Dominic Baez
I might not be the most sensitive person alive (who am I kidding, right?), but even I understand the difference between believing one thing and saying it out loud. I’m all for free speech, but every gentleman knows there is a time and place for everything. Or at least, every good gentleman should know that.
Ward L. Churchill, former professor and chairman of the ethnic studies department at the University of Colorado, came to the public’s eye after writing a less-than-classy essay, titled “On The Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance and Criminality,” that referred to some victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as “Little Eichmanns.”
For those of you unaware of what that entails, let me enlighten you: “Little Eichmanns” is a phrase that describes the complicity of those who participate in destructive and immoral systems that have an effect comparable to Nazi official Adolf Eichmann’s role in the Holocaust.
In the same piece, Churchill stated that the terrorist attacks were “acts of war” by the “Islamic East” in defense against the crusades waged by the “Christian West” during the late 20th century. His theory: Since he claims the United States started the fighting in the first place, it is not hard to believe that “some people push back” and that some of those targeted by the attacks were technically not innocent bystanders. This coming from a man who was fired, two years after the controversial work’s publication, when a faculty committee determined that he plagiarized and falsified parts of his scholarly work on the persecution of American Indians. What does he know?
You know what I think is funny? After he was fired, Churchill went to court claiming wrongful termination. OK, I see that if he was indeed terminated for his beliefs. The First Amendment protects free speech, which was what this was. The
Denver jury did determine that he had been wrongfully dismissed because of his political views, but he was only awarded $1. When I read that, I nearly fell out of my chair laughing, though that would have been awkward as I was in class. Even though the jury realized that Churchill had been fired in bad faith, it still didn’t agree with what he said.
Within the next few months, Judge Larry J. Naves will either reinstate Churchill to his tenured position, as his lawyer is requesting, or order the university to pay him an annual salary for a determined period of time. Emotions on campus are mixed: Some want him back while others don’t wish to see him anywhere near the lectern. The university is opposed to his returning and stated that it would fight to keep him out, because of the plagiarism, if nothing else.
Again, while I will defend his right to say what he did, that in no way means that I agree with the fact that he said it. I know, that sounds confusing, but hear me out. As I said earlier, there is a time and place for everything, but it seems as though Churchill doesn’t abide by that standard. I mean, most people know I have certain aversions to certain individuals, but I’m not one to stupidly write essays about them and then publish them. When you’re in a position such as teaching, you should realize that some subjects are out-of-bounds, even if you have the right to say them.
All in all, the man is an ass and a liar. Churchill made his grave; now he can lie in it. He doesn’t even deserve the $1 he won. Maybe this will teach him some respect. One can only hope.