Protection for Churchill?

No matter what you think about Ward Churchill, any discussion about his right to say what he has said will likely raise the topics of freedom of speech, academic freedom, and the role of tenure for university professors. But first, a little background. In 1991 Churchill, with only a Masters degree and bypassing the normal 6-year probationary process, was promoted from lecturer to Assistant Professor with tenure within the Communication department at CU Boulder. From there he moved on to the Ethnic Studies department where he was promoted to Full Professor in 1997.

As you probably know, an essay published shortly after 9/11, but which only recently came to the attention of the public, has many calling for Churchill’s dismissal from his position on the faculty at CU. The first question that may come to mind is whether Churchill’s speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. All of us who work in or along side the media should be concerned about legitimate 1st Amendment claims--but this is not one of them. Churchill’s constitutional right to say what he wants about victims of 9/11 is clear. However, his right to employment (at a comfortable $94K) is not guaranteed by the same. Just ask any number of federal, state, and local officials and employees who have been dismissed for spoken offenses much less severe than Churchill’s.

However, while not a 1st Amendment issue, Churchill’s speech is afforded an additional level of protection under the notion of academic freedom. A key component of university tenure systems, academic freedom ensures that unpopular ideas and theories will not be dismissed for any reason other than academic merit. If you can make a case that your position has even a chance of being supportable, you can continue to research, publish, and propagate it in the classroom. So while you might take offense that Churchill is blaming the victims of 9/11 for their own deaths, the possibility that the unjust economic system perpetrated by Wall Street was to blame for the tragedy cannot be easily disproved or dismissed. In a similar light, Harvard University president Lawrence H. Summers’ hypothesis that innate ability differences between men and women may be partly to blame for the under representation of women in the upper echelons of science education is controversial, even highly offensive to many, but far from disproved.

So what exactly then are the limits of protection afforded by academic freedom? Even tenured professors are not immune from all repercussions of their speech. According to the Denver Post, a tenured professor at CU can be dismissed for, “incompetence, neglect of duty, insubordination, conviction of a felony or any offense involving moral turpitude, sexual harassment or any conduct falling below minimum standards of professional integrity.” Ironically, it may be the sudden attention focused on Churchill’s inflammatory essay that may in fact uncover behavior leading to his dismissal. For example, one thing that makes Churchill’s career at CU so interesting is the fact that he was hired, in-part, because of his alleged Native American heritage…which we’ve now come to find was fabricated by Churchill. Many years prior to his promotion the Boulder Camera and the Rocky Mountain News questioned the veracity of Churchill’s claim to be Native American. Even the American Indian Movement has claimed for many years that Churchill has, “fraudulently represented himself as an Indian.” In addition, the accusation by Churchill that the US Army perpetrated genocide against American Indians by distributing small-pox laden blankets appears to be a fabrication as well. Thomas Brown, an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Lamar University has published an essay critical of Churchill’s scholarship. Brown concludes, “it is difficult to conceive of a social scientist committing a more egregious violation.” Other professors have accused Churchill of plagiarism and misrepresentation.

The academic review committee at CU will issue their report in two weeks. But in the mean time, what do you think?

Universal Service Fund

President Bush has asked for $304.1 million for the FCC during fiscal 2006. Part of the budget includes a $3.2 million cost center to pay for an audit of the agency’s Universal Service Fund. The USF was originally set up to help subsidize telephone service for low income households. Today, a large chunk of the USF helps common carriers pay for the skyrocketing cost of telecommunication infrastructures. The fund is also providing relief for rural heath care providers, schools, and libraries.

Over the years the commission has received numerous complaints related to the USF. Complaints include allegations of “false claims, failure to comply with appropriate procurement regulations and laws, conflict of interest, forgery and securities related offenses.”

My wife and I pay over six dollars per month (into the USF) through our wireline agreement with Qwest and our PCS agreement with Sprint - that’s over $70 per year, almost $400 every five years.

Questions: Is it time to take it back? Should we be paying for telephone poles in rural America? Should we subsidize Native American families (lowest subscribership levels in the U.S) so they can have access to wirelines? Should we help local libraries provide internet access to the public? Is the USF working?