Genociding Ward Churchill for over a 20th of a century

No Context, No Answers

Reading Robert O’Neil’s “The Limits of Freedom: The Ward Churchill Case”, I anticipated some analysis and guidance regarding what lessons and precedents we can take from the still-unresolved matter of Ward Churchill. I received a severe disappointment. Even those who have followed the serial adventures of Ward-o with breathless interest will find this article opaque. Rather than illuminating the issues surrounding the case, Mr. O’Neil manages to further obscure the questions he raises of free speech, academic freedom, and the responsibilities of professors.

The primary issue is: Robert O’Neil ignores the history of the University of Colorado and Ward Churchill; in an article professing to discuss what possible precedents may be applied to (or drawn from) Churchill’s case Mr. O’Neil manages to confuse the issue even further; and, because of the two preceding points, Mr. O’Neil fails to provide the guidance that, as stated in his own summary paragraph, administrators and faculty are seeking.

The history:

Ward Churchill began working at the University of Colorado in Boulder in 1978, though he did not become an associate professor until 1990. The essay which brought him to the attention of the general public was written in 2001; it received almost no notice until 2005. In the years between 1978 and 2005, Ward Churchill, by his own account, court documents and newspaper articles, was involved in a “take-over” of land and persistently disrupting the Columbus Day parades (his 1992 court defense is the beginning of his fabrication regarding the Mandan Smallpox Epidemic). During this same time, Churchill wrote many articles articulating his opposition to the United States government, historical and present, and his view that said government was, is, always has been and (short of radical alteration) probably always will be, racist, imperialist, oppressive and bad.

The University of Colorado , with more than 25 years of Ward Churchill under its belt, knew all of this. The administration cannot possibly have been ignorant of Churchill’s character, personality or political views. This renders the fourth paragraph of Robert O’Neil’s essay ludicrous:

The response from the university's administration was more temperate. The chancellor of the Boulder campus, Phil DiStefano, found Churchill's statements "offensive," lamenting that the essay had "outraged and appalled us and the general public." The language of the essay was, he continued, "hurtful to everyone touched by that tragedy." Yet the chancellor insisted that his errant colleague had a citizen's right to "hold and express his views, no matter how repugnant, as guaranteed by the First Amendment."

Ward Churchill’s academic field was ethnic studies, and in his writings he consistently emphasizes that Europeans victimized Native Americans and other minority ethnic groups; holds that the United States Government continues to do so; and discusses means of resistance. The “offending remarks” simply apply these consistent elements to a current event – one in which the general public has an emotional investment. “On the Justice of Roosting Chickens” is solidly within Churchill’s field, is not a break from his history, nor is it outside the area he claims as his realm of expertise.

To ignore the history of Churchill and CU is to duck the very questions O’Neil himself raises.

When Robert O’Neil turns to the possible precedents, legal and academic, that might apply in Churchill’s case, he multiplies the difficulties for the reader. First, of course, is the First Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the government from interfering with freedom of speech, particularly political speech. Then, again as a matter of course, Mr. O’Neil cites Pickering , a 1968 decision by the Supreme Court that says, in essence, that a government employee may criticize governmental decisions in his capacity as a private citizen, within limits. Mr. O’Neil notes that the Special Committee properly decided that Churchill’s essay was not sufficient to result in his dismissal for cause. So far, so good – except that when O’Neil raises two questions that the first CU committee were not tasked with answering (emphasis mine):

First, should a state university professor's speech be judged solely by the Pickering standard? And second, under what conditions might a professor's extramural statements demonstrate […] a lack of "fitness in ... [his or her] professional capacity as a teacher or researcher"? (page 5, paragraph 1)  

If that original committee had censured Churchill for lack of fitness in his professional capacity, how would academic freedom have been imperiled? Again, by ignoring the history and context of Churchill and CU, Mr. O’Neil’s example confuses, rather than illuminates, his point. On page seven, paragraph four, he writes, “In fact, there is no ready substantive standard to determine when a professor forfeits the protections of academic freedom by his extreme statements on matters in or close to his or her discipline.”

Those who have only a casual acquaintance with Churchill’s history and the case, or relying upon O’Neil’s brief summary, might not understand that Churchill’s controversial essay is indeed a “statement on matters in or close to his discipline” (if you accept that his body of work – however riddled with errors and fraud – relates closely to the matter of “Roosting Chickens”). While O’Neil’s essay is, by its own admission, exploratory, by this point the reader thrashes in a mire of confusion. Is O’Neil suggesting, mildly, that the initial committee was asked to examine the wrong questions entirely? Or is he saying that the sheer lack of a clear standard handed the committee a paradox? Was Churchill speaking within his discipline, or not?

Citing a real world analogy of a professor of religious studies who had a less than respectful view of conservative Christians whose remarks became public, O’Neil dismisses this whole issue (a very interesting issue, deserving an essay devoted entirely to it) by remarking that neither CU nor the other university ever addressed the issue of academic fitness. If the reader is not blinking and shaking his or her head by this point, the reader has not been trying to follow O’Neil’s point.

O’Neil remarks that the “scope of faculty expressive freedom could be severely curtailed by a repressive administration or even by established scholars who are prone to find those who challenge the scholarly status quo inadequately respectful.” (Page 6, paragraph 2). Given the cut-and-thrust of footnotes, and the truly deadly use of “pace, Professor So-and-so”, academics have sufficient weapons at their disposal that whining to the administration would seem (in academic terms) rather wimpy.

“Limits of Freedom” appears to center around the point that without a substantive standard to determine when a professor forfeits the protections of academic freedom, it is hard to ask the right questions; no one could possibly disagree with this. Further, O’Neil seems to indicate, we have not determined if a professor’s or student’s academic freedom is more protected within their field of expertise or lessened. The problem being, of course, that both points fail to apply to Churchill. And even though O’Neil (mercifully) dismisses the contention that all the charges of academic misconduct that were brought against Ward Churchill are politically motivated, the fact remains that CU will be able to dismiss Churchill (if they do) because he is a poor scholar, a plagiarist, and a fraud, not because of “Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens.”

O’Neil concentrates upon the work of the initial, extraordinary committee, which had only a month to work in, operating in the midst of a huge public uproar (I should know; I was a participant). He raises fascinating questions that should have been asked, and answered, with the Churchill case providing at least tentative precedents. The essay, however, simply ends without resolution.

Is any of the first paragraph’s promised guidance on display?

Not directly; one could take from Robert O’Neil’s essay the guidance that an extraordinary committee might do well to consider the questions of academic fitness as opposed to political speech; or perhaps that the true question should be whether the academic under scrutiny is simply exempt from academic discipline because he or she is speaking as a citizen. The missing piece, though, is that most of the questions raised were not answered by any portion of Churchill’s case; they were answered by his history at the University of Colorado . Without that context, the citizen or administrator seeking guidance is still lost in the murk.

CNews 28September06

Even a tenured professor may be subject to dismissal for cause on the basis of a demonstrated incompetence in her or his discipline. For example, if a philosophy professor or linguist widely preaches that the earth's surface is flat, such absurd statements are fully protected--against government sanction by the First Amendment and against institutional reprisal by the irrelevance of the academic-fitness test--since a flat-earth philosopher or classicist manifests no incompetence in his or her field. But if the same outlandish views are preached by a geographer or geologist, the calculus is very different. Such a person could be shown to have forfeited the protection of academic freedom by demonstrating just that lack of "fitness" in his or her academic discipline.

CNews 27September06

CNews 25September06

CNews 23September06

If the University succeeds in its quest to fire Professor Churchill, any other university professor tempted to use his or her academic position to engage in controversial, constitutionally-protected speech about current affairs will think twice before doing so in the future.  Thus, we call on the University of Colorado not to fire Professor Churchill, but instead to reinstate him – and to publicly confirm its commitment to our most precious freedom, the ability to express dissenting views without fear of reprisal. We also urge the AAUP to investigate CU’s handling of the entire Churchill matter.

Meanwhile (and also from our anonymous source), it looks like at least one law professor will not be signing. Here's an email response from Professor Scott H. Hughes, sent to the SALT mailing list (emphasis ours):

From: salt-list: Society of American Law Teachers [mailto:SALT-LIST@LISTS.UMN.EDU] On Behalf Of Hughes, Scott
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 6:17 PM
To: SALT-LIST@LISTS.UMN.EDU
Subject: [SALT] Board Statement on Ward Churchill Case
Dear SALT Members:

I just received a copy of the SALT statement on Ward Churchill.  I understand that Churchill's wife is a member of the SALT Board of Governors. Am I correct in that understanding? If true, I am quite concerned about the fact that the Board would issue such a statement without a disclaimer of this fact. Failure to do so, in my eyes, seriously undermines the credibility of this statement, especially when joined by the statement that the Board adopted it unanimously.
 
As far as I am concerned, Ward Churchill is not worth going to the barricades over. The original uproar may have been politically motivated, but the misdeeds in his scholarship are not Fruit of the Poisoned Tree. There was substantial documentation being written before these troubles started that demonstrated his problems. 

I am sorry that SALT has taken this position and would hope that it would reconsider and withdraw this statement.

scott
Scott H. Hughes
Dickason Professor of Law
University of New Mexico
School of Law

CNews 19September06

"[I]f university administrators decide to retain Ward Churchill and reward him by giving him a paycheck every month into the indefinite future, they are sending a clear message that faculty can be despicable and get away with it. How will this be received by students at the same institution? They will see the Honor Code as institutional mockery. Are students the only members of the academic community who must meet standards of honesty? I certainly hope not. If anything, faculty should be held to a higher standard. Now is the time to make that clear.

[...]

P.S. Oh, and by the way, Ward, I too was a pretend Indian. It was fun while it lasted, but I did get over it when I got into grade school.

As a CU professor and a news junkie, I’ve read much of the information spiraling out of the Ward Churchill case, starting with the comments about “Little Eichmanns” that ignited the fanfare. A spin I have yet to read is what I believe to be a progressive insight: Mainly, that a seemingly white male, who’s benefited immeasurably through co-opting an American Indian identity, is providing rich fodder for the right and the racists (often one in the same) to damn, discredit and/or dismantle ethnic studies programs, not just at the University of Colorado, but across the country.

[...]

In daring the media and university to come after him, Churchill apparently didn’t think (or care?) that they revealed his co-opted identity and sloppy (even unethical) research methods. Ethnic studies programs would take the real hit. Of course, Churchill has taken hits as well (and been paid huge amounts of money for lectures since his notoriety began), but he seems to enjoy his “I’m-a-bad-boy-leader-of-the-oppressed-world” identity. The real tragedy is that Ward Churchill has done an incalculable amount of harm to ethnic studies programs in order to promote himself.

CNews 18September06

"Malcolm [X] said it, Justice Jackson said it, the Nuremburg Tribunal said it as a whole; by any means necessary. Your [sic] going to have to suck it up and do whatever it is that you need to do in order to retaliate for what is being done in the world today, take up the gun if you want to. The point of the matter is, it has got to get done. You can start out there by showing solidarity to people in armed resistance to what is being done to them in the name of U.S. policy and aggression. You can take it right back home and do it here."

CNews 14September06

CNews 7September06

Philosophical Tectonic Shift or Calculated Sop to Alumni Donors?
Hamilton College establishes Alexander Hamilton Center to "promote excellence in scholarship through the study of freedom, democracy and capitalism as these ideas were developed and institutionalized in the United States and within the larger tradition of Western culture."

CNews 5September06

CNews 2September06

One of the faults of academics (I speak as one of them) is that we tend to imagine that having demonstrated some fact to our own satisfaction, and to that of those we respect, we can move on, job done, to the next illumination of fact without tarrying to convince those we consider ignorant. If this pertains to our colleagues who seem unable to grasp our wisdom, it applies much more to the benighted masses who, so long as they remain outside the campus gates and are unable to affect tenure and promotion decisions, don’t bother us much. Why waste time popularizing what we ourselves already know so well, challenging ignorance in the spirit of altruistic compassion, when we can be devoting our time to career-advancing research?

CNews 1September06