“War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.” The Party Slogan, Orwell’s 1984
Ward Churchill took the stand yesterday to defend himself. He was a University of Colorado professor who was removed from his position after he made impolitic comments in the wake of 9/11. He said some of the victims were, apparently, worthy of death
because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it.”
Offensive? Yes. Quite. It’s not that he isn’t on to something, however. The U.S. has rained hell on various countries around the world, leaving a trail of corpses that would reach to the moon if stacked. It seems to bother no one here that we bomb cities, starve children, torture and use chemical warfare on other countries.
But 9/11 happened to us , and that’s not right. The outpouring of victimhood was sad to watch – people so blind as to not be capable of seeing suffering in others, yet wanting vindication and revenge when it happens to them. Americans are an insulated people, kept ignorant by a pliable news media, and distracted by games and TV while our soldiers are off committing atrocities in our name.
It was blowback. Churchill said as much. The University people, of course, acknowledged his free speech rights. He could, as a citizen and a professor, make offensive remarks.
Then they railroaded him out of town. His scholarly work underwent scrutiny none could withstand, and sure enough, they found some alleged incidents of plagiarism and an unsourced conclusion regarding the U.S. Army infecting native Americans with smallpox way back when. (Churchill is Native American.)
Something very similar happened to Norman Finkelstein, who was denied tenure at DePaul for his controversial stands on Israel. His real crime was to expose Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz as a fraud. He got the Dixie Chicks treatment, as did Churchill.
Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech. (Chomsky)
I have commented elsewhere at this blog on the seeming contradiction that the people of East Germany and Russia could bring about meaningful change. They overthrew oppressive governments thought to be intractable. Here in the United States we don’t seem to be able to affect much change, no matter what.
Oh yeah – and freedom of speech … it’s kind of an illusion. Isn’t it.
Piece of Mindful 
Mark, I recall that the tribe Churchill claimed membership with rejected his assertion as being a member. See: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3786590,00.html
==================
Ward Churchill’s claim of membership in the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians is fraudulent, according to a scathing statement released by the tribal office.
The statement, issued May 9 in the name of the tribal leader, Chief George Wickliffe, and posted on its Web site Tuesday, does not mince words:
“The United Keetoowah Band would like to make it clear that Mr. Churchill IS NOT a member of the Keetoowah Band and was only given an honorary ‘associate membership’ in the early 1990s because he could not prove any Cherokee ancestry.”
The tribe said that all of Churchill’s “past, present and future claims or assertions of Keetoowah ‘enrollment,’ written or spoken, including but not limited to; biographies, curriculum vitae, lectures, applications for employment, or any other reference not listed herein, are deemed fraudulent by the United Keetoowah Band.”
===============
The Oneida’s didn’t think much of him either:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=3C56409D-2532-40C9-AFCD-245B086E1F3B
==================
The Oneida Indian Nation, which has historic ties to nearby Hamilton, issued the following statement:
”It’s disturbing that anyone would use such hateful speech, and do so while claiming to be an American Indian when there is significant evidence that he is not. Professor Churchill caused many in the media to falsely believe an American Indian scholar could besmirch the lives of those who died on 9/11. Because of this, he owes every American Indian an apology.
”Likewise it is sad that he would perpetrate this apparent hoax on Hamilton College, an institution founded to help educate Indian students.” (Hamilton was founded by Samuel Kirkland, 18th century missionary to the Oneidas, and the famous Oneida Chief Schenandoah is buried on its grounds. The Oneida Nation owns Four Directions Media, publisher of Indian Country Today.)
===============================
LikeLike
Discussion at hand – do we or do we not believe in free speech. If we do, then we do not fire people who exercise it.
LikeLike
But there is another question. If we use free speech to disseminate “facts” that are shown to be false, do we acknowledge that before moving back to the main discussion?
LikeLike
By the way, your use of the phrase “scrutiny none could withstand” indicates a pretty low opinion of academic scholarship.
LikeLike
If we use free speech to disseminate “facts” that are shown to be false, do we acknowledge that before moving back to the main discussion?
I’m not getting this. There are few “facts” that all agree on in any area of social science. Your question is academic – yes, we pursue truth, and go off course. But the larger point is that there is no referee telling us whose facts are true, whose are not, who gets fired for false facts. That’s oppression.
By “scrutiny none could withstand”, I meant that they were on a witch hunt, determined to find something to use to fire him. Take the body of your work, all of it, Ed, and tell me that you will not find a misquoted source, an unsupported conclusion – no one is perfect.
My opinion of academic research varies depending on funding.
LikeLike
Mark, in my opinion, your framing of the situation doesn’t fit the situation. He severely embarrassed the university and offended many people with both his false claim of ethnic status and his characterization of the victims. I believe the university hired him, at least in part, on his ethnic claim status. His firing pertains more to false representations. Churchill’s fress speech rights were never an issue. He spoke freely and continues to do so.
LikeLike
I have free speech and can say anything I want at this blog. But I don’t threaten anyone, don’t embarrass anyone powerful. My free speech doesn’t matter.
You have said a mouthful – you have capsulized it. He embarrassed powerful people. It is at that time that we need free speech more than any other time, and it is at precisely that time that it was suppressed. That’s why I say it is an illusion.
LikeLike
Your idea of how the world is supposed to work is derived from junior high school civics. Grow up and quit crying.
LikeLike
Mark, he was held accountable for lying on his resume about his ethnicity for a position that the university was looking to make a particular hire. Govts do it all the time hiring minority and women contractors. When it turns out such entities are frauds they pay a price.
LikeLike
That’s not true. He was fired for research misconduct, and the line-by-line investigation of his research did not start until he made controversial comments. It was most likely a punishment for his political statements.
LikeLike
Mark, reading further I believe you are correct about the specifics of his firing. See: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5642650,00.html
=======================
CU officials ruled that Churchill’s essay was protected by the U.S. Constitution.
But the spotlight on Churchill revealed numerous complaints of academic misconduct that had been raised by other academics, but never addressed by CU. He was accused of plagiarism, inventing historical incidents and ghostwriting essays which he then cited in his footnotes in support of his own views.
Those allegations were the ones that brought dismissal today.
R.G. Robertson, author of Rotting Face: Smallpox and the American Indian, said he was glad that Churchill’s supporters did not sway the regents.
“I’m glad that scholarship, or the ideal of scholarship, won out over somebody’s weird view of political correctness,” he said. “I’m happy that it happened, that he’s been found out, and, by his peers — meaning other university people — and been called what he is, a plagiarizer and a liar.”
Robertson’s book was among those cited by investigators as having been mischaracterized by Churchill.
“Facts are facts and truth is truth, and when you’re dealing with history I think it doesn’t need to be distorted by people with a warped political objective,” Robertson said.
Another author whose work was mischaracterized by Churchill said the firing was appropriate punishment.
“It’s important to know Indian history, and it’s important to know factual Indian history, not just a bunch of B.S. that someone made up,” said Russell Thornton, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles.
Churchill attributed assertions that the Army deliberately spread smallpox among Indians to one of Thornton’s books, American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History Since 1492.
=========================
Given the totallity of the circumstances from his initial hiring or his alleged fraud upon his students, there were multiple valid reasons. Pick one.
LikeLike
None of these matters were considered important until he spoke out after 9/11. And no one can bear up under scrutiny when powerful people want them fired. You’d have to be Caesar’s wife. He was fired for exercising his right to free speech. That they said it was for something else? You mean, like, they were being honest about it?
Facts are facts and truth is truth, and when you’re dealing with history I think it doesn’t need to be distorted by people with a warped political objective.
GFG – I learned warped history all they way through grade school, high school and college. Has this man no self-awareness? Robertson demonstrates precisely what I’m talking about – he owns truth, anc Churchill is fired.
LikeLike
I have only anecdotal experience on this topic, so if I am not as “knowledgeable” as others, I admit that up front. As a writer/journalist at the time, I interacted with numerous members of the American Indian Movement (AIM), primarily in Pine Ridge, S.D. (which, incidentally, I referred to at the time as the Soweto of North America).
In separate conversations with Ward Churchill and Russell Means (both in Bozeman, MT), it was evident that these two AIM leaders were at odds with one another, each portraying the other as a “phony.” It was commonly said among “Native Americans” at the time that Ward Churchill had absolutely “no credentials” as an Indian (aka Native American). Ward, on the other hand, dismissed Russell Means as nothing more than a wannabe movie star.
I asked both Ward and Russell on separate occasions about their mutual characterizations of one another, and both basically responded that the other was a phony. As for being a “wannabe movie star,” Russell said to me: “Bob, I’m just trying to find a place where I can live,” emphasizing the word “live”! The expression on Russell’s face at that moment brought tears to my eyes.
Having said all of the above, my personal experience with Ward Churchill is that both he and Russell Means were/are very impressive intellects and individuals. I tried at the time to get Montana Congressman Ron Marlenee to meet with Russell Means to talk about AIM complaints and objectives and was told by the congressman’s chief of staff: “That will never happen!”
As for Ward Churchill, his books and other writings are amazing works of intellect and art. I have great personal respect for both Ward Churchill and Russell Means, which is not intended at this point to be a “journalistic” comment, but a very personal one. Both of these men, based on my contacts with them, are very gracious and intelligent individuals and I don’t think it really matters which is the “real” Indian (aka Native American) or not.
LikeLike
Bob, it certainly seemed to matter to the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians and the Oneida Indian Nation that I mentioned above not only because of his representations of Indian status they find false but also that he has any standing whatsoever to represent Native opinion. I defer to them.
LikeLike
Craig, you make my point doubly or more. “Indians” (aka Native Americans) argue among themselves continually about who is a “real” Indian (aka Native American) and who is not. You are cherry picking where cherries are so plentiful that they fall at your feet! Whether or not Ward Churchill meets various requirements of select tribes for “blood” acceptance in their particular “nations” is irrelevant. Ward Churchill said “bad things” about “white” America on 9/11 and that is what he is being punished for, blood “Indians” or not be damned!
LikeLike
Bob, as to his firing the regents disagree with you. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5642650,00.html
As to whether it matters to Natives if a pretender, in their eyes, represents he is one of them and speaks for them in such an outrageous manner, again, I defer to their judgments on such importance. I don’t pretend to know the pain it causes them to experience such an insult and merely dismiss it with a wave of the hand.
LikeLike
“As to whether it matters to Natives if a pretender, in their eyes, represents he is one of them and speaks for them in such an outrageous manner, again, I defer to their judgments on such importance. I don’t pretend to know the pain it causes them to experience such an insult and merely dismiss it with a wave of the hand.”
Blow me!
LikeLike
All prime-time media “talking-heads” should go too then. Let’s fire everybody who speaks twisted truth. Puritanism is alive and well.
LikeLike