Essay leads to debate on freedom of speech

The job, reputation and even safety of University of Colorado,
Boulder Professor Ward Churchill are in jeopardy because of an
essay he wrote three-and-a-half years ago.

The piece in question is an analysis of the Sept. 11, 2001
attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, written that
same year, that was developed into a book examining U.S. foreign
policy titled “On the Justice of Roosting
Chickens.”

The ensuing outrage over some of the professor’s
statements has ignited a debate over the professor’s right to
freedom of speech and how professors should address sensitive
issues.

The essay attracted little attention until last month, when
professor of government Theodore Eismeier at Hamilton College in
upstate New York found it on the Internet. Churchill had been
invited to speak at Hamilton, and Eismeier was looking for more
information about him.

After a number of appeals by outraged faculty and students,
extensive national news coverage and even reported death threats
against Churchill, Hamilton College canceled Churchill’s
appearance and he has stepped down as chairman of University of
Colorado’s ethnic studies department.

Furthermore, the University of Colorado must decide whether to
heed the demands of Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and scores of
lawmakers, university officials and enraged members of the public
for the tenured professor’s dismissal.

Churchill’s essay was largely considered inflammatory
because of a comparison he made between what he called
“technicians” employed at the buildings attacked on
Sept. 11, 2001 and Adolf Eichmann, a high-ranking official in Nazi
Germany who was largely responsible for the administration of the
systematic extermination of millions of people during the
Holocaust.

Churchill issued a statement on Jan. 31 accusing the media of
misrepresenting his views.

“I have never characterized all the September 11 victims
as “˜Nazis,'” he said in the statement.
“What I said was that the “˜technocrats of empire’
working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of
“˜little Eichmanns,'” adding that in this
characterization he did not include “children, janitors, food
service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-11
attack.”

In the same statement, he insisted that the main point of his
argument was that the United States, because of its foreign
relations policy, was not an innocent victim, but rather a
justifiable target, and that the “technocrats” working
in the World Trade Center had some role in the administration of
that policy.

But for civil liberties advocates and many university
professors, the issue isn’t what he said. It’s that
what he said has put his job on the line.

“This is strictly a free speech/academic freedom
issue,” said Alexander Astin, professor emeritus of history
at UCLA and founding director of the Higher Education Research
Institute, in an e-mail. He said both Churchill and his critics
have the right to express their views.

“To punish him or fire him for expressing his views is a
flat-out denial of academic freedom,” he said.

Jeffrey Valle, practicing lawyer and an adjunct professor of
communication studies at UCLA, agreed.

In the academic world, he said, “there seems to be a
certain notion that dissent is unacceptable.”

“If you can be fired because the mainstream disagrees with
your viewpoint, that chills free speech in academia,” said
Valle, who teaches a free speech class at UCLA.

One argument made by Churchill’s critics has less to do
with his freedom to express his opinions and more to do with his
having done so as an employee of the state.

A student group on campus at the University of Colorado, the
College Republicans, told the Associated Press, “We’re
not saying he didn’t have a right to say something.
We’re saying he does not have a right to say this on taxpayer
money.”

Valle denied the validity of this argument.

“Take that argument to its logical conclusion and the
government decides what people can and cannot say,” he said.
He added that firing Churchill because of the content of the essay,
regardless of the source of his salary, would be “so
obviously unconstitutional.”

Valle’s sentiments were echoed by the American Civil
Liberties Union, which said in a statement that “the First
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects Ward Churchill’s
right to speak or write his opinions and it protects the right of
his detractors to say they do not like what he wrote or
said.”

Cathryn Hazouri, executive director for the ACLU of Colorado,
said “a college or university should be a place where
different ideas are not just tolerated, but encouraged.”

Both Hazouri and Valle highlighted the importance of tenure to
ensuring that academic freedom is upheld.

Tenure refers to academic tenure systems, in which professors
““ and sometimes elementary and secondary school teachers
““ are protected from being fired without cause after a
probationary period of employment.

But for Churchill, it would appear that the security usually
offered by tenure may not be enough to protect his job.

University of Colorado, Boulder Chancellor Phil DiStefano said
in a statement dated Feb. 3 that the Office of the Chancellor has
decided to begin an examination of Professor Chuchill’s works
to “determine whether (he) may have overstepped his bounds as
a faculty member, showing cause for dismissal.” He said the
investigation will provide due process and make use of legal
assistance, while keeping in mind the implications of violating the
professor’s right to free speech.

James Gelvin, professor of history at UCLA, said though he
believed that professors do have the legal right to say what they
want, he also said that right comes some responsibility.

“I have to make sure I phrase things in such a way that
students will be able to listen to the content of what I
say,” he said, referring to his classroom demeanor.

But Sara Dogan, spokeswoman for Students for Academic Freedom,
said that the right of the professor to voice his opinion and his
responsibility to address certain issues with sensitivity
“are not at odds.”

What is most important in the classroom, she said, is not to
either exalt or censor professors’ opinions, but to equally
present both sides of an issue.

Churchill, meanwhile, has refused to retract any of his
comments.

“I’m not backing up an inch,” he said in a
speech at the University of Colorado on Tuesday.

Churchill has been invited to speak at the University of
Wisconsin-Whitewater next month, but only under certain conditions
laid out by Chancellor Jack Miller.

One such stipulation was that no taxpayer dollars will be used
to fund Churchill’s visit ““ perhaps an attempt to
appease Churchill’s most virulent opponents while avoiding
the accusations of academic freedom violations the University of
Colorado now faces.