Controversial Speakers- A different approach

Parents Forum
1

<p>There has been a lively discussion about the feelings towards a controversial speaker at Hamilton, and how it was handled. As I mentioned there, Duke was faced with a similar situation this past fall, but upon further investigation, I find that they handled it very differently and, in my opinion, well. </p>

<p>This fall, Duke hosted the 4th Annual Palestinian Solidarity Conference. An article written about this states:
"As it has in previous years, the conference has prompted outrage — an online petition asking Duke’s president to ban the event has garnered more than 66,000 signatures —"</p>

<p>But, students on campus took a different approach. The coalition forged to combat terrorism ultimately decided to use this as an opportunity for education and dialogue. </p>

<p>"From.. teach-ins and lectures to a major rally/rock concert benefiting terror victims, the effort to counter the conference marks a jumping-off point for increased dialogue on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that is anchored in opposing terrorism....Duke’s council of residential halls, the student government and the student union have agreed to sponsor the Oct. 14 “Students Against Terror” concert, featuring the band Sister Hazel, with donations aiding terror victims in the United States, Israel, Sudan and Russia, said Mollie Lurey, who heads the Joint Israel Initiative."</p>

<p>So what do you think?? Which approach makes better sense? Should a hate-mongering speaker be cancelled, or should we learn from the students, and use ignorance as an opportunity to educate. I have to admit, my opinion changed after reading Duke's approach. Did yours?</p>

2

<p>At CU, the students TRIED to speak out on behalf of Churchill, but were not allowed to. Frustration led to some scuffling which then led to some arrests: <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E53%7E2691641,00.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~2691641,00.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I have not followed the story that closely, but my first reaction is that it is a First Amendment issue. Only when freedom of speech is applied to truely heinous talk and ideas do we know that it really works. But, you say, would you want your kids taking classes from someone who thinks like that? I would respond with the question: would you have so little faith in your kid's values that you think that professor's political beliefs would have a strong influence?</p>

<p>The country - now being led by some of the baby boomers and post-baby-boom generations - is pushing strongly toward an ultraconservative ethic that people want imposed on all of us. Believe me, I feel that way too when I see the sickening violence and death in popular culture, when I see people denigrated in too-easily-available, perverse pornography. But there are two important aspects to this: (1) The world has changed in many ways and we must respond to it in creative ways. For example, you cannot legislate away advances in genetic engineering; you cannot legislate away a new paradigm for distributing copyrighted content, and you cannot legislate away the fundamental rights of all of us. (2) We imbue our kids with values that are important to us. Some of these kids (like me when I was in college) may take a slightly divergent path. But if they are decent people to begin with, they will remain decent people.</p>

<p>If CU fires Churchill (which I cannot see how that can be done, but I know ways can be found), then I think they do our education system - and our society - a disservice. By airing his views, by bringing them to light and having others complain and ridicule them, society has effectively defanged any potential danger here.</p>

3

<p>I like Duke's approach, too. It seems, however, that Hamilton became concerned about safety. Unfortunately, terrorists (and that includes people who issue death threats) can be found along the whole political spectrum.</p>

4

<p>Because I like all your posts! But you said you didn't follow this story closely, and it MUST be followed closely to be understood. </p>

<p>This article - by Indians (Churchill claimed to be one, but it turns out he was lying) will help: <a href="http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096410293%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096410293&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>You probably don't want to wade through the entire other thread on this, as it is so long, but it is emphatically NOT about stifling free speech. No one is calling for ANY kind of ban of this man's publishing, etc.</p>

<p>Here is a cut and paste of my last post on that thread:</p>

<p>If you read the article posted above, "Churchill's identity revealed in wake of Nazi comment" (by Indian Country, "the nation's leading Indian news source") you might feel differently. This thread has said repeatedly that this is not about free speech. The article says:</p>

<p>"The case of a professor or any other American exercising the right of free speech is always important to us. We support that fundamental right more than any other and believe that even the extreme views of others (which sometimes become mainstream) must be defended against any force that would silence our First Amendment rights as citizens and as free human beings.The nature of Churchill's decidedly offensive remarks, however, forces us to critique in general the injurious approach to scholarship and basic human decency. We defend the right to broadcast and publish, but propose it is reprehensible to excoriate innocent human beings who have suffered great loss by rubbing salt in deep wounds simply to prove a political point and simply to strike (one more time) a political posture on behalf of the far left and under the guise of American Indian sentiment."</p>

<p>"We will defend a good Indian argument in these pages any time. But, again, there is no evidence that Churchill is Indian. Further, Churchill's statements are obviously devoid of even the most basic humanity that American Indian peoples hold dear. In no way does his insult reflect the views of Indian country. "</p>

<p>As Barrons said, this man is a "rancid opportunist" who is now lying and playing this up for all he can get - claiming he has been silenced by those who deny free speech. I wouldn't be surprised if he made up most of the "death threats" himself. Doubt has been cast on who exactly painted those Nazi swastikas on his property - most think it was he himself. </p>

<p>I think he is a pathological nutcase - NOT because he believes America foreign policy decisions played a role in 9/11, which reasonable people can argue, but for his sickening behaviors. The fact that Colorado had Yale PhDs on staff and they put this poseur with his so-called "MA in Communications" from some defunct "college" as head of Ethnic Studies just shows what a con artist he was, and how he was able to pull the wool over so many people's eyes.</p>

5

<p>Ihave to agree with nedad. I don't think this has a thing to do with any ultraconservative agenda or squashing free speech. Almost all colleges have extremely controversial speakers, and as nedad said in other post, we ACLU types defend that. This man has been unmasked as a liar and opportunist, hiding behind Indians to spew pretty unspeakable hate speech. Though I usually agree with digmedia that the answer to hate speech is more speech, in a way this isn't speech at all, and Hamilton should have picked someone with a real education and a reasonably argued position. </p>

<p>It's as if I found out that my daughter's cancer doctor was a quack with a diploma mill degree - why should I turn to him when I can get a real doctor? Let the man publish all the books, speeches, websites etc. that he wants - no one is censoring him. But given the choice between a crackpot quack and someone with critical thinking skills and real arguments, however offensive to some, why not take the latter?</p>

6

<p>I prefer Hamilton's decision to cancel. First, I do not view this as a freedom of speech issue. Churchill can exercise his right all he wants but the First Amendment does not mean a college has to invite him and provide a platform. Colleges very often invite those with controversial views on issues but they have the right to make the decision not to. Churchill's radical views on 9/11 victims and apparently the promotion of terrorism are just too far for a college to go to. It has nothing to do with protecting your students or whether parents would hate the idea of him teaching your kids. It has more to do with the college maintaining some outer limits beyond which they need not go and maintaining its own image. If what is being reported as to how he got invited is true, what the college should really do is a little "idiot" housecleaning. Apparently Professor Rabinowitz, herself a controversial figure, got the OK from the other persons on the board of the Kirkland Project to accept Churchill because he was only coming to speak on Native American rights. They thought it would be OK to do it because of that limitation. It apparently never occurred to them that there could be an outcry because of his other radical ideas. Duh! That is what I call the "idiot" factor. What the college should do is a find a way to get rid of the idiots who would make such a decision.</p>

7

<p>nedad - You are right that I did not wade through the mountains of posts in the other thread. I have spent the last 20 minutes or so catching up on some of the external articles and agree that this may not be a simple 1st Amendment thing. I see a parallel with Blair Hornstein and Harvard. Her admission was recinded from Harvard NOT because she sued her local school district to be the sole valedictorian, but because the subsequent publicity discovered evidence of plagerism. If the subsequent publicity here shows that one of the primary reasons that he was chair of the ethnic studies department was because he (falsely) identified himself as Native American, then I agree that he should be replaced.</p>

<p>I apologize for posting without adequate knowledge on this, but I've frankly been intentionally ignoring articles and posts on this story (until now).</p>

<p>It reminds me of another story where I was not careful: When I worked for a large research company we hired a guy with a PhD (like many of the employees). At the beginning he insisted - unlike all of the others - that his business card identify him as Dr. So-and-so, PhD. We thought it was just a quirk. It wasn't long before we discovered that he was relatively incompetent, and he was asked to look elsewhere for employment. Only after he left did I dig out his CV again and check out where his PhD was from. If they were doing that poor a job at education, I wanted to know about it. The "university" had a legitimate-sounding (name-brand sound-alike) name (especially at first glance). Looking further, it wasn't what I thought it was, and when I looked it up on the internet, found that it was one which gave degrees for "life-experience." How could I have been so dumb?</p>

<p>Same question for this current thread....</p>

8

<p>Yes, it was sad, digmedia - Churchill was a "triple threat:" - the master's degree in "communications" was apparently worthless; he called himself an "Indian" on the basis of some little rinky-dink "honorary certificate" or something, though as the article shows, real Native Americans want nothing to do with him; and he now is exerting heavy spin to make it look like he is "suffering" for free speech ideals....</p>

9

<p>Diggi:</p>

<p>I am very ambivalent about the calls for removing Churchill. </p>

<p>The rules for tenure are fairly clear, and were established to protect faculty's freedom of speech without being afraid of HUAC or Board of Regents and others who might disagree.</p>

<p>Tenure can be revoked for moral turpitude, plagiarism, crimes and misdemeanors, and, of course, falsifying one's credentials. But I am a bit leery about removing someone because he happens not to be of the "right" ethnicity. Are only Native Americans allowed to do scholarship on Native Americans? Asian-Americans on same? Will only people with an Italian-sounding name be able to write and teach about Renaissance Italy, Columbus, Italian opera? </p>

<p>It seems to me that UC went for Churchill believing him to be a legitimate American Indian and offered him the job on that basis, rather than on the basis of sound scholarship. But just because it made a bad decision, should it compound it? Is lying about one's ethnicity (as opposed to academic credentials) an instance of moral turpitude? </p>

<p>I have not made up my mind. Others care to discuss?</p>

10

<p>I think lying is lying - whether it's about your academic background or your life history..."Catch me if you Can", anyone?
I could tell everyone here that I'm descended from the Kings of Ireland, but it would be a lie. Or that I have a PHD in admissions counseling & that's a lie too! And once you know I'm a liar, you wouldn't be very interested in anything else I had to say, would you?</p>

11

<p>Yes, but is it an offense that is worthy of stripping someone of tenure, or just tuning him out?</p>

12

<p>Marite - did you see the movie "Office Space," a B-movie that developed a huge cult following among high school/college kids? It's an absolutely hysterical account of cubicle life. Well, there was one particularly unattractive man, Milton, that they wanted to get rid off, but he wouldn't leave, so they made life progressively more difficult for him, eventually moving him into a storage room in the basement ... trust me, if you have even a small portion of your intellectual brain that relishes brain-dead-absurd-humor, this movie will crack you up.</p>

<p>So since I am a defender of tenure, let Churchill keep the job but take away his red stapler (movie joke!)....</p>

<p>Oops - just remembered the end of the movie, where Milton takes his revenge....so maybe not!</p>

<p>:-)</p>

13

<p>Voronwe:</p>

<p>LOL!</p>

<p>I understand that John Silber loathed Howard Zinn and did not give him a raise for the whole time he was president of BU.</p>

14

<p>"I understand that John Silber loathed Howard Zinn and did not give him a raise for the whole time he was president of BU."</p>

<p>:-) (I can't make those REAL smiley faces!)</p>

<p>Other people who may be reading this: rent "Office Space" if you want to laugh (really, really sophomoric humor, so you have to be a certain mood!)</p>

15

<p>I gave my older S a red Swingline for Christmas last year. And we asked the confused server at Outback last night if he was required to have any specific level of "flair" or if he was just a collector. (I love "Office Space", sophomoric or not. It's been a great family bonding and in-joke-quoting experience, too, along with "Monty Python and the Holy Grail".)</p>

<p>voronwe: leave out the - in the middle of the smileys on this board and they will work as you expect (e.g. instead of :-) just do : ) without the space and get :) )</p>

16

<p>Voronwe--how could you compare Milton to this Churchill fellow? Milton was a hero! :)</p>

<p>(from another family where "Office Space" has a cult following.</p>

17

<p>You're right, Garland!</p>

<p>Now if I could just get a copy of that memo, that'd be greaaaaaat!
:)</p>

<p>thanks mootmom! We love Monty Python and the Holy Grail, too. And it took some time for me to appreciate it, but for REALLY, REALLY sophomoric, try Napoleon Dynamite! We also confess to liking "The Wedding Singer" and "Legally Blonde."</p>

<p>But honestly - really - I do watch "Casablanca" etc. at other times!</p>

18

<p>The approach described by the OP was adopted many years ago at Reed. Basically what happened is that a committee had invited Herman Kahn as commencement speaker (and also given an honorary degree, I think). Kahn at the Hudson Institute was one of the masterminds of nuclear deterrence strategy (mutual assured destruction--MAD) and author of "Thinking about the Unthinkable." And here he was invited during the 1960's to a campus that was very anti-Vietnam war, anti-McNamara, and so on.</p>

<p>When the wider student community found out about the invitation, there was a modest uproar and demands that the invitation to Kahn be withdrawn. </p>

<p>But I think it was Kahn himself who came up with the kind of solution that Duke used many years later. He offered to come three days early at his own expense, to give talks and seminars and use his time on campus to engage in dialogue. This was truly in the Reed spirit, was hugely successful, and everything went off at graduation without a (serious) hitch. And we all learned something in the process. Kahn really earned people's respect.</p>

19

<p>Do you have a case of the "Mondays?" and "Just pass, Milton, just pass!"</p>

20

<p>Mackinaw-
Reed continues to demonstrate that it was, and is, ahead of its time. Very impressive solution to a delicate issue.
As to the other past few posts, I wouldn't mind that the topic was hijacked if I had a clue what you were talking about, or how it might have originally tied in :) As best I can tell (having never seen the movie "Office Space"), the original analogy was to stick Churchill off in a corner, or in the basement, and ignore him... Now, if only reality could mimic Hollywood... If so, maybe we could pour a bucket of water on him and watch him melt. Or, have him break a few bones, put him in bed and sick Cathy Bates on him.</p>