The Freedom to Be Vile

If University of Colorado professor Ward L. Churchill is lucky, the regents who are now deciding whether or not to fire him will look only at whether his tasteless ramblings in an essay about 9/11 fell within his academic rights. Churchill’s freedom to speak his mind is unassailable; many other things about the guy are suspect.

In an essay written immediately after the 2001 attacks, Churchill blamed U.S. evildoing, mostly its policies in Iraq, for bringing on violent revenge. Many thinkers have espoused similar ideas without incurring nationwide wrath. For that matter, Jerry Falwell also said the United States had brought on the attacks through its own evildoing, though he had another “evil” in mind and later had the good sense to apologize for his insensitivity.

Churchill’s over-the-top phrasing caused a furor when his essay came to light this year, especially his calling the thousands who died in the World Trade Center “little Eichmanns” -- a reference to Nazi leader Adolf Eichmann. Now Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and others are calling for his job. He already has stepped down as chairman of the ethnic studies department.

It’s something of a mystery how Churchill got the job in the first place. The respected Boulder campus filled its top ethnic studies post with a man who has no doctorate, and whose master’s degree is in the unrelated field of communications.

Many believe that the university was attracted by his claims of Cherokee heritage, though he has produced no evidence of that heritage and leading Cherokees deny it. Churchill is accused by other academics of fabricating some accounts of Native American history.

Churchill blamed the media for misrepresenting his 2001 essay, saying he had applied the Eichmann term only to “technicians” of the economy in the World Trade Center, not to janitors, children or food service workers. There was no such misrepresentation; he might have meant to differentiate between the power elite and other victims, but he never did so in the essay. He also now claims to be a free-speech advocate, yet he has denied others the same right. Last year, he tried to physically block a Columbus Day parade, saying such celebrations are not covered by the 1st Amendment.

Academic freedom and the value of free-flowing ideas are too important to grant only occasionally, which is why Churchill’s rights must prevail. In the end, those are the only grounds on which we can defend him.