Sign up for 5280's weekly e-newsletters. Want the latest restaurant scoop? The latest happenings around town? Access to exclusive events and deals just for 5280 readers? It doesn’t happen often, but I disagree with Jeralyn’s previous post on Ward Churchill.
Not with the main point of her post — that Bill Owens’s response to Churchill’s deplorable remarks is grandstanding of the worst sort (the fact that he made his call for Churchill’s firing in a letter to be read at a Republican rally makes that abundantly clear).
But, unlike Jeralyn, I do think that Churchill’s support for violence crosses an important line, and that he ought to lose his tenured position at the University of Colorado.
Still, the fact that Jeralyn and I disagree only reinforces her broader point — which is that we have Freedom of Speech for a reason. It’s fine to disagree, but we can do so with civility and rationality, virtues that seem in short supply when it comes to the furor over Ward Churchill.
Posted 2/3/2005 at 9:23 am by Daniel Brogan
Politics :: Permalink :: Comments (7)
Churchill: Melee at Colorado Regents Meeting
A scuffle by protesters at the C.U. Regents meeting over Professor Ward Churchill resulted in two arrests Thursday. The Regents apologized to the nation over Churchill’s writings. Was this necessary? In what may be an unprecedented action by any…
So all those people who have said horrible things about Arab Americans since 9/11 should lose their jobs too? Who have said racist things about African-Americans, Native Americans, Palestinians, etc.?
Wow, seems like we’re developing quite a list. I’m sure we can purge a few hundred professors around the country by the end of the day!
This is insanity and you know it.
I fully support Ward Churchill’s right to free speech. Where I think he crosses an important line is in his advocacy of violence.
KHOW’s Silverman and Caplis have done a good job of exploring this. I’d recommend you check out their show, as well as their website.
http://www.khow.com/hosts/caplis-silverman.html
In particular, listen to the Oakland tape.
If Churchill is convicted of a crime over this, maybe I could agree with you, Daniel. But his so-called advocacy of violence is no worse, IMO, than those who pushed to invade Iraq (based on what we now know was false information) or those who advocate the torture of suspected terrorists, many of whom have not even been charged with a crime.
Churchill’s writings are overheated and hyperbolic (not unlike the condemnation folks are piling on him), but his hyperbole appears to me to be part of the point he’s making.
If Churchill broke the law, he should be punished. If he has merely outraged just about everybody…well, the Regents will decide his fate, and I hope they get good legal advice.
Speaking of hyperbole, please don’t forget that it was Caplis/Silverman who fueled the tempest in a teapot about Mayor Hickenlooper supposedly “attacking Christmas.” (As Michael Roberts notes in this week’s Westword.)
This Churchill “controversy” is little more than fiery rhetoric about fiery rhetoric, and it saddens me that you as the editor of a publication would not adamantly support even a contemptible person’s freedom to write, however poorly or offensively. (I don’t mean to misstate your position, so please correct me if I have it wrong.)
You don’t have to publish writings from Churchill or anyone else, but I would hope that you would support the freedom of others to write and publish total crap. That’s what makes America great, after all.
Lisa,
A couple of points:
I do think the people who lied about Iraq and advocated torture should be fired. All the way up to the top.
As for Churchill, the old cliche is that freedom of speech stops when you yell “Fire” in a crowded movie theater. Based on my listening of the Oakland tapes, Churchill has yelled “Fire” (and then some).
Believe me, I wish that some of the underlying issues of Ward Churchill’s remarks were being discussed — I think a tremendous opportunity has been missed in all of this.
Thanks for raising this issue, as well as your other contributions to our blog.
Caplis and Silverman? Dan, you have to be kidding!
I know, I know. I’ve ridiculed Craig in print on several occassions, and I thought they were way off on the holiday issue. But on Churchill they’re making some sense. If nothing else, it’s hard to argue with the tape on their site.