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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Should the 1st Amendment protect Professor Churchill's remarkably controversial comments?
If the "govt" (CU)fires him for violating its policy (that is open to great interpretation, as all law is), who next will the govt seek out for one's controversial views?
However, should a govt, tax supported institution have to employ such people? He may have a First Amendment right to his opinion, but he doesn't have a right to a government job?
Is academia a different type of "government job"?
Do you defend his right to say what he wants, even if you vehemently disagree? Or do you think he violated the policy at a govt institution of higher education, and should be fired?
How far does the 1st Amendment go for you?
Let us know.
-Jennifer Mullen
I think academia is a different type of government job given the existence of the tenure process. Perhaps one larger question that needs to be addressed (and it appears that CU is trying to address it) is the equity of the tenure process. Did CU rush to grant Churchill tenure without fully exploring the issues (e.g., his claims of Native American heritage)? If he lied about his background to get a job/tenure, I think the role his controversial statements play in this debate is moot and he should lose his job because his lied.
However, here are more questions to ponder about the Churchill debacle:
Is the Churchill story just the latest firestorm against what many in the public perceive to be the left-wing agenda of higher education? Would the story have gotten this big had conservative bloggers and Bill O’Reilly not jumped on it (thanks, in part, to stories published in the student newspaper at Hamilton College)?
Churchill’s scheduled presentation tonight (March 1) at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater promises to draw crowds of supporters and opponents; the 400 free tickets to the event were quickly snatched up, according to a report in the Rocky Mountain News. The fact that Churchill has (albeit unintentionally) spawned vigorous, continuous public debate and attention suggests that people care about the myriad issues that are being brought to light.
Has Churchill, directly or indirectly, encouraged students (and all of us) to be better critical thinkers and, in the process, better citizens? And isn’t that the role of good educators?
This is most certainly a First-Amendment issue. Here's why:
The questions regarding Churchill's academic credentials have been bubbling for years. Yet his credentials and job performance as a tenured faculty member did not come under scrutiny until word of this "little Eichmanns" remark surfaced. It sounds as though there has been ample reason to scrutinize -- and perhaps fire -- Churchill in the past. Political opinion, however, no matter how incindiary, is not a valid reason.
His remark is protected speech.
An academic investigation launched solely because of this remark cannot be viewed as anything but a witch hunt -- and a violation of his First-Amendment right.
In answer to Leticia's question, "Has Churchill, directly or indirectly, encouraged students (and all of us) to be better critical thinkers and, in the process, better citizens?"
The Churchill affair has taught me two lessons:
1) P.T. Barnum was right. There's a sucker born every minute. And there seems to be an inordinate number of them on the CU Board of Regents.
2)Americans (including many of us in media and academic circles) have only an infantile appreciation of free speech; suckling at the nipple of the First Amendment with painfully little awareness of its life-giving importance to our democracy.
Mark,
I'll tell you why I believe this it not a 1st Amendment issue. The 1st Amendment says that congress/government will make no law "abridging the freedom of speech." Besides the obvious examples of unprotected speech, it is important to understand that it does not protect people from the consequences of their speech, e.g., from being fired for embarrassing their employers or for saying things that may compromise their employers’ interests. As bloggers are finding out, what they write on their personal blogs may make them persona non grata at their (former) place of employment. Words and actions have consequences that may require paying a price for the right to express oneself. Churchill can't and won't be fired for espousing controversial policies in and out of the classroom, but that's only because of Academic Freedom, not because of his 1st Amendment rights. It may be a witch hunt, but that's another topic.
But....
Academic freedom is simply an outgrowth of the First Amendment as it applies to educational institutions.
If an employee "embarasses" his employer while acting in his official capacity, the employer certainly has recourse. But if that same employee makes a comment in his capacity as a private citizen, the employer would be wrong, and probably legally liable, for firing him.
Granted, there are professions where a person would be in the public eye to the point that there is no separating the employee from the employer in the public's mind (High government officials, network news anchors, sports celebrities, etc.). But these situations are generally taken care of by detailed pre-employment contracts. Talking out of turn in that case would not be a constitutional issue but a tort issue.
In Churchill's case, the spotlight seems to have been shined on him solely because of his "little Eichmanns" comment -- which I still contend is protected speech. The subsequent revelations are therefore fruit of the poison tree.
JT:
I write a thoroughly inflammatory flame-out on the opinion page of a newspaper I happen to be editing. In the eyes of the law, I've done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong. Even hate speech is constitutionally protected, unless it directly incites a criminal act (and that's hard to prove). Want a few online examples? How about HTTP://www.americannaziparty.com
The point I'm trying to make is, this tempest began because of an article Churchill wrote -- which he has every right to do -- not because of his day-to-day duties as a professor (as opposed to the recent Dan Forsyth flame-out during a forensic anthropology class). So, what business does the University of Colorado have using this article as a springboard to investigate Churchill's academic credentials (which should have been done years ago)? This is a comedy of the absurd which has more to do with a CU administration trying to cure a smorgasbord of past and present embarassments and politicians using this issue as a straw man to further their own agendas.
Churchill should be paid off and allowed to quietly retire into obscurity. Failing that, EVERY detail of EVERY facet of Churchill's hiring and tenure should be made public -- and those responsible for giving him his soap box should also lose their jobs.
Churchill and administrators losing their jobs...yeah, I like that. Good idea!
Post a Comment