Professor called to task

Okay … some of you may have stumbled across this, some may not have. I’ll start with a brief synopsis of the situation and current developments in the ‘case’.

Professor Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado wrote an essay entitled “Some People Push Back: On the justice of Roosting Chickens” in which he describes the victims of the World Trade Center attacks of September 11^th as “little Eichmanns” (A reference to Adolf Eichmann, who executed Adolph Hitler's plan to exterminate Jews during World War II.) and refers to the attackers as “combat teams” who gave a “gallant sacrifice”

The essay, written shortly after the attacks of September 11^th, was largely ignored until recently when Professor Churchill was scheduled to speak at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y. The essay received national attention when the students and several members of the faculty at Hamilton College protested the scheduled speech. Amid the flap created over the last week, however, Professor Churchill has stepped down as the head of his department, Hamilton College has canceled the speech (due to death threats and security concerns), and the Governor of Colorado has written a letter requesting the professor’s full resignation from the college, and this week the school’s board of reagents will vote on the tenured professor’s fate.

Now certainly some would argue that this is a violation of his right to free speech … to which I direct them to my previous topic on free speech. His speech on the Hamilton College campus was canceled because of security concerns, and while I’d like to think that people could cope with the discussion of differing viewpoints in a more civil manor I have to admit that there was a possibility of violence. As such it is better that the speech be canceled ‘for the public safety’ than have people get injured or killed as a result. (Keep in mind that the College originally simply changed to a larger venue to accommodate the increased number of people, and tried to do all they could to hold the speech, they didn’t just up and cancel it.) He stepped down from the department head position of his own free will because he felt that he was not properly representing the school. And if the University’s Board of Reagents votes to ‘fire’ the professor they are within their rights as an employer to do so.

If I were the one making the final decision, however, I would have to look, not at this essay, but instead at what he was teaching in his classes. What a professor chooses to write outside of the classroom, whether it be published, webloged, or spoken, are the choice of the professor. As long as he is teaching his subject properly and within the guidelines of the school I don’t see that it should be grounds for removal. (Now if he chooses to resign that’s a different matter.)

I don’t recall who I once heard say this but “Freedom means that some people are going to do things that I don’t like or agree with, and that’s okay.”

He is a professor of Ethnic Studies; there is nothing that says that someone who has this, in my opinion, distorted view of the world can’t be a perfectly good Ethnic Studies professor. This is why I think that Colleges and Universities should keep a close eye on their professors and how they choose to teach their classes so that if a situation like this comes up they know whether the professor is teaching his subject appropriately despite his political views, or if their political views are interfering with their ability to properly present the material.

Personally I think that he should resign his position and, with his obvious dislike of American freedom and capitalistic economy, pack his bags and move to a country better suited to his world view.

They essay itself … there’s not a whole lot to say about it. It is a vehicle to spread his anti-capitalist views and dislike for American policy. His disagreement with President Bush’s statement that the attacks of 9/11 were the first shots of a war is technically accurate. The war with Islam started back with the crusades and to a degree even earlier than that. His facts are skewed and often at odds with history, but that is not his concern.

He refers to the US imposed sanctions on Iraq … except the sanctions were UN sanctions ….. Enforced by the US, but UN ‘imposed’ … as the cause of 9/11 … and yet almost all the terrorists in those attacks came from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. He refers to the actions of Desert Storm and Desert Shield with tones of disgust and so obviously believes that the US (actually it was the UN again) should not have protected Kuwait when Saddam invaded … we should not have protected their rights as a country against a foreign aggressor. I suppose we should have sat back and let Saddam take it over much as the world governments sat back and let Hitler start taking over Europe before the start of WWII.

He says that the ‘combat teams’ were not Islamic Fundamentalists, yet they were members of Al-Qaeda … a group that claims to be Islamic Fundamentalists waging a Jihad on the infidels. (Basically he prefers to say that “they were secular activists – soldiers, really – who, while undoubtedly enjoying cordial relations with the clerics of their countries.” Sounds a lot like Radical (or fanatic) Islamic Fundamentalists to me.)

So what, in the end, is his answer? Remove the sanctions and hang Kissinger, Madeline Albright, Colin Powell, Bill Clinton and George the Elder as war criminals. Never mind that the sanctions were put in place by the ‘global body politic’ in the form of the UN, never mind that they were put in place by the UN in retaliation to Iraq’s leader’s overt hostility and disregard for human life. Iraq who had launched chemical attacks on Iran and Kuwait, and killed several hundred thousand of its own people. And never mind the fact that the attackers were not from Iraq, were not born in Iraq, and aside from some training had nothing to DO with Iraq.

His answer is basically ‘just do what they say and no one will get hurt’ … the problem is the proven result of that method of foreign relations is that they keep putting the gun to your head and demanding more, until eventually they ask for something that you aren’t willing to give up … putting our heads in the sand may have worked when the country was founded, but the world is much too small for such a policy today … it is too easy for our enemies to get here, to move about the globe and come at us again.

Recently our enemies have made it clear that they are not after us for our foreign policy … they are after us because of our freedom … our freedom represents a threat to their power, to their influence, to their rule. They will not be happy until all such threats are removed from the world and they remain unchallenged.

No … 9/11 was not the start of the war … it was a reminder to the free countries of the world that the war is ongoing.