The first amendment is the fundamental law of constitution of United States that gives any individual the Freedom of Speech – to express their opinion without any fear. It is the fundamental birthright of any citizen in this country. Other countries across the world envy the so-called freedom and lifestyle provided to the people by the nation. Apparently all these flowery opinions and believes came to questioning with the dismissal of Professor Ward Churchill by the Board of Regents of the University of Colorado in 2007. The First amendment protects us from government censorship. [Thesis] The persecution of Ward Churchill is an act of cowardice having political motives and brings to question the fundamental rights we have we as citizens [Thesis]
The Controversy
On September 11 , 2001, the infallible Super-power became totally vulnerable after the terrorist attack ramping couple of flights on the World Trade Center and killing thousands of people. While the whole world deeply sympathized on the death of innocent lives one person thought otherwise. Enter Professor Ward Churchill of the department of Ethics at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Professor Churchill wrote an essay after this incident titled "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens," The content of essay justifies that people killed were not innocent and showed that the terrorist incident as a manifestation of the law of sowing and reaping. It clearly pointed out how the US cannot getaway clean with anything and everything it does in the world and the incident is a outburst of the rancor that other countries have towards the US. While the essay got unnoticed during 2001 because many people felt it to be true. The issue came to light when Prof. Churchill was invited to a lecture in at Hamilton College in New York. One of the student in the college was appalled that his college was bringing in a person who insulted the 9/11 victims, one of whom was the students father. This came to attention of the right wing extremist Bill O- Reilly who interviewed this student in his daily show. Hamilton College withdrew the invitation to Prof Churchill and stirred quite a population. The primary issue that angered many people including Bill O- Reilly was the reference of those victims died in the incident as “little Eichmanns"(Churchill). Subsequently, the governor of Colorado was under pressure and Churchill was asked to resign from the Chair of Ethnic studies at CU. The Board of Regents at CU questioned his “Indianness” and came up with allegations of academic dishonesty in the form of plagiarism and research misconduct against Prof Churchill and subsequently terminated him.
Before we examine about the content of the essay responsible for such a huge upraisal and controversy, let’s examine the background of Ward Churchill. Prof Churchill became full tenured professor at CU department of Ethical Studies. He was awarded a Doctorate of Humane Letters after giving a lecture about American Indian history He has written over twenty books in addition to a large number of peer reviewed scholarly and popular articles . He was won numerous awards and sat on various panels and advisory boards in different associations and Institutes. He is widely respected by scholars and admired for his contribution to American Indian Studies. Looking at his caliber it would be difficult for anybody to find fault with his professional carrier.
little Eichmanns
The primary element of the essay was the reference of those killed to those of ‘little Eichmanns’. If we dive deep into the etymology of this phrase the reference of Churchill does make sense. The term was used earlier by the Hannah Arendth a journalist of the “The New Yorker” when she saw the Eichmann Trial in Israel. In the article she said that it would appear that people working under Hitler would also portray some of his evil nature. However, it was surprising to note that they were bland and benign. This character flow rose from the apparent disparity between consciousness and mindless obedience to authority. This essay was of interest to many psychologists such as Stanley Milgram at Yale to conduct experiments to test the hypothesis of mindless obedience to authority. Prof Milgram concluded that “The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study”(Milgram). In simple terms these mean that people were willing to inflict pain to others just by obeying higher orders from their boss although it was against their consciousness. If this is true, the majority of the population are all ‘little Eichmanns’ and the by Churchill is fully justified in making such a reference. His statement is profound and pertinent to call all the stockbrokers who died during the attack as” little Eichmanns”. This reference implies that also there were other people such as firefighters, secretaries who died, his reference is delineates the stock-brokers, bankers similar to the way the Nazis delineated the Jews. So, the reference of ” little Eichmanns” is apt, and not outrageous. Ignorance by the general population resulted in widespread misinterpretation of this phrase and caused uproar among the public.
Diplomatic Deceit
After the Bill O’ Reilly interview the governor if Colorado was under pressure and initially CU defended Ward Churchill stating the Freedom of Speech given by the First Amendment. However the media got the upper hand by this time and wanted to purge Churchill for his comments. The Board of Regents had to find another way to terminate Churchill and came up with various allegations – none of which has any significance. If we look at the details of the accusation there appears to have little or no compelling evidence. According to Tom Mayers of the department of Sociology at CU Boulder,” the Report of Investigative Committee convicted him of plagiarism for a paper he did not sign claims not to have written, which is published in a book he did not edit and whose texts clearly diverges from significant features of his published work” (Mayer). Ironically, prior to his persecution, Churchill was honored as a valuable member of the University of Colorado faculty. He was appointed chair of the Ethnic Studies Department, placed on influential University committees, and given prestigious teaching awards. There is total disparity and this incident shows the heighted political influence in the decision making process of the evaluation of academic misconduct.
The events leading to the removal of Churchill shows lack of justice and total disregard of the First Amendment. Like what the UH President David McClain said “"Freedom of inquiry and of expression are what universities are all about, and freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy," (Gima)
Looking at this one is reminded of various incidents that have been repeated in history. For e.g the execution of Galileo and Socrates couple of hundreds of years ago. We have all become modern but our thoughts and ideas remain the same – there is no growth. People do not like change. Any person who expresses opinions contrary to that accepted by the public have their wings clipped promptly and is attacked, traumatized and left with humiliation. The First Amendemnt has become a farce and this event represents the dangerous trend of intolerance across the country.
I completely agree with the words of my classmate Nor Nordin that ” the very basis of a democracy is the freedom of citizens to voice their opinions, so why should it not be allowed for Ward Churchill? His article presents a different picture of the effects of US foreign policy in the world”
Although Churchill can be defended based on first amendment and he has clarified his reference on the essay, it must be admitted that that his statement pulled the strings on the emotional cord of the people who lost family members and relatives in the attack. Churchill’s essay was gross and although his intention may be right, an academic professor of high caliber having extensive publication and heavily cited should have exercised more caution before speaking his mind in that essay. Like what But Isaiah Lechowit, president of CU's College Republicans, said it's not matter of personal free speech."When he speaks, he's not speaking as Ward Churchill," Lechowit said. "He's speaking as professor Ward Churchill."( Beaudin). In addition I like the point that my classmate Suzanne Zablan bought up, ” A simple apology could result in more people hearing his true message”. It would have been appropriate for Churchill to save his career and his job with an apology and get over this controversy.
Bollywood example
In my own observation, I can recall a similar incident of the blatant disregard of Freedom of Speech in my country, India where a noted Bollywood film star, Sharuk Khan, was rebuked by the Hindu fanatics group Shiv Sena from for ‘extending an open arm of friendship’ to the Cricket players from Pakistan. Pakistan the country was born after the then Vice President demanded a land for the Muslims from India. So the new country of Pakistan was baptized at the same time that India got freedom from British in 1947. Since that time there has been constant tension at the borders until today regarding various issues including Kashmir. India has even fought a war against Pakistan in the 70’s. Although the acrimony appear to die down with the opening up of new railways between the two countries and visiting of the Pakistani Prime Ministers to India, small incidence like these appear to revive the bitterness inside the people. Following the filmstars statement, the activist stormed and protested outside the house of movie star in Mumbai where Bollywood movies are made. The party demanded his apology and stated that his movie would be banned in the city (Ronamai).
In conclusion, the treatment of Ward Churchill resembles political lynching, the charges are superannuated and aimed at tarnishing the reputation of a respected professor. It is overwhelmingly clear with the Churchill is not guilty of any charges of academic misconduct and is been executed for exercising his Freedom of Speech. It shows a total lack of congruence between what is on book to what actually happens in reality. Prof Ward Churchill’s criticism of US imperialism and its policies should be taken seriously.
Works Cited
Beaudin, Matthew. "Churchill Quits Chairmanship." dailycamera.com 1 Feb. 2005. 10 Apr. 2006 [http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/buffzone_news/article/0,1713,BDC_2448_3513453,00.html.]
Churchill, Ward. “Some People Push Back. On the Justice of Roosting Chickens” 11 September 2001. Pockets of Resistance #11 September 2001.
Gima, Craig. "Lawmaker Wants Speaker Blocked." Starbulletin.com 19 Feb. 2005. 19 Feb. 2005 http://starbulletin.com/2005/02/19/news/index3.html
Mayer, Tom. “The Plaigiarism Charges Against Ward Churchill”. [ www.wardchurchill.net/files/mayer_on_plagiarism_charges_0607.pdf]
Milgram, Stanley. “Obedience to Authority The experiments by Stanley Milgram” [ http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/milgram_obedience_experiment.html]
Nordin, Liza. “Defend Ward Churchill.” Online Posting. 29 Nov. 2010. Laulima discussion. 3 Dec. 2010 [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201110/page/580d9883-374c-4194-bb60-e4e1fe68988c].
Ronamai,Raymond.” Shahrukh Khan hits back at Shiv Sena”[ http://entertainment.oneindia.in/bollywood/news/2010/shahrukh-shiv-sena-hit-back-030210.html].
Zablan, Suzanne. “Attack Ward Churchill.” Online Posting. 22 November 2010. Laulima Discussion. 29 November 2010 [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201110/page/580d9883-374c-4194-bb60-e4e1fe68988c]
