nedad, give it up! Unless Texdad and I read completely different articles, there is NO arguing with him on this one!</p>
<p>I happen to agree with NEDad and Marite here. Nobody here is saying that there should not be free speech. Nobody is saying that if we don't like the views, cancel the speaker. In fact, some of the things this guy has written are NOT offensive and are merely a point of view (US policy, etc.). But THAT is not the part that people are in an uproar over. It is not about his views to do with policy, etc. It is the hate language and attacks on innocent victims, the reference to Eichman, the attacking language that they deserved to die. He is free to say that but we don't need to create forums for hate talk. </p>
<p>In the name of free speech, do you think it is ok to go around saying, "all people of X ethnicity deserve to die" or "all people of X persuasian are Nazis"....is it ok for a teacher to spew to a student, "you are a 'slang word' "? In other words, in the name of free speech, should we tolerate hate and bigotry? People are free to say it but we don't have to create forums for it. This guy would have been more respected had he kept his views to the points at hand about foreign policy and so forth, whether or not you agreed with it is irrelevant. He ruined his message which may even had some redeeming points, when he added in the hate talk. </p>
<p>Nobody is saying this man should be banned from anything. What they are saying is that you don't need to put out the welcome mat for someone to spew inflammatory language of the nature that he espouses against other innocent Americans. You also have to wonder if this is what you want as a teacher in class (talking of U of Colorado). I am fine with whatever political persuasian or other academic viewpoints teach at a college, even if their views differ from my own. But I would not want this guy to be my kid's teacher, just like I would not be into a Ku Klux Klan member teaching about ethnic studies either. </p>
<p>This is not about banning free speech or about banning speakers. It IS about what we want to tolerate when there is a choice.</p>
<p>Excellent post, Soozievt. </p>
<p>Imagine if one of our kids heard that some innocent children died in an arsonist-set fire: totally innocent children of all races, religions, ethnic backgrounds, and economic status, children that our kid didn't even know. </p>
<p>Then imagine that our kid began insulting these dead children in the most vile, vicious, terms possible, and saying there was no better way to pay these "evil" children back because (for example) the building that was burned belonged to a corporation, and that corporation had some shady dealings (say it was Enron).</p>
<p>How would we respond? Would we say that if their elementary school didn't allow them to say all this at an assembly, there was "censorship" and "banning" going on? And don't tell me the analogy doesn't work; sure it does. Only Churchill is apparently less well-educated than my kids, and certainly far less civil. </p>
<p>Enough said.</p>
<p>I am curious....if this speaker had said a remark like, "They all deserved to die, they were all Black." or "They all deserved to die, they were all Jews, the scum of the earth." "or they should die, they are gay"....would that be ok in the name of free speech? </p>
<p>I would argue he would be free to say this but we don't have to invite him to have a platform in which to do so.</p>
<p>PS..in my last post, I gave these examples as bigotry and hate speech....I DEFINITELY do not believe in those examples myself.</p>
<p>So Churchill's appearance at Hamilton was cancelled only because death threats were received. - The threat of physical violence was used to coerce the university in the furtherance of political or social objectives. This is the FBI definition of "terrorism" ... 3 elements, (1) Terrorist activities are illegal and involve the use of force. (2) The actions are intended to intimidate or coerce. (3) The actions are committed in support of political or social objectives. </p>
<p>Well, anyway here is a cut and paste:</p>
<p>DenverPost.com
Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - </p>
<p>Here is the text of a statement distributed to the media Monday on behalf of University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill. Spelling and punctuation have been left unaltered. </p>
<hr>
<p>Press Release - Ward Churchill January 31, 2005
In the last few days there has been widespread and grossly inaccurate media coverage concerning my analysis of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, coverage that has resulted in defamation of my character and threats against my life. What I actually said has been lost, indeed turned into the opposite of itself, and I hope the following facts will be reported at least to the same extent that the fabrications have been. </p>
<ul>
<li><p>The piece circulating on the internet was developed into a book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. Most of the book is a detailed chronology of U.S. military interventions since 1776 and U.S. violations of international law since World War II. My point is that we cannot allow the U.S. government, acting in our name, to engage in massive violations of international law and fundamental human rights and not expect to reap the consequences. </p></li>
<li><p>I am not a "defender"of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned. I have never said that people "should" engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable." </p></li>
<li><p>This is not to say that I advocate violence; as a U.S. soldier in Vietnam I witnessed and participated in more violence than I ever wish to see. What I am saying is that if we want an end to violence, especially that perpetrated against civilians, we must take the responsibility for halting the slaughter perpetrated by the United States around the world. My feelings are reflected in Dr. King's April 1967 Riverside speech, where, when asked about the wave of urban rebellions in U.S. cities, he said, "I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed . . . without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today - my own government." </p></li>
<li><p>In 1996 Madeleine Albright, then Ambassador to the UN and soon to be U.S. Secretary of State, did not dispute that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of economic sanctions, but stated on national television that "we" had decided it was "worth the cost." 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. </p></li>
<li><p>Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies. </p></li>
<li><p>It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad, this placement of an element of the American "command and control infrastructure" in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a "legitimate" target. Again following U.S. military doctrine, as announced in briefing after briefing, those who did not work for the CIA but were nonetheless killed in the attack amounted to no more than "collateral damage." If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these "standards" when the are routinely applied to other people, they should be not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them. </p></li>
<li><p>It should be emphasized that I applied the "little Eichmanns" characterization only to those described as "technicians." Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack. According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name. </p></li>
<li><p>The bottom line of my argument is that the best and perhaps only way to prevent 9-1-1-style attacks on the U.S. is for American citizens to compel their government to comply with the rule of law. The lesson of Nuremberg is that this is not only our right, but our obligation. To the extent we shirk this responsibility, we, like the "Good Germans" of the 1930s and '40s, are complicit in its actions and have no legitimate basis for complaint when we suffer the consequences. This, of course, includes me, personally, as well as my family, no less than anyone else. </p></li>
<li><p>These points are clearly stated and documented in my book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, which recently won Honorary Mention for the Gustavus Myer Human Rights Award. for best writing on human rights. Some people will, of course, disagree with my analysis, but it presents questions that must be addressed in academic and public debate if we are to find a real solution to the violence that pervades today's world. The gross distortions of what I actually said can only be viewed as an attempt to distract the public from the real issues at hand and to further stifle freedom of speech and academic debate in this country.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>I admit, that seeing his speech I would think that Churchhill was sort of an idiot leftist, of which there are many. I'm surprised to hear he is a Republican. Why not try to focus on the valuable things he has to say without solely crucifying him for a sentence or two.</p>
<p>Do people have the right to urge that he be banned him from speaking AT HAMILTON? Of course. The 9/11 survivor's reunion? Of course.</p>
<p>I would be against banning the guy from Hamilton. I personally don't consider his comments to be beyond what should be tolerable at a university. I hope son goes to a university that would not ban this guy because of the remarks quoted.</p>
<p>I guess it is sort of like one's reaction to "pornography" or Janet Jackson at the Superbowl. Maybe I'm just a little more used to hearing very passionate political people get carried away by their rhetoric to the point of absurdity without really having their underlying positions be so totally meritless. I think it is good to give the guy a chance to expound on the meaning of his remarks and don't consider this just "spin". I think he should be questioned quite aggressively about the remarks.</p>
<p>PS my post was before I saw the text of his explanation. I'll comment on that later. Work can be so distracting.</p>
<p>Had he all along only made some of these points without the hate stuff, his message is easier to stomach. </p>
<p>When he writes:
"The gross distortions of what I actually said can only be viewed as an attempt to distract the public from the real issues at hand and to further stifle freedom of speech and academic debate in this country."....It is my view that he HIMSELF distracted the public from the real issues he wished to emphasize, when he got into the bigotry and hate parts. Had he stayed on message, it would not have offended the innocent, but would have been a debatable point of view with regard to foreign policy. I think he created the distraction himself in the few sentences that contained intolerable language.</p>
<p>And yes, the threat of violence was equally distainful. </p>
<p>Susan</p>
<p>I don't have a problem with his message. He has a point and it is one that can be discussed whether you agree or not. The problem I have is the language he used. We all have to be carefuly about how we pose our views, and someone who is a specialist/expert in his field should well be aware of this. The name calling and labeling and comparisons were out of line. I have not read his works on Indian issues and can only hope that he does not resort to this kind of inflammatory language when he is making his points. </p>
<p>I don't see a problem with inviting a controversial speaker to campus with unpopular views. I see a problem with inviting someone who uses labels and language to flame.</p>
<p>soozievt: It is my view that he HIMSELF distracted the public from the real issues he wished to emphasize....Had he stayed on message, it would not have offended the innocent, but would have been a debatable point of view with regard to foreign policy.</p>
<p>I agree. Well said</p>
<p>Now will those who wanted to prevent him from speaking at campuses change their minds, now that we have a further explanation? I hope so.</p>
<p>I think Alberto Gonzalez's torture memos were in many ways just as extreme and might protest his visit on campus, though I believe he should still be allowed to speak at univesities. He should not, however, have the right to speak at a human rights conference where there are actual torture victims as his presence could traumatize them..</p>
<p>I think Churchill's expanded remarks are actually pretty sound.</p>
<p>So - a real question: would people be more upset having Ward Churchill come to speak - (who, other than his Vietnam experience, has likely never harmed a flea), or the soon-to-be highest attorney in the land, the Attorney General of the United States, who condones the use of torture in a country (ours) where torture has actually been taught (in Fort Benning, Georgia) and exported for more than three decades?</p>
<p>Hate speech is despicable and disgusting. It doesn't rank up there with murder, torture, or the "collateral damage" (death and destruction) rained down by men (it's always men) who sit on the boards of trustees of our august institutions, upon innocent men, women, and children in the third world whose only crime is to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. (And I'm being charitable - the soccerball or athletic shoe manufacturers or the food processors who employ 8-year-olds to tear the tails off shrimp are not so innocent as that.)</p>
<p>I am sure they would all be extremely "well-spoken".</p>
<p>It's always men?? Maggie Thatcher would slap you silly.
When your next best job alternative is collecting cow dung, making soccer balls ain't so bad.</p>
<p>It would be most valuable to have the soon-to-be-highest attorney in the land to speak about his belief and philosophy. Get to know the man. I have no problem with that. Nor to have Churchill speak about his view on the world trade center. But not with the name calling, the epitaphs, ...no. It is not the way you speak out. You don't want your children speaking that way, nor do you want someone who is a specialist in an area speaking that way. Nothing to do with well spoken, but when you have a speech scheduled, there are certain rules, broad rules, flexible rules as to how you say things. To name call, label and flame is not what you want to hear. In a private forum, that is a whole different story. </p>
<p>There are some despicable figures in history, whose stories I would not mind hearing. But I don't want to sit and listen to name calling, and baiting of the emotions. I, too, would like to see those who are bringing so much damage upon the innocent brought down, but it isn't going to happen with the type of sentiments that people like Churchill express. In fact it has brought a reverse reaction of sorts. It causes as much harm in that many will be so against the message that they will support the smooth speaking tyrant. Those well intentioned often cause the most damage to their own causes. It is not the intent that counts in a public speech, but the delivery. That is the heart of the speech. And unfortunately, it is not the actions. A speech, an article; they stand on their own merits, and that shy one has to be careful about wha*is said and written. It is the way of the world.</p>
<p>Churchill's "expanded remarks" sound like spin to me --- again, like the Unabomber or the serial killer Michael Ross (he really almost had me convinced....). If his judgment is really so reasoned (or perhaps he was struck with a moment of lucidity), why not say that to begin with? (Although how "reasoned" it really is with no mention of the Oil-for-Food program's corruption, or the corruption endemic in the entire Muslim world as well as the west, and apparently ZERO understanding of the religious impulses behind the attack - I don't know. Many far clearer and wiser heads than Churchill's understand the incredible naivete behind believing that "the rule of law" will stop the pathological. It often emboldens them).</p>
<p>"It would be most valuable to have the soon-to-be-highest attorney in the land to speak about his belief and philosophy. Get to know the man. I have no problem with that. Nor to have Churchill speak about his view on the world trade center. But not with the name calling, the epitaphs, ...no."</p>
<p>We don't disagree about that. But you've partly made Churchill's point, I think. Gonzales (or Warren Anderson from Union Carbide or whomever) would come to campus and use measured, cool, highly polished and diplomatic language. Just as he did in the torture memos. It would be the work of a slick, and well-trained "technician" (to use Churchill's words), suitable for the highest attorney in the land, in the service of.... </p>
<p>And I'm sure most folks wouldn't be upset. </p>
<p>He'd wear a tie, and a very well-tailored suit....</p>
<p>(I'm not trying to defend Churchill - I find his language despicable. But I find a lot of acts more despicable than despicable language.)</p>
<p>Although Ward Churchill is now trying to backpedal on his remarks, a little research shows a straightforward reading captures what his sentiments have consistently been. </p>
<p>For example in an interview he gave in April '04 he said "One of the things Ive suggested is that it may be that more 9/11s are necessary. This seems like such a no-brainer that I hate to frame it in terms of actual transformation of consciousness." See the interview at <a href="http://www.satyamag.com/apr04/churchill.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.satyamag.com/apr04/churchill.html</a></p>