Ward Churchill Blowback

by Liberty and Power

I have already argued that Ward Churchill is best regarded as the Larry Flynt of academic freedom . If students and professors (conservative, libertarian, and otherwise), know that this doctrine protects"even Ward Churchill," they can be more secure in their own rights.

There is another reason to defend academic freedom in this case. With each passing day, the evidence mounts that the"fire Churchill" movement has the unintended and highly unfortunate result of making its intended quarry even stronger. It has produced spectacular blowback in Churchill's favor by tranforming him into a martyr. A case in point was the response to Churchill's speech yesterday at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. He drew a capacity audience of over five hundred who listened to his ravings with"rapt" admiration. Few speakers on any campus, outside perhaps of the highly politicized Ivy Leagues, can attract that kind of friendly crowd.

Had the"fire Churchill" partisans limited themselves to the pen rather than the sword at the beginning of this controversy, I doubt that more than hundred would have bothered to show up. Churchill would be just another marginal, aging, Guevara/Indian wannabe. By their actions, Newt Gingrich and friends have turned the source of their anger into a marketable celebrity who, no doubt, now is negotiating the terms of a lucrative T-Shirt concession. They are proving to be Ward Churchill's best friend.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Ralph E. Luker - 3/4/2005

I think that's a fair distinction, David.

David Timothy Beito - 3/4/2005

I agree that some folks wanted to fire Bellesiles whether he was guilty or not but I suspect that few of them ever explicitly stated that he sould be fired simply for expressing his views. They probably claimed he was a fraud. Most of the opponents of Churchill are stating precisely that he should fired simply for having an opinion, and stating it openly.

Ralph E. Luker - 3/4/2005

David, I don't think that you recall very clearly the firestorm that built up around Bellesiles in the year before the outside reviewers report was released. We had people commenting at HNN who said that they wanted Bellesiles to be turned like a roasting pig over a fire. Both administrators and trustees at Emory were targeted with e-mail campaigns demanding that Bellesiles be fired. The campaign, even among journalists, was what led me to publish my first article at HNN, "Journalists Are Rushing to Judgment About Michael Bellesiles" and it triggered the 165 comment exchanges on the HNN mainpage. In terms of furious demand, the Bellesiles and Churchill cases are quite comparable. In both cases, I think the hope is that internal inquiry can be conducted in a way that is sanitized from external pressures. I think Emory managed it reasonably well -- but it meant that University officials had to be a kind of firewall between howling demands and reasoned judgment.

David Timothy Beito - 3/4/2005

Bellesiles might have claimed that but few others did. Also, none of his critics *explicitly" called for firing him on the basis of his views as many have for Churchill. Churchill's critics, in fact, have largely defined the issue this way.

I certainly agree with you that tenure is not absolute.

Ralph E. Luker - 3/4/2005

You and I agree about what Bellesiles _did_. Michael denies it and claims that Emory authorities consented to an abridgment of his academic freedom. So, too, Churchill claims that he is now the "posterboy" of academic freedom. I'm just suggesting to David that tenure is not an absolute cover for every kind of behavior. The questions raised about Churchill's public speech are surely not grounds for his dismissal, but questions about his identity (i.e., whether his claims to be a native American are fraudulent) could be grounds for his suspension and, if the claims about his scholarship are serious enough, they could become grounds for his dismissal. I don't know about the copyright violations in his artwork. Perhaps a judgment that he violated copyright wouldn't be grounds for academic penalty. Perhaps they are grounds only for civil litigation. But the whole picture is a pretty bleak one -- very embarrassing, I would think, for the academic authorities who hired him into a faculty position and tenured him. When David tells me that he must be defended on grounds of academic freedom, I want to ask how he has used that freedom and I keep thinking that his handsome salary could pay two highly qualified young ph.d.s.

Keith Halderman - 3/4/2005

You say that "So far as Michael Bellesiles is concerned, it_was_ an academic freedom issue." I think this statement demands a bit more explanation. Are you saying that academic freedom involves license to just makes up evidence to suit a particular viewpoint? Because that is what he did.

Ralph E. Luker - 3/3/2005

So far as Michael Bellesiles is concerned, it _was_ an academic freedom issue. And you may _think_ that the Churchill case is polarized around academic freedom, but that's only because that's how you frame it. Churchill's critics believe it to be polarized around whether the academic community is willing to confront fraud in its own house.

David Timothy Beito - 3/3/2005

As you know, the Bellesiles issue was significantly different. Nobody called for him to be fired because of offensive speech or for his political views. From beginning to end, the critics emphasized charges of fraud. When the fraud was proved, even many of his closest allies turned against him. The Bellesiles case had its ugly aspects but it never involved academic freedom as such .

I agree that ideally Churchill should be held accountable if guilty of similar misdeeds. However, I doubt it could happen because the situation has become so polarized around the academic freedom issue.

Ralph E. Luker - 3/3/2005

Yah, I think that's correct. Tenure is not an absolute protection for irresponsible behavior. Weak research and art that violates copyright strike me as legitimate grounds for an inquiry. The process has exposed a fairly flawed process by which Churchill won a faculty position and tenure in the first place. The furor on the right that demands Churchill's scalp is a vicious business, but so was the furor that demanded Michael Bellesiles's scalp at Emory. What you have to hope for is that legitimate academic authorities can turn a deaf ear to the furor and conduct a dispassionate inquiry into whatever legitimate charges there may be against Churchill's work and relationship to the university.

David Timothy Beito - 3/3/2005

Excellent point. It almost makes a person wonder if it is a very clever right wing plot.

Jason Pappas - 3/3/2005

Actually, the "right" would like to see the left rally around Ward Churchill. That means he’s not an isolated kook but a respected leader of the "hate-America left".

Fifty-five years ago, politicians in New York State prevented Bertrand Russell from an appointment at City College of New York (CCNY). Now there was someone to rally behind. The change in the caliber of heroes is startling.