Sunday, February 06, 2005

Ward Churchill

Here's an article on Ward Churchill, a tenured professor, and wannabe member of the American Indian Movement who has come under fire recently for having written an essay back in 2001 in which he compared the technicians who were killed in the World Trade Center attacks to Adolph Eichmann. The essay, which is here and which, apparently, few people have actually read, is geniunely bizarre. The depth of his loathing for the United States is profound. Unfortunately, the depth of his argument is somewhere around that of a paper-cut. 1) America is an evil empire, 2) People who work in America are supporting that evil empire, therefore 3) They got what they deserved. As Churchill phrases it: "They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly."

Strange, isn't it? The far left seems to have not one drop of sympathy for Americans who are murdered. Sure, they can use the murdered for dydactic purposes, but it's always the same lesson- they got what they deserved. Isn't it odd how the argument behind Bowling for Columbine could pretty much also be boiled down to "They got what they deserved"? Anyway, the essay is pretty much what you'd expect from a fourteen-year old with severe emotional problems.

But, is it unique? Not really. There are plenty of people writing essays just as repulsive as this one. But, for Ward Churhill, the chickens have come home to roost. First, he starting losing speaking engagements, then the Board of Regents began procedings to fire him, and now, it seems that the American Indian Movement is sick of Churchill claiming to be a Native American, when apparently, he isn't.

Okay, so he's a douche. But, should he be fired for this? It isn't as if he made these statements in class, or in a University publication. Also, isn't there some argument for free discussion in an academic environment? Why exactly do students have the right to never encounter anyone whose opinions are repellent? And why exactly does the public have the right to micromanage the universities? Yes, there is an argument to be made that Churchill should not be invited as a speaker, nor allowed to share these noxious arguments with students. But, does the tax-paying public really have the right to dictate to the universities who they can hire or fire? And, how exactly should educators maintain an authority postion when the public insists on treating us like hired help?

No comments: