Colorado professor pushes buttons with his 9/11 essay
If University of Colorado professor Ward L. Churchill is lucky, the regents
who are now deciding whether or not to fire him will look only at whether
his tasteless ramblings in an essay about 9/11 fell within his academic
rights.
Churchill's freedom to speak his mind is unassailable; many other
things about the guy are suspect.
In an essay written immediately after the 2001 attacks, Churchill blamed
U.S. evil-doing, mostly its policies in Iraq, for bringing on violent
revenge. Many thinkers have espoused similar ideas without incurring nationwide
wrath. For that matter, Jerry Falwell also said the United States had
brought on the attacks through its own evildoing, though he had another
“evil” in mind and later had the good sense to apologize for
his insensitivity.
Churchill's over-the-top phrasing caused a furor when his essay came to
light this year, especially his calling the thousands who died in the
World Trade Center “little Eichmanns” — a reference
to Nazi leader Adolf Eichmann. Now Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and others
are calling for his job. It's something of a mystery how Churchill got
the job in the first place. The respected Boulder campus filled its top
ethnic studies post with a man who has no doctorate and whose master's
degree is in the unrelated field of communications.
Many believe the university was attracted by his claims of Cherokee heritage,
though he has produced no evidence of that heritage and leading Cherokees
deny it. Churchill is accused by other academics of fabricating some accounts
of American Indian history.
Churchill blamed the media for misrepresenting his 2001 essay, saying
he had applied the Eichmann term only to “technicians” of
the economy in the World Trade Center, not to janitors, children or food
service workers. There was no such misrepresentation; he might have meant
to differentiate between the power elite and other victims, but he never
did so in the essay. He also now claims to be a free-speech advocate,
yet he has denied others the same right. Last year, he tried to physically
block a Columbus Day parade, saying such celebrations are not covered
by the First Amendment.
Academic freedom and the value of free-flowing ideas are too important
to grant only occasionally, which is why Churchill's rights must prevail.
In the end, those are the only grounds on which we can defend him.
—This editorial appeared in
the Los Angeles Times
|
