I've certainly learned this year that it's never a dull moment when you're chair. Next week Ward Churchill and Cary Nelson are coming to IUP to talk about Academic Freedom after 9/11. Churchill has been attacked a lot by conservatives across the country. He was especially targeted by Bill O'Reilly who seemed to mentioned Churchill over 40 times on his T.V. show. That's a lot of T.V. coverage for a professor!
I should point out that I disagree with Churchill's use of the phrase "little Eichmanns" in his controversial essay. I'm very sympathetic with his criticisms of U.S. foreign policy. The Bush administration did a terrible job, in particular, with foreign policy, making us more hated than ever around the world. But we weren't blameless before. Still, if I had been Churchill's editor, I would have told him to take out the "little Eichmanns" comment. I don't think you should ever blame a victim of a horrific crime. And even if American big business has hurt the rest of the world, as it has, some guy trying to make a living as a stock broker is just that, a guy trying to make a living. No one person can change American business practices. At least, not one little person. Eichmann, bad as he was, was in a position of influence and power, not just doing a job.
But whether or not I agree with Ward Churchill, I will say this: the man has a right to express his views. In fact, I am glad to have the opportunity to hear him talk about his views. It seems very clear to me, particularly after reading an article by Eric Cheyfitz on "Framing Ward Churchill: The Political Construction of Research Misconduct" in vols. 26/27 of Works and Days (2008-2009) that Churchill got mistreated by his university. It seems to me that whatever pretense to academic principles was made, Churchill was really being fired because he had made unpopular statements. What was worse, the statements were not even objected to until some conservative commentators started complaining. You can't start a whole process of inquiry after a huge news story breaks and then somehow pretend you are being objective. That is dishonesty at its worst. Churchill's academic work only was investigated because he'd been attacked by conservative voices like O'Reilly's.
And that brings me to Churchill's talk at IUP. A small group of people have called/emailed to object to Ward Churchill's coming to campus. That's their right. I'm happy to let people complain. Many have also contact us to think the event is great. Some people, though, call to say, "are you using state tax dollars to pay for the event?" I wasn't aware that individuals can redirect tax dollars. I have a lot of tax spending I am not crazy about: the war in Iraq, the auto bailbout money, etc. But I can't call the President and say, "hey, I want my money spent on education." I wish I could. What I can do is support people's right to speak, no matter what they say. At universities, that's called academic freedom. And if we aren't careful, that's a freedom people will take away. You have to fight for freedom. You have to fight so people like Ward Churchill can say what they want. If we don't fight, then we won't be living in America any more. We'll be living in a country that's not free..
I should point out that I disagree with Churchill's use of the phrase "little Eichmanns" in his controversial essay. I'm very sympathetic with his criticisms of U.S. foreign policy. The Bush administration did a terrible job, in particular, with foreign policy, making us more hated than ever around the world. But we weren't blameless before. Still, if I had been Churchill's editor, I would have told him to take out the "little Eichmanns" comment. I don't think you should ever blame a victim of a horrific crime. And even if American big business has hurt the rest of the world, as it has, some guy trying to make a living as a stock broker is just that, a guy trying to make a living. No one person can change American business practices. At least, not one little person. Eichmann, bad as he was, was in a position of influence and power, not just doing a job.
But whether or not I agree with Ward Churchill, I will say this: the man has a right to express his views. In fact, I am glad to have the opportunity to hear him talk about his views. It seems very clear to me, particularly after reading an article by Eric Cheyfitz on "Framing Ward Churchill: The Political Construction of Research Misconduct" in vols. 26/27 of Works and Days (2008-2009) that Churchill got mistreated by his university. It seems to me that whatever pretense to academic principles was made, Churchill was really being fired because he had made unpopular statements. What was worse, the statements were not even objected to until some conservative commentators started complaining. You can't start a whole process of inquiry after a huge news story breaks and then somehow pretend you are being objective. That is dishonesty at its worst. Churchill's academic work only was investigated because he'd been attacked by conservative voices like O'Reilly's.
And that brings me to Churchill's talk at IUP. A small group of people have called/emailed to object to Ward Churchill's coming to campus. That's their right. I'm happy to let people complain. Many have also contact us to think the event is great. Some people, though, call to say, "are you using state tax dollars to pay for the event?" I wasn't aware that individuals can redirect tax dollars. I have a lot of tax spending I am not crazy about: the war in Iraq, the auto bailbout money, etc. But I can't call the President and say, "hey, I want my money spent on education." I wish I could. What I can do is support people's right to speak, no matter what they say. At universities, that's called academic freedom. And if we aren't careful, that's a freedom people will take away. You have to fight for freedom. You have to fight so people like Ward Churchill can say what they want. If we don't fight, then we won't be living in America any more. We'll be living in a country that's not free..
So Churchill should be automatically inoculated from sanctions for his research misconduct, just because he made a controversial public statement? Think through the ramifications of your position.
Academic freedom does not mean that you are free to fabricate, falsify, and plagiarize. Get a grip, Gian.
Churchill's own exhaustive narrative published in _Works and Days_ makes an interesting, if not completely persuasive case that the "research misconduct" amounted to rather trivial or debatable issues. The larger context has to with whether the "investigation" was fairly conducted, and genuinely motivated to assess the intellectual performance of a faculty member -- or if it was a distortion of due process -- to shut down dissent. One cannot help but think of popular figures, like historian Stephen Ambrose -- who commit serious breaches of academic honesty but are honored rather than investigated.
Here's a "reprint" of the original web essay. It's not scholarly, more of an opinionated rant. But if you think there's value to an open, free-ranging debate, then it has value: http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html
I believe in academic freedom and in people's constitutional right to free speech. I understand the gist of Dr. Pagnucci's comments that the university should not shut down dissent, or it would cease to be a university. In addition, Dr. Sherwood questions whether the investigation into Dr. Churchill's scholarly work was fair. There is certainly benefit to be had from "open, free-ranging debate" as he says. I am no fan of Dr. Churchill or his offensive views; his perspectives thoroughly disgust me. I would hope for greater civility and respect in public debates, but some people quickly become lightning rods for criticism. Let's hope that we can still listen, even to those whose perspectives might greatly differ from our own. As a Christian, I can do no less.
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Alessandra
http://www.craigslistpostingonline.info
Gian,
Your point that citizens pay taxes even when those taxes support programs or actions with which you disagree is well-taken. [Not only do I find some of Churchill's remarks disingenous, but also I don't have children: should I therefore be forced to withhold taxes to fund public schools? Of course I should: that is what it means to be a citizen (or at least a permanent resident!)]
Of course Henry D. Thoreaux expressed a similar concern (and yes, I received the calls from concerned citizens as well). However, Thoreaux not only withheld his taxes but also accepted the (rather minor) consequences of doing so. Civil disobedience allows individuals to express their dissatisfaction but requires that such individuals accept the consequences.
My first ever blog entry!
John
This was highly informative :) Many thanks to the poster
Thank you very much. I appreciate website your help my life. That is very kind of you