About Opentopia
Opentopia Directory Encyclopedia Tools

Ward Churchill 9/11 essay controversy

Encyclopedia : W : WA : WAR : Ward Churchill 9/11 essay controversy

 

 |  Ward Churchill misconduct allegations

Historian and ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill wrote an essay in September 2001 titled "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens" about the September 11, 2001 attacks, in which he argued that American foreign policies provoked the attacks. He described the "technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire" working in the World Trade Center as "little Eichmanns,"[link] [link] a phrase coined by anarcho-primitivist John Zerzan.

In response to 2005 publicity from the mass media and in weblogs, Churchill was both widely condemned and widely defended. Some defenders who did not agree with Churchill's analysis and/or with his inflammatory phrasing nonetheless felt that the attacks on Churchill represented efforts at intimidation against academic discourse and suppression of political dissent.

Contents

The essay

In "Some People Push Back," Churchill argued that effects of decade-long economic sanctions on Iraqis, together with the Middle East policies of President Lyndon Johnson, and the history of Crusades against the Islamic world, had contributed to a climate in which 9/11 was what he called a "natural and inevitable response."[link]

The "roosting chickens" phrase comes from Malcolm X's comment about the assassination of U.S. president John F. Kennedy that Kennedy "never foresaw that the chickens would come home to roost so soon."

Churchill explained what he meant in a February 2005 interview with Democracy Now![link] :

In an allusion to Hannah Arendt's depiction of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann as an ordinary person promoting the activity of an evil system, Churchill referred to the "technocrats" working at the World Trade Center as "little Eichmanns." He wrote:

Churchill compared the American people to the "good Germans" of Nazi Germany, claiming that the vast majority of Americans had ignored the civilian suffering caused by the sanctions on Iraq during the 1990s, which he characterized as a policy of genocide.

The essay was later expanded into a book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, which won Honorable Mention for the Gustavus Myers Human Rights Award in 2004.

Public controversy

National attention was drawn to the essay in January 2005, when Churchill was invited to speak at Hamilton College as a panelist in a debate, "Limits of Dissent."

The text of the essay was quoted on the January 28, 2005, edition of the Fox News Channel program The O'Reilly Factor and commentator Bill O'Reilly subsequently discussed Churchill on a number of other segments as well. The January 31st edition of The O'Reilly Factor featured Paul Campos, a University of Colorado professor, who said he was appalled at Churchill's comments. At the end of the segment, O'Reilly suggested that viewers wishing to voice their opinions could contact Hamilton College or Hamilton's president, Joan Stewart [link]; Hamilton College subsequently received 6,000 e-mails concerning Churchill.[[Citing sources citation needed]] The lecture was changed to a larger venue, but was later cancelled by Stewart, following what she described as "credible threats of violence."[[Citing sources citation needed]] Churchill has written that he received threats against his life as a consequence of his statements and the corresponding news coverage. [link] In response to what he called "grossly inaccurate media coverage concerning [his] analysis of the September 11, 2001, attacks," Churchill clarified his views:[link]

He continued:

On January 31, 2005, Churchill resigned as chairman of the Ethnic Studies department at the University of Colorado. [link].

Colorado Republican governor Bill Owens publicly called for Churchill's dismissal [link]. The Colorado House of Representatives unanimously adopted a resolution condemning Churchill's statements [link].

The Board of Regents of the University of Colorado, meeting in executive session on February 3, 2005, adopted a resolution apologizing to the American people for Churchill's statements, and ratifying interim chancellor Phil DiStefano's review of Churchill's actions. DiStefano was directed to investigate whether Churchill had overstepped his bounds as a faculty member and whether his actions were cause for dismissal. The university's Standing Committee on Research Misconduct agreed that his words were protected by the university's academic free-speech code, but agreed to investigate subsequent charges made against Churchill of plagiarism, falsification, fabrication and ethnic fraud (see below). In May 2006, the University announced that its Research Misconduct Committee found that Churchill's publications demonstrate a pattern of research misconduct. On June 26, 2006, Chancellor Phil DiStefano recommended Churchill's dismissal to the Board of Regents, and relieved Churchill of his campus duties including teaching, service, and research.[link]

Charges of a \"new McCarthyism\"

When Churchill's comparison of those who died in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, whom Churchill labeled as "technocrats", to notorious Nazi Adolph Eichmann was first widely publicized in early 2005, media commentators such as FOX News's Bill O'Reilly and The Nation's Marc Cooper denounced Churchill's essay. However, a number of academics and activists defended Churchill's essay, or argued that it was not grounds for firing him from his teaching job. One of Churchill's fellow professors in the Ethnic Studies department at the University of Colorado, Emma Perez, alleged that the attacks on Churchill were an organized "test case" by neo-conservatives to stifle liberal criticism of the War on Terror, and to undermine the funding of ethnic studies departments nationwide.[link] Betsy Hoffman, then the president of the University of Colorado, said of the attacks on Churchill, "We are in dangerous times. I'm very concerned. ... It's looking a lot like [former CU President] George Norlin being asked to fire all the Catholics and Jews or the McCarthy era." [link]

A number of other political commentators have similarly analyzed the "Churchill Affair" in terms of a "witch hunt"; for example, Gilles d'Aymery[link], Fred Feldman[link], the Michigan Independent Media Center[link], Scott Richard Lyons (writing for Indian Country)[link], and others.

According to over 600 academics signing an "An Open Letter from Concerned Academics"[link]:

They continue:

The conservative Denver newspaper, Rocky Mountain News has run numerous and ongoing articles alleging misconduct. Supporters of Churchill's academic free speech take the frequency, content and tone of these articles as evidence of Churchill's having become a political [bête noire] among Colorado conservatives. (see below Rocky Mountain News links).

A documentary on the reactions to Churchill's essay, called When They Came For Ward Churchill was produced by the Free Speech Network.[link]

The Governor calls it treason

Pursuing a similar line of thinking to that advanced in his "Some People Push Back" essay, in an April 2004 interview with Satya magazine, Churchill said:

Colorado governor Bill Owens called this comment "treasonous," arguing that "Churchill has clearly called for violence against the state, and no country is required to subsidize its own destruction. That's what we're doing with Ward Churchill." On February 6, 2005, the Denver Post reported that this comment would be included by the university in its review of Churchill's tenure. [link] Although there has been some suggestion that the constitutionally overturned Smith Act should be invoked in order to prosecute Churchill for his remarks, the debate is mostly focused on whether the First Amendment protects the tenure of a professor of a public university. Many, including Governor Owens, argue that the University of Colorado (or any other public university) is not required to support faculty that support the overthrow of the government.

On June 23, 2005, Churchill told an audience in Portland, Oregon:[link]

When asked by a member of the audience about the officers' families, Churchill responded, "[h]ow do you feel about Adolf Eichmann's family?"

The CU Alumni Association

Teaching Recognition Awards are voted on annually by students at the University of Colorado; In 2005, more than 2,000 students voted. A plurality of 54 students nominated Churchill for the award in the category for class sizes of 25 to 75.. According to CU vice-president Clark Olroyd, Churchill received 54 nominations, with the second-place teacher in the same category receiving 30 to 40 nominations. With the ongoing investigations by the Ethics Committee, the Alumni Association responsible for presenting the award has yet to present the award to Churchill. Clark Oldroyd, The vice president of the Alumni Association stated that "We're giving that committee time to complete its study" and also stated that, "It just seems like the prudent thing to do." [link]

Alumni Association President Kent Zimmerman told the campus Silver & Gold Record that the group is holding back the award until Churchill's "name has been cleared" by the committee. He compared it to withholding a student's grade on a final exam "if there were questions about the student's effort." Zimmerman is also quoted by the Denver Post as stating that Churchill's "award is being withheld, in part, due to his tendency to "antagonize and create enemies."[link] According to Churchill, "What Alumni Association President Kent Zimmerman is really saying—obviously—is that it would be really awkward for the institution to have to acknowledge the quality of my teaching in the midst of an effort to paint an exactly opposite portrait of me." Churchill's attorney David Lane contends, "They are punishing Ward Churchill for his free speech by withholding this award".[link]

Within the University of Colorado community, opinions on the Alumni Association's actions vary. Instructor Ann Ellis states "I think it's legitimate [to withhold the award]. I think the students voting on the award were trying to influence the investigation." Churchill is being evaluated, she said, "because the university has a responsibility to make sure that its faculty members are who they say they are." In contrast, graduate program assistant Mary Gregory said, "If it's a student award, and it has nothing to do with the review, then it shouldn't be withheld."[link]

According to the Native American website Idianz.com, "Students at the University of Colorado have overwhelmingly chosen Ward Churchill as their favorite professor but he won't be given the award because he is too controversial."[link] Given annually for 44 years, this is the first time the award was withheld from its winner.

References

External links

 

From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Original article here. Support Wikipedia by contributing or donating.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License See Wikipedia Copyrights for details.

Search Titles
0123456789
ABCDEFGHIJ
KLMNOPQRST
UVWXYZ?

E-mail this article to:

Personal Message: