"Controversial, offensive and odious" - and protected by tenure 

You've probably heard of the University of Colorado professor, Ward Churchill, who wrote in an essay that 9/11 victims in the World Trade Center were "little Eichmanns," comparing them to Hitler's henchman, who ensured the smooth running of the Nazi system. Churchill also praised the "gallant sacrifices" of the "combat teams" that struck America.

The prof and his opinions received public notice when he was invited to speak at Hamilton College in New York, and the media got wind of it.  Television commentators urged viewers to write protest letters, and the school received more than 6,000 e-mail messages, “ranging from angry to profane, obscene, violent.”  The governor of New York publicly described Professor Churchill as a "bigoted terrorist supporter." Professor Churchill reports that he and his wife have received more than 100 death threats. The prospect of violence at Hamilton College led the administration there to cancel the visit. 

The governor of Colorado called on the professor to resign from the University of Colorado and, one day later, called for his dismissal.  The University's Board of Regents also wants to fire him.

CU-Boulder Interim Chancellor Phil DiStefano said, "While Professor Churchill has the constitutional right to express his political views, his essay on 9/11 has outraged and appalled us and the general public."

The University's Faculty Assembly has said Churchill's comments were "controversial, offensive and odious" but supports his right to say them based on the principle of academic freedom.

The ACLU has issued a statement defending Churchill's right to speak out and called on regents, legislators and the governor "to stop threatening Mr. Churchill's job because of the content of his opinions."

Even David Horowitz, a champion of conservative causes who has long accused American universities of overstocking their faculties with leftists, has said firing Churchill would violate his First Amendment rights and set a bad precedent.

Just a second:  Does not UC Boulder's Board of Regents, backed by the governor and numerous state legislators, backed in turn most likely by a majority of Colorado citizens, have the right to express the general opinion of Prof. Churchill and his opinions by firing him?  Not really. He is a tenured professor.

The American Association of University Professors, the academics' union, so to speak, has issued a public statement on the Churchill matter.  Here's the concluding paragraph:

"Should serious questions arise about Professor Churchill’s fitness to continue at the University of Colorado—the only acceptable basis for terminating a continuing or tenured faculty appointment—those questions should be judged by a faculty committee that affords the essential safeguards of due process, as required by the university’s and the Board of Regents’ official policies. Special care must be taken, however, to avoid applying harsher standards in such a case, or following less rigorous procedures, because of the statements made by Professor Churchill about the tragic events of September 11, 2001. While members of the academic community are free to condemn what they believe are repugnant views expressed by a faculty member, any charges arising from such statements must be judged by the same standards and procedures that would apply to statements unrelated to the terrorist attacks and the loss of life on that fateful day. We must resist the temptation to judge such statements more harshly because they evoke special anguish among survivors and families of the September 11 victims. The critical test of academic freedom is its capacity to meet even the most painful and offending statements. A college or university campus is, of all places in our society, the most appropriate forum for the widest range of viewpoints."

Noble sentiments aside:  Had Churchill not been tenured, he would have already found the contents of his office boxed outside it and the locks changed on the door. 

Post Script

If you want to read Prof. Ward Churchill's controversial essay, "Some People Push Back," his defense, &c., click on:

http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html

The notion that US foreign policy was one cause of 9/11 attacks is not new, nor is it the sole property of the left.  Here's a clip from a conservative writer, reviewing the 9/11 Commission Report:

 "Even al Qaeda does not hate America per se. The group’s statements indicate that it hates U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East, especially the U.S. government’s propping up of corrupt Arab regimes (such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt) for their perceived strategic significance. Furthermore, repeated polls in the Islamic world (including two polls in “friendly” Arab countries released last week by the University of Maryland and the Arab American Institute and Zogby International) indicate that the United States is hated not for its culture, technology or freedoms -- as President Bush would have us believe -- but for its foreign policy."

Prof Churchill, however, presents US foreign policy as a moral justification for the 9/11 attack.  That's what makes it so inflammatory.

+++

Don Hockaday, Re. Academic Coffee

I never heard of it, so I searched for the article itself to make up my own mind about the scandalous statement.

And I read his response to his critics

This is not some screwball running off at the mouth, the essay was developed into a book that won Honorary Mention for the Gustavus Myer Human Rights Award for best writing on human rights.

The Myers center:
http://www.myerscenter.org/

Even if you support bigotry, you have to give some credit to "best writing."

Whether you or I agree with all or any of what he said, the opening paragraph of “Controversial, Offensive, and Odious” hardly describes the essay.

What he tries to convey is nothing new. The following I found at the Cato Institute a year or so ago

http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-050es.html

Note that it was written in 1998. We can agree that the 9/11 attack opened up the eyes of America. We may disagree about the minds of America.

I am not arguing for Churchill's opinions, but what he said is worth saying and discussing. If someone in Germany had published something similar as a wake-up call on German aggression, he would have been  disgraced and executed. Here, they only try to have you disgraced and fired.
+++

Rebecca Thompson, Re. Academic Coffee

Q. How far does tenure stand in regards to insanity?

+++

Bill Bellinghausen, Re. Post Script Coffee

Prof Churchill, however, presents him self as some one he is not (native american) in order to gain a position.

for that he should be fired.........

the crap that is coming out of his mouth is just that "crap"

now if you want to pay him to come to your location and spew that kind of crap.......

I would have to ask why?

especially after he is established as a phony!!

not with my tax $$$$$$.........

bb

+++