A Colorado professor, facing dismissal for his inflammatory
comments, illustrates yet again the fragility of academic autonomy
and the importance of protecting free speech ““ no matter how
controversial.
At the center of the debate is Ward Churchill’s essay,
written on Sept. 12, 2001, condemning U.S. foreign policy and
likening victims of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks to a Nazi
mastermind.
He has stepped down as the head of the University of
Colorado’s ethnic studies department and his conduct and
speech is under investigation by the state’s Board of
Regents. Legislators and the Colorado governor have demanded his
termination. Last week, he publicly declined to apologize for his
comments.
But, regardless of the offensive nature of Churchill’s
essay ““ which he calls a “stream-of-consciousness
interpretative reaction” to Sept. 11, 2001 ““ the
professor had the First Amendment right to author it, and neither
the Board of Regents nor the state has any right to interfere with
the fate of Churchill’s job.
In his essay titled “Some People Push Back: On the Justice
of Roosting Chickens,” Churchill writes in length about what
he believes were injustices committed by the U.S. government in
Iraq during and after the first Gulf War. He later makes claims
that the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks were not innocent
civilians ““ comparing them to a notorious Nazi leader who
organized the murder of millions of European Jews. But Churchill
has said that his comments have been misinterpreted.
“I have never characterized all the Sept. 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,'” he said in a statement.
“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.”
Though Churchill’s remarks are undoubtedly politically
incorrect, professors shouldn’t worry about the amassing of
political capital or fear losing their jobs for publishing an
opinion ““ especially in a university setting. Academia
flourishes on disseminating ideas, which prompt the discussions and
debate so vital to education. Opinions that stray from accepted
conventions should be welcomed, not become the basis for censorship
and termination. Controversial remarks, no matter how insensitive,
are often catalysts for valuable dialogue.
Permitting a Board of Regents or state politicians the power to
punish those holding ideas antithetical to their own sets a
dangerous precedent. Academia requires autonomy to function ““
it is why senates of professors decide tenure, and academic
publications operate on a peer-review model.
The university is no place for incompetent professors or ones
who incite violence, but Churchill has yet to be proved guilty of
either offense. State politicians shouldn’t be the judges of
academic merit and their academic witch hunt of Ward Churchill
should cease.