Open Season on Professors: How I Became a Ward Churchill Supporter

For several weeks now, the Ward Churchill constroversy has simmered in Colorado. Churchill, a professor in the University of Colorado's Ethnic Studies department, wrote a controversial piece the day after 9/11 that described workers in the World Trade Center as "little Eichmanns." His basic argument is that U.S. American workers, particularly those employed by transnational corporations, tacitly support the exploitation of native peoples around the world. In refusing to acknowledge or address these abuses, employees become as responsible as the parent company for the harms inflicted on less priveleged people. As a result of their participation in a system that promotes the abuses of others, the employees of a company become legitimate targets of terrorist attack. Although Churchill uses langage far more inflammatory and engages in hyperbole bordering on dishonesty, I understand his basic premise and even partially agree. When people work for a group or company engaging in unethical practices and don't speak out, they are also responsible for the harms perpetrated. Where Churchill and I differ, however, is the notion of people being legitimate targets of retribution. Violence, for any reason, is never an answer.*

From everything I've heard and read about Churchill, he's a real creep. He berates people he encounters, he bullies other academics, he manufactures evidence to support his claims, and supports the use of violence as a form of political resistance. Ward Churchill and I would probably not get along in any capacity. If that's the case, why would I support him?

University's around the nation have tenure laws in place, laws to protect University professors from having their research politically squashed. Tenure is not an ironclad protection from being fired--there are processes built into tenure that allow a University to review and revoke a professor's academic standing. It's a long process, for good reason, but it can be done. In the case of Ward Churchill, opponents weren't content to let the process play out. Instead, a number of politicos decided it was their place to jump in and demand the firing of Ward Churchill. Governor Owens (a Republican), Dan Caplis (a local conservative talk show host), Bill O'Reilly, and groups like The Claremont Institute (a conservative think tank), decided to jump into the fray. In doing so, they politicized the debate regarding Ward Churchill. From what I understand, CU's tenure policy states very clearly that a professor is protected from losing her or his position as a result of political pressure.

Two days ago, news surface that the University and Churchill had agreed on a buyout, a solution that would seem to solve the problem without putting the school in jeopardy of a retaliatory lawsuit. Churchill leaves the University and the University gets rid of a shady academic character. Now the politicos are leaning on the Regents to withdraw the buyout offer--only a firing will do!

For me, the controversy doesn't even concern Ward Churchill anymore. Instead, this has become a debate over whether conservative politicians will be given the power to go after professors with whom they disagree. This is an extremely dangerous precedent to set. Given the general attitude of conservatives regarding such "liberal" academic topics as women's studies, ethnic studies, queer theory, Marxist theory, and critical studies, acquiesence by the University endangers all of us who teach these topics.

*Noam Chomsky makes a far more compelling, and well-supported, assessment of why countries and people around the world oppose a U.S. presence in Hegemony or Survival.