Diplomatic Deceit

Arvind Mohanram

8^th December, 2010

FD4

The first amendment is the fundamental law of constitution of United States that gives an individual the Freedom of Speech.. 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 one of the inalienable rights of the Freedom of Expression; we have as citizens of this country.  [Thesis]

On September 11, 2001, the infallible Super-power became totally vulnerable after the terrorist attack 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 justified the terrorist incident as a manifestation of the law of sowing and reaping.  In his essay Ward Churchill expressed the US cannot get away clean with anything and everything it does across the world. The incident is an evidence of the rancor and hatred that other countries had towards the US.

While the essay got unnoticed during 2001, 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 his father.  This came to attention of the right wing extremist Bill O- Reilly who interviewed this student.  The people became aware of Ward Churchill and his article after this interview. Subsequently, Hamilton College withdrew the invitation to Prof Churchill.  Subsequently, the governor of Colorado was under pressure and Churchill was asked to resign from the Chair of Ethnic studies at CU. Soon after that, 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 that lead to the termination of Churchill, it is worthwhile to take a look at his credentials.  Prof Churchill was a full tenured professor and head of the department of Ethical Studies at University of Colorado. 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 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 academic background and his accomplishments. So, we know that this person knows what he is talking about.

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). If we dive deep into the etymology of this phrase the reference of Churchill does make sense. The term was earlier used by Hannah Arendth, a journalist of the “The New Yorker” when she saw the Eichmann Trial in Israel. Adolf Eichmann was Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi bureaucrat assigned to manage the logistics of mass deportation of people to the Concentration camps. Ardenth was present during the trial of Eichmann and in her article said that, although we would expect Eichmann to be evil, she was surprised to find him bland and benign in the court. She further went on to say that this nature of Eichmann was due to the apparent disparity between self-consciousness and the mindless obedience to authority. This essay spiked the interest of many psychologists including  Stanley Milgram of Yale University  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, this means that people were willing to inflict pain to others although it was against their consciousness.  Churchill’s statement clarified later that his reference of” little Eichmanns” was directed towards the bankers and stock brokers – not the firefighters, secretaries who died. His delineation of the stock-brokers, bankers was similar to the way the Nazis delineated the Jews. So, the reference of ”little Eichmanns” is apt, and not outrageous.  The defamation of Churchill because of this reference shows that the evaluation has not been objective and clearly misunderstood.

After the Bill O’ Reilly interview the governor of Colorado was under pressure. During the start of this controversy CU defended Ward Churchill citing 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 he did not write and published in a book he did not edit” (Mayer). 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)

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 appears to be a total disparity and shows the heighted political influence in the decision making process of the evaluation of academic misconduct.

Looking at the way this is handled, 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 Amendment 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”

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 film stars 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). 

Although Churchill 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 should have exercised more caution before speaking his mind.  I totally agree with Isaiah Lechowit, president of CU's College Republicans, “When he speaks, he's not speaking as Ward Churchill,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.

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].

Log of Completed Activities

_X__Nov 9t- Intro to Paper #4. Read the Guidelines for Paper #4. (Confirmation reply required.)
_X__Nov 15M- Complete readings for paper #4. (Confirmation reply required.)
_X__Nov 22M- Laulima Discussion: Attack Ward Churchill
_X__Nov 29M- Laulima Discussion: Defend Ward Churchill
_X__Dec 3F- RD4 due. [50 pts] Review the Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)
_X__Dec 6M- RD4 evaluations due [50 pts] Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)
_X__Dec 8W- FD4 due [150 pts] Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)